ML11263A021

E-mail with Attachment from A. Imboden, NRR, to L. Perkins, NRR, on Salem and Hope Creek Aquatic Ecology Sections with Comments and Edits

ML11263A021
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	09/03/2010
From:	Andy Imboden Division of License Renewal
To:	Leslie Perkins License Renewal Projects Branch 2
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0113
Download: ML11263A021 (98)

Text

/1 Kin. , Ikeda__.

From: Imboden, Andy Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 2:54 PM To: Perkins, Leslie

Subject:

FW: Salem and Hope Creek aquatic ecology sections with comments and edits Attachments: Chapter 4 -V 3 FINAL (2) DTL 2010-09-01 .docx I agree with these for chapter 4.

From: Logan, Dennis Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:16 PM To: Imboden, Andy

Subject:

Salem and Hope Creek aquatic ecology sections with comments and edits

Andy, The Salem and Hope Creek sections with comments and edits on aquatic ecology are attached.

Following instructions from Tuesday afternoon's meeting, I have checked only for the most blatant errors. 1 have made some edits-particularly where use of passive implied to the reader that NRC had made deccsions or drawn opinions where we had not. I removed the reference to the draft GElS that had been made because the present GElS lacks a definition for the term "heat shock" as used by NRC.

I removed one figure that I believe is copyrighted. This will require renumbering other figures. I also rena.,.-med and renumbered a section, but that should not cause numbering changes in the rest of the chaptei.

Lots of luck with this, Dennis L'

1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION 2 This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the period of extended 3 operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek 4 Generating Station (HCGS). These impacts are grouped and presented according to resource.

5 Generic issues (Category 1) rely on the analysis provided in the Generic EnvironmentalImpact 6 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants(GELS) prepared by the U.S. Nuclear 7 Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999a) and are discussed briefly. NRC staff 8 (the Staff) analyzed site-specific issues (Category 2) for Salem and HCGS and assigned them a 9 significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Some remaining issues are not 10 applicable to Salem and HCGS because of site characteristics or plant features. Section 1.4 of 11 this report explains the criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 issues and defines the impact 12 designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE.

LLa n d U s e . . . . . . . .. iel d F..

13 4. 1 14 Land use issues are listed in Table 4-1. The Staff did. not identify any Category 2 issues for land 15 use. The Staff also did not identify any new and significant information during the review of the 16 applicant's environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the 17 scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 18 discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concludes that the impacts are SMALL,-a4d 19 additional site specific mitigation measures are not likely to be warranted.

20 Table 4-1. Land Use Issues. Section 2.2.1 of this report describes the land use 21 around Salem and HCGS.

Issues GElS Section Category Onsite land use 4.5.3 1 Power line right-of-way 4.5.3 1 22 4.2 Air Quality 23 The air quality issue applicable to the Salem and HCGS facilities is listed in Table 4-2. The 24 Staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for air quality. The Staff also did not identify any 25 new and significant information during the review of the applicant's ER (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 26 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this 27 issue beyond those discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concludes that the 28 impacts are SMALL, and additional site sp.cific mitigation meauFres are not likely to be 29 wa..anted.

September 2010 4-1 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-2. Air Quality Issue. Section 2.2.2 of this report describes air quality in the vicinity of 2 Salem and HCGS.

Issue GElS Section Category Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2 1 3 4.3 Ground Water 4 The following sections discuss the Category 2 ground water issue applicable to Salem and 5 HCGS, which is listed in Table 4-3.

6 Table 4-3. Ground Water Use and Quality Issues. Section 2.2.3 of this report 7 discussed ground water use and quality at Salem and HCGS.

Issues GElS Section Category Ground Water use conflicts (potable and service water, plants 4.8.1.1 2 using >100 gallons per minute [gpm])

8 4.3.1 Ground Water Use Conflicts (plants using >100 gpm) 9 NRC specifies as issue 33 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 10 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that "Ifthe applicant's plant... pumps more than 100 gallons 11 (total onsite) of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on 12 groundwater use must be provided." The NRC further states in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C), that 13 "Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby 14 groundwater users." This applies to Salem and HCGS because, as discussed in section 15 2.1.7.1, the Salem and HCGS groundwater wells combined to produce an average of 210 16 million gallons per year (790,000 cubic meters [M3 ] per year) from 2002 to 2008, which is a 17 combined average of 0.58 million gallons per day (MGD; 2,200 M 3 per day), or 400 gallons per 18 minute (gpm; 1.5 m 3/minute).

19 A groundwater withdrawal rate of over 100 gpm (0.38 m 3/m inute) has the potential to create a 20 cone of depression large enough to affect offsite wells and groundwater supplies, limiting the 21 amount of groundwater available for the plant's surrounding areas. As discussed in 2.1.7.1, the 22 facilities operate four primary production wells, including PW-5 and PW-6 at Salem, and HC-1 23 and HC-2 at HCGS. Three of these wells (PW-5, HC-1, and HC-2) produce groundwater from 24 the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) Aquifer, and the fourth (PW-6) produces 25 groundwater from the Middle PRM Aquifer. Therefore, potential impacts in both aquifers need 26 to be considered. There are also two stand-by wells located at Salem (PW-2 and PW-3).

27 These wells are screened in the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. Because these wells could 8 petentiatllybe used during the relicense period, potential impacts in this aquifer also need to be 29 evaluated.

30 To evaluate whether the production from the Salem and HCGS wells could affect offsite 31 groundwater users, the Staff evaluated several lines of evidence, including measurements of Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-2 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 onsite groundwater levels, identification of potentially-affected offsite users, comparison of water 2 withdrawal rates to the authorized rate and rates for other authorized users, and identification of 3 regulatory groundwater use restrictions.

4 In the ER, PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG, the applicant) presented results of the measurement of 5 groundwater levels in the onsite production wells (TetraTech, 2009). Water levels in many of 6 the production wells, and some observation wells, were measured in July and/or September, 7 1987 (Dames & Moore, 1988), and then again measured monthly from 2000 to the present day.

8 This data set allows an evaluation of the long-term trend in water levels in order to determine if 9 groundwater usage is exceeding aquifer recharge in the local area. For the Mount Laurel-10 Wenonah Aquifer, water depths in PW-2, PW-3, and an observation well (OW-G) are all 11 shallower in 2008 than they were in 1987 and the early 2000s. This indicates no drawdown of 12 the aquifer, as would expected because there has been little or no production from this aquifer.

13 For the Middle PRM Aquifer, water levels were measured in production well PW-6 and 14 observation well OW-6 (TetraTech, 2009). In both wells, original measurements in 1987 15 showed water depths of more than 100 feet, and by the time the next measurement was made 16 in 2000, water depths ranged from 50 to 60 feet. Water depths remained in the range of 50 to 17 60 feet throughout the 2000s, with no apparent trend. While the reason for the 40 to 50 foot rise 18 in water levels between 1987 and 2000 is not discernible, this rise is documented only by a 19 single measurement in each well. Because there are not trends in water levels since 2000, the 20 production from the Middle PRM Aquifer does not appear to have any long-term effect on water 21 availability within the aquifer.

22 For the Upper PRM Aquifer, water levels were measured in production wells PW-5, HC-1, HC-2, 23 and observation wells OW-J and OW-I (TetraTech, 2009). In each case, the water level 24 measurements appear to show a slight, but steady, long-term decline in water level elevation.

25 Original measurements in wells PW-5 and HC-1 in 1987 indicated water depths at 26 approximately 72 to 76 feet. By 2000, water depths in these two wells ranged to 82 to 85 feet.

27 By 2005 and through 2008, monthly water level measurements in these two wells occasionally 28 reached depths of 88 to 95 feet. Water levels in well OW-I similarly declined, from 58 feet in 29 1987, to 62 to 74 feet in 2000, and 70 to 88 feet in 2008. The same trend was observed in wells 30 NC-2 and OW-J, although water levels in these wells were not measured in 1987. In both of 31 these wells, water level depths started in the range of 69 to 84 feet in 2000, and ranged from 92 32 to 102 feet in 2008.

33 The reason for the declining water levels in the Upper PRM Aquifer in the 2000s cannot be 34 determined from the limited data set, but they could indicate that long-term production is 35 resulting in dewatering of the aquifer, which could potentially cause groundwater use conflicts.

36 The results could also be due to continuing development of the cone of depression for the 37 withdrawal system before it stabilizes, to long-term precipitation trends that are not associated 38 with production, or to the limited duration of the monitoring period.

39 Because the trend in water levels in the Upper PRM Aquifer may indicate potential groundwater 40 use limitations, the Staff identified other local users of the aquifer, and evaluated regional trends 41 and regulatory actions to determine if groundwater use conflicts could exist. Due to the rural 42 location of the facilities, there are no other local municipalities or industrial facilities which use 43 groundwater from any aquifer, including the Upper PRM Aquifer. As discussed in Section 2.2.7, 44 the closest municipal use of groundwater for potable water supply is the Artesian Water September 2010 4-3 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Company's Bayview system in New Castle County, Delaware (DNREC, 2003). The Bayview 2 system is located approximately 3.5 miles (mi; 5.6 kilometers [km]) west of the site, and supplies 3 132 residents from two wells in the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. In Salem County, the City 4 of Salem uses groundwater as a component of their water supply. The City of Salem system is 5 located 9 mi (14 km) from the Salem and HCGS facilities, and serves approximately 9,000 6 persons. The two largest water supply systems in Salem County (the Pennsgrove and 7 Pennsville systems) both produce water from the Upper PRM Aquifer (EPA, 2010; NJAW, 2010; 8 NJDEP, 2007), but both systems are located more than 15 mi (24 km) to the north of the Salem 9 and HCGS facilities.

10 In addition to being distant from potentially affected users, the water volume produced from the 11 Upper PRM Aquifer by the Salem and HCGS wells is also small compared to municipal users in 12 the region. The authorized water withdrawal rate for all six production wells at the Salem and 13 HCGS facilities is 43.2 million gallons ( 164,000 M3) per 30 day period (1.44 MGD [5,470 14 m 3/day]) (Delaware River Basin Commission [DRBC], 2000). The actual production rate is 15 approximately 0.58 MGD (2,200m 3/day), or about 40% of the authorized volume. The 16 Pennsville system is authorized by DRBC to produce 1.75 MGD (6,600m 3/day) (PA Bulletin, 17 2005) to service approximately 13,500 residents; therefore, the volume produced by the Salem 18 and HCGS facilities is approximately equivalent to a municipal supply system servicing less 19 than 4,500 persons.

20 Additional information on groundwater use conflicts in the region is found in studies associated 21 with the Water-Supply Critical Areas in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Two areas (Critical Area 22 1 and Critical Area 2) were established in 1986 to manage withdrawals from aquifers which had 23 water level declines that were a cause of concern (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2000). The 24 management measures included reducing authorized withdrawals and new allocations from 25 specific aquifers, including the Upper and Middle PRM Aquifers, and shifting water supply 26 sources from confined aquifers to shallow unconfined aquifer and surface water sources. These 27 measures resulted in a region-wide rise in groundwater levels. Currently, both the USGS and 28 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) are performing additional 29 monitoring and modeling studies in order to determine if water management strategies in the 30 Critical Areas can be modified in response to their success in recovering groundwater levels 31 (USGS, 2005).

32 Although groundwater use conflicts were enough of a regional concern to cause designation of 33 the Critical Areas, the Salem and HCGS facility location was not included within either of the two 34 Critical Areas. Critical Area 2 includes a small portion of eastern Salem County, but does not 35 include the northern portion of the county (location of the Pennsville and Penns Grove water 36 systems) or the western portion of the county (location of Salem and HCGS). Also, the success 37 of the program in allowing groundwater levels to recover suggests that groundwater use 38 conflicts in western Salem County are likely to become less of a concern, rather than greater.

39 Based on these lines of evidence, it appears that although groundwater production at Salem 40 and HCGS may be contributing to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability, this reduction 41 is not likely to impact any potential groundwater users. Therefore, the Staff concludes that 42 impacts on nearby groundwater users would be SMALL.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-4 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.4 Surface Water 2 The following sections discuss the surface water quality issues applicable to Salem and HCGS, 3 which are listed in Table 4-4. The Staff did not identify any new and significant information 4 during the review of the applicant's ER (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the 5 scoping process. Therefore, no impacts are related to these issues beyond those discussed in 6 the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concludes that the impacts are SMALL, aRd additional 7 site spccific, mitigation measurec are not likely to be warrantcd.

8 Table 4-4. Surface Water Quality Issues. Section 2.2.4 of this report describes 9 surface water quality conditions at Salem and HCGS.

Issues GElS Section Category Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1 1 Altered salinity gradients 4.2.1.2.2 1 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3 1 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 1 Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3 1 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4 1 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4 1 Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4 1 10 4.5 Aquatic Resources 11 4.5.1 Categorization of Aquatic Resources Issues 12 The Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to aquatic resources and applicable to HCGS 13 and Salem are listed in Table 4-5 and discussed below. Section 2.1.6 of this report describes 14 the HCGS and Salem cooling water systems, and Section 2.2.5 describes the potentially 15 affected aquatic resources.

September 2010 4-5 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation Table 4-5. Aquatic Resources Issues.

Issues GElS Section Category ForAll Plants Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4 1 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1 1 Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5 1 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6 1 Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6 1 Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7 1 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8 1 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9 1 Losses from parasitism, predation, and disease among 4.2.2.1.10 1 organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11 1 For Plants with Cooling-Tower-Based Heat Dissipation Systems(a)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3 1 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3 1 Heat shock 4.3.3 1 For Plants with Once-Through Heat Dissipation Systems(b)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2 2 Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3 2 Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4 2 2 (a8Applicable to HCGS.

3 (b)Applicable to Salem.

4 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information related to Category 1 aquatic 5 resources issues during the review of the applicant's ERs for Salem (PSEG, 2009a) and HCGS 6 (PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping process. Consequently, there are no impacts 7 related to the generic, Category 1 issues beyond those discussed in the GELS. F-e--these Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-6 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Categor. 1 issue., the GElS cohnluded that the impacts are SM..ALL, and additional

,pecifico site 2 mnitigation mneasures arc not likely to bc warranted.

3 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages, impingement of fish and shellfish, and heat 4 shock are Category 1 issues at power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems are Category 2 5 issues at plants with once-through cooling systems. Hope Creek uses a closed-cycle cooling 6 system with a cooling tower. This type of cooling system substantially reduces the volume of 7 water withdrawn by the plant and, consequenty, ",_so substantially reduces entrainment, 8 impingement, and thermal discharge effects (heat shock potential). Entrainment, impingement, 9 and heat shock are Category 1 issues for Hope Creek and do not require further analysis to 10 determine that their impacts during the relicensing period would be SMALL. In contrast, the 11 cooling water system at Salem is a once-through system, and for such systems entrainment, 12 impingement, and heat shock are Category 2 issues that require site-specific analysis. The 13 remainder of Section 4.5 discusses these Category 2 issues for Salem.

14 4.5.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 15 Entrainment occurs when early life stages of fish and shellfish are drawn into cooling water 16 intake systems along with the cooling water. Cooling water intake systems are designed to 17 screen out larger organisms, but small life stages, such as eggs and larvae, can pass through 18 the screens and be drawn into the plant condensers. Once inside, organisms may be killed or 19 injured by heat, physical stress, or chemicals.

20 Requlatory Back-qround 21 Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) requires that the location, design, 22 construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology 23 available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). In July 2004, the 24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Phase II Rule implementing Section 25 316(b) of the CWA for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), which applied to large power producers 26 that withdraw large amounts of surface water for cooling (50 MGD or more) (189,000 m 3/day or 27 more). The rule became effective on September 7, 2004 and included numeric performance 28 standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment that would demonstrate that 29 the cooling water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing impingement and entrainment 30 impacts. Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstrate compliance with the 31 rule's performance standards during the renewal process for their National Pollutant Discharge 32 Elimination System (NPDES) perrmit through development of a Comprehensive Demonstration 33 Study (CDS). As a result of a Federal court decision, EPA officially suspended the Phase II rule 34 on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37107) pending further rulemaking. EPA instructed permitting 35 authorities to utilize best professional judgment in establishing permit requirements on a case-36 by-case basis for cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities until it has resolved the 37 issues raised by the court's ruling.

38 EPA delegated authority for NPDES permitting to NJDEP in 1984. In 1990, NJDEP issued a 39 draft permit that proposed closed-cycle cooling as BTA for Salem under NJPDES. In 1993, 40 NJDEP concluded that the cost of retrofitting Salem to closed-cycle cooling would be wholly 41 disproportionate to the environmental benefits realized, and a new draft permit was issued in 42 1994 (PSEG, 1999a). The 1994 final NJPDES permit stated that the existing cooling water 43 intake system was BTA for Salem, with certain conditions (NJDEP, 1994).

September 2010 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Conditions of the 1994 permit included improvements to the screens and Ristroph buckets, a 2 monthly average limitation on cooling water flow of 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m 3/day), and a pilot 3 study for the use of a sound deterrent system. In addition to technology and operational 4 measures, the 1994 permit required restoration measures that included a wetlands restoration 5 and enhancement program designed to increase primary production in the Delaware Estuary 6 and fish ladders at dams along the Delaware River to restore access to traditional spawning 7 runs for anadromous species such as blueback herring and alewife. A Biological Monitoring 8 Work Plan (BMWP) was also required to monitor the efficacy of the technology and operational 9 measures employed at the site and the restoration programs funded by PSEG (NJDEP, 1994).

10 The BMWP included monitoring plans for fish utilization of restored wetlands, elimination of 11 impediments to fish migration, bay-wide trawl survey, and beach seine survey, in addition to the 12 entrainment and impingement abundance monitoring (PSEG, 1994). The main purpose of 13 these studies was to monitor the success of the wetland restoration activities and screen 14 modifications undertaken by PSEG.

15 The 2001 NJPDES permit required continuation of the restoration programs implemented in 16 response to the 1994 permit, an Improved Biological Monitoring Work Plan (IBMWP), and a 17 more detailed analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment losses at the facility (NJDEP, 18 2001). The 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application responded to the requirement for a 19 detailed analysis by including a CDS as required by the Phase II rule and an assessment of 20 alternative intake technologies (AIT). The AIT assessment includes a detailed analysis of the 21 costs and benefits associated with the existing intake configuration and alternatives along with 22 an analysis of the costs and benefits of the wetlands restoration program that PSEG 23 implemented in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit (PSEG, 2006a).

24 The IBMWP was submitted to NJDEP in April 2002 and approved in July 2003. A reduction in 25 the frequency of monitoring at fish ladder sites that successfully pass river herring was 26 submitted in December 2003 and approved was in May 2004. In 2006 PSEG submitted a 27 revised IBMWP that proposed a reduction in sampling at the restored wetland sites. Sampling 28 would be conducted at representative locations instead of at every restoration site (PSEG,

29. 2006a).

30 Salem's 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application included a CDS because the Phase II rule 31 was still in effect at that time. The CDS for Salem was completed in 2006 and included an 32 analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment at the facility's cooling water intake system.

33 According to PSEG (2006a), this analysis shows that the changes in technology and operation 34 of the Salem cooling water intake system satisfied the performance standards of the Phase II 35 rule and that the current configuration constitutes BTA. In 2006, NJDEP administratively 36 continued Salem's 2001 NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), and no timeframe has been determined 37 for issuance of the new NJPDES permit.

38 Entrainment Studies 39 Prior to construction of the Salem facility, baseline biological studies were begun in 1968 to 40 characterize the biological community in the Delaware Estuary. The study area consisted of the 41 estuary 10 mi (16 km) to the north and south of Salem. In 1969 with the passing of the National

42. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the study program was expanded to include ichthyoplankton 43 and benthos studies and to gather information on the feeding habits and life histories of the 44 common species. In 1973 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published its Final Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-8 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Environmental Statement (FES) for Salem, which concluded that the effects of impingement and 2 entrainment on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary would not be significant 3 (PSEG, 1999a).

4 The Salem facility began operation in 1977, and monitoring has been performed on an annual 5 basis since then to evaluate the impacts on the aquatic environment of the Delaware Estuary 6 from entrainment of organisms through the cooling water system. Methods and results of these 7 studies are summarized in several reports, including the 1984 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 8 1984), the 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a), and the 2006 316(b) Demonstration 9 (PSEG, 2006a). In addition, biological monitoring reports were submitted to NJDEP on an 10 annual basis from 1995 through the present (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 11 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; 12 PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

13 The 1977 316(b) rule included a provision to select Representative Important Species (RIS) to 14 focus the investigations, and previous demonstrations evaluated RIS as well as additional target 15 species (PSEG, 1984; PSEG, 1999a). The 2006 CDS used the term Representative Species 16 (RS) to comprise both RIS and target species and to be consistent with the published Phase II 17 Rule. RS were selected based on several criteria n4 incOudingludinq- susceptibility to 18 impingement and entrainment at the facility, importance to the ecological community, 19 recreational or commercial value, and threatened or endangered status (PSEG, 2006a).

20 The 1984 316(b) Demonstration was a five-year study from 1978 to 1983 that focused on 11 21 RS, including nine fish species and two macroinvertebrates. These species weFe- are weakfish 22 (Cynoscion regalis), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchill), white perch (Morone americana), striped 23 bass (Morone saxatilis), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),

24 American shad (Alosa sapidissima),spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker 25 (Micropogonias undulatus), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and scud (Gammarus sp.)

26 (PSEG, 1984).

27 In 1999 PSEG submitted a 316(b) demonstration that included the same RS fish species as the 28 previous studies and added the blue crab (Callinectessapidus). Scud and opossum shrimp 29 were removed from the list of RS because they have high productivity, high natural mortality, 30 and assessments completed prior to PSEG's 1999 NJPDES application concluded that Salem 31 does not and will not have an adverse environmental impact on these macroinvertebrates 32 (PSEG, 1999a).

33 The 316(b) demonstration submitted during the 2006 NJPDES renewal process included an 34 estimation of entrainment losses for the RS developed from data collected during annual 35 entrainment monitoring conducted in accordance with the IBMWP. A revised RS list was 36 developed that included the nine finfish and the blue crab from previous studies and added the 37 Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and bluefish 38 (Pomotomus saltrix) (PSEG, 2006a).

39 Entrainment samples typically were collected from the circulating water system intake bays 1 1A, 40 12B, or 22A or at discharge standpipes 12 or 22. From August 1977 through May 1980, intake 41 samples were collected from the circulating water after it passed through the travelling screens 42 and the circulating water pumps. In June 1980 the sample location was changed to the 43 discharge pipes (PSEG, 1984). Beginning in 1994, samples were collected from either intake 44 bay 12B or 22A (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, September 2010 4-9 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; 2 PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

3 Samples were collected by pumping water through a Nielsen fish pump through a 1.0 meter (m; 4 3.2 feet [ft]) diameter, 0.5 milimeter (mm; 0.02 inches) mesh, conical plankton net in an 5 abundance chamber. A total sample volume of 50 to 100 m 3 (13,000 to 26,000 gallons) was 6 filtered at a rate not to exceed 2.0 m 3/minute (500 gpm). Sample contents were rinsed into a jar 7 and preserved for laboratory analysis. Ichthyoplankton collected was identified to the lowest 8 practical taxon and life stage, counted, and a subset was measured (PSEG, 1984).

9 From August 1977 to April 1978, entrainment samples were collected monthly from September 10 through May and twice monthly from June through August. In 1979, samples were collected 11 once monthly in March, April, October, and November; twice monthly in May, August, and 12 September, and four times monthly in June and July. In 1980 through 1982 additional samples 13 were collected every fourth day from May through October. Samples were collected every 4 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> (hrs) during a 24-hr period (PSEG, 1984). In 1994 and 1995 samples were collected 15 three times a day, once a week from January through December (PSEG, 1994; PSEG, 1996).

16 Beginning in April 1996 samples were typically collected three times a week in the summer 17 months (April through September) and once a week throughout the remainder of the year 18 (PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 19 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

20 Six samples were collected during each 24-hr sampling period.

21 Ichthyoplankton samples also were collected from June through August in 1981 and 1982 22 adjacent to the intake structure in five horizontal offshore strata to develop model inputs for bay 23 anchovy and weakfish. These samples were collected with a conical plankton net 0.5 m (1.6 ft) 24 wide with a mesh size of 0.5 mm (0.02 inches; PSEG, 1984).

25 Entrainment survival studies were conducted from 1977 through 1982. Survival studies were 26 conducted twice in 1977 and three times in 1978. In 1979 no samples were collected for 27 survival studies. In 1980 sampling was conducted from April through October with 10 events.

28 In 1981 and 1982 the sampling schedule was expanded to include four times monthly in June 29 and July, twice monthly in May and August, and once each in September and October with 14 30 events occurring in May through October of 1981 and 11 events in June through September of 31 1982. Sampling locations for the survival studies were the same as for the abundance studies.

32 Intake and discharge locations were sampled with a lag to account for plant transit time with 33 duplicate sampling gear to account for sampling induced mortality (PSEG, 1984).

34 Samples were collected using a centrifugal fish transfer pump and a one-screen larval table until 35 1980. After 1980 a low velocity flume was used to allow for a larger sample volume.

36 Specimens were taken to an onsite laboratory where their condition was recorded. Individuals 37 were classified as live, stunned, or dead according to pre-established criteria. Live and stunned 38 specimens were held for 12 hrs to determine latent mortality (PSEG, 1984).

39 In addition, tests were conducted from 1979 through 1981 to quantify mortality caused by the 40 collection equipment. Tests were conducted with alewife, blueback herring, white perch, 41 weakfish, spot, N. americana,and Gammarus spp. Mortality rates due to the larval table, the 42 low velocity flume, and the fish pump combined with the larval table were estimated separately.

43 Entrainment simulation tests also were conducted from 1974 through 1982 to quantify the 44 effects of pressure and temperature changes on entrained organisms (PSEG, 1984).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-10 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 For the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, weekly entrainment densities (numbers of organisms per 2 volume of water) were estimated based on densities in both the intake and the estuary. These 3 projected densities then were used along with estimated weekly mortality rates to project annual 4 entrainment losses due to the facility. Weekly mortality rates were estimated from the results of 5 the onsite studies, simulation studies conducted in the laboratory, and literature values.

6 Mortality rates were calculated for the effects of mechanical and chemical stresses separately 7 from thermal stresses. Total entrainment mortality was estimated under the assumption that the 8 thermal and nonthermal mortality rates are independent of one another as shown in the 9 followingq equationbased On the f..H.wig equation (PSEG, 1984).

MT =1-(1-Mn) X(1-Mt) 10 where 11 MT= total entrainment mortality rate 12 Mn= nonthermal mortality rate 13 Mn= thermal mortality rate 14 Projected entrainment losses for each species were calculated on a daily basis using the 15 following equation. Daily entrainment losses were then summed on a weekly basis and 16 projected based on plant operating schedules (PSEG, 1984).

17 Daily entrainment loss = CWS1 + SWS1 + CWS2j + SWS2i 18 CWSli= K1 x Density x (Fi- R x Fi) / (1 - R + R x Fi) 19 SWSli= K2 x Density x (1 - R) 20 where 21 CWS1i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 1 circulating waters system (CWS) on the ith day 22 SWS1I = entrainment loss at Unit No. 1 service water system (SWS) on the i th day 23 CWS2I = entrainment loss at Unit No. 2 CWS on the ith day 24 SWS2i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 2 SWS on the i th day 25 K1 = plant withdrawal at Unit No. 1 CWS on the ith day 26 = 11.672 m 3/sec x 86,400 seconds x the number of CWS pumps operating in 27 Unit No. 1 28 K2 = plant withdrawal at Unit No. 1 SWS on the i th day 29 = 0.686 m 3/sec x 86,400 seconds x the number of CWS pumps operating in 30 Unit No. 1 31 Density1 = estimated entrainment density on the i th day 32 Fi = estimated total entrainment density on the ith day 33 R = recirculation factor September 2010 4-11 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a) used data from entrainment monitoring that 2 was conducted annually from 1995 through 1998 in accordance with the BMWP. PSEG 3 calculated total entrainment loss by species and life stage by summing the individual 4 occurrences in samples taken at the intakes for both the circulating water system (CWS) and 5 the service water system (SWS) for Units 1 and 2; using correction factors for collection 6 efficiency, recirculation (re-entrainment), and mortality; and then scaling for plant flow. The 7 equation used for this calculation of entrainment loss follows (PSEG, 1999a).

8 E = I K 365

-IDy"C-1"

( '(1_-R +_Rhij) QY i=1 j=1 9 where 10 E = entrainment (number of organisms) 11 i= ith water system, i.e., Unit 1 CWS, Unit 1 SWS, Unit 2 12 CWS, and Unit 2 SWS 13 j j th day of the year 14 Dy = average concentration (number per m 3 of intake water) 15 C= collection efficiency 16 Fi. = daily through-plant mortality 17 R = recirculation factor 18 Qy = average daily plant flow for i th water system (M3) 19 PSEG (1999a) used the results of these calculations to estimateGempute densities for each 20 week of the year, which then were scaled up based on weekly flow through the facility to 21 estimate total entrainment losses for each year by species (Table 4-6). The years 1978 through 22 1981 were a transitional period between the beginning of commercial operation of Salem Unit 1 23 in 1978 and Unit 2 in 1982 (PSEG, 1999a).

24 In the 2006 316(b) Demonstration, PSEG estimated annual entrainment losses for the years 25 2002 through 2004 by using entrainment density data from sampling conducted at the intakes 26 and scaling for total water withdrawal volume using the same methodology as described above 27 for the 1999 316(b) study (Table 4-7). Entrainment losses were calculated by assuming an 28 entrainment mortality rate of 100 percent (PSEG, 2006a). From 1978 through 1998 (Table 4-6) 29 and 2002 through 2004 (Table 4-7), bay anchovy was the species with the greatest entrainment 30 losses for all life stages (PSEG, 1999a; PSEG, 2006a).

31 Results of the annual entrainment monitoring for the RS at Salem from 1995 through 2008 were 32 reported in annual biological monitoring reports for 1995 through 2008 (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 33 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; 34 PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). Total 35 annual entrainment was reported by species and life stage based on mean density expressed 36 as number of organisms per 100 cubic meters (n/1 00 M3) of water withdrawn through the intake 37 screens (Table 4-8).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-12 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-9 provides a list of species collected during the annual entrainment monitoring 2 conducted at Salem from 1995 through 2008 and their average densities in cooling water during 3 that period. On average, the RS constituted approximately 75 percent of total entrainment 4 abundance based on average densities for these species from 1995 through 2008, and bay 5 anchovy alone made up approximately 50 percent of total entrainment during this period.

6 Entrainment Reductions 7 Due to the potential for entrainment to have adverse effects on the aquatic environment in the 8 vicinity of Salem, and in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit, PSEG has 9 employed technological and operational changes to reduce entrainment and impingement and 10 mitigate their effects on the Delaware Estuary. While improvements to the cooling water intake 11 system were targeted mainly toward reducing impingement mortality, improvement in 12 entrainment rates also has resulted. In response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES 13 permit, PSEG made modifications to the trash racks, intake screens, and fish return system 14 (PSEG, 1999a).

15 Improved intake screen panels were installed that use a thinner wire in the mesh (14 gage 16 instead of 12 gage), which in combination with smaller screen openings allowed for a 20 percent 17 decrease in through-screen velocity. Lower velocities through the screens allow more small fish 18 to be able to swim away from the screens and escape entrainment. Screen openings also were 19 reduced in size from 10 mm (3/8 inch) square mesh to 6 mm (1/4 inch) wide by 13 mm (1/2 20 inch) high rectangular mesh. The smaller screen openings reduce the size of organisms that 21 can be drawn through the screens, thus reducing entrainment. The smaller screen mesh 22 excludes more organisms, which then may be impinged and could be returned to the estuary 23 alive (PSEG, 1999a). While impingement mortality rates for these smaller organisms generally 24 are higher than for larger organisms, they are lower than estimated entrainment mortality rates 25 (PSEG, 1999a).

September 2010 4-13 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Y m z 0 C

x 1 Table 4-6. Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978 to 1998 3 M CD Year Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses (in Millions) 2 American Atlantic Bay Blueback Striped White Atlantic 3 C0 Alewife shad croaker anchovy herring bass Spot Weakfish perch menhaden Silversides1 C

_ 1978 0.008 0.004 0.784 7,962.1 0.775 0.026 5.096 399.818 0.000 0.000 79.935 0

( 1979 0.050 0 14.515 3,535.1 0.019 0.020 1.095 23.193 0.625 0.072 18.083 0 3 -0 (D C 1980 0.860' 0.015 0.756 15,155.9 2.813 0 10.296 256.708 27.514 4.277 145.109 Cn 1981 2.002 0 8.157 11,714.1 11.853 0 5.418 45.765 0.969 9.207 113.240 0 1982 0 0 0 3,712.9 0.017 0 29.963 74.457 18.857 4.157 22.201 1985 0.163 0.126 0.933 29,463.7 1.151 0 0.184 63.616 0.447 0 0 1986 0.348 0.059 0.492 45,248.6 1.594 0 0.858 110.397 0.654 0 0 1987 0 0.062 0.000 40,172.4 0.082 0 0.055 61.267 0.628 0 0 1988 0.749 0 1.710 22,331.5 2.988 0 73.502 57.063 8.968 0 0 1989 0.541 0 56.341 10,163.5 2.395 47.946 1.027 3.026 192.131 0 0 1990 0.101 0 123.375 7,678.4 0.260 1.313 4.395. 6.685 2.626 0 0 1991 0 0 131.798 19,506.6 0 0.778 1.096 72.478 1.108 0 0 1992 0.319 0 71.352 1,570.5 0.864 1.728 0.000 10.375 3.393 0 0 1993 0.676 0 75.030 11;774.2 2.340 108.065 0.585 122.672 37.635 0 0

, 1994 0.697 0 24.783 1,120.3 2.623 7.490 46.859 88.781 66.927 0 0 1995 0.477 0.014 31.454 1,404.5 0.082 0.579 0.071 335.083 2.039 177.221 31.019 1996 0.083 0.028 4.385 70.6 0.425 7.289 0.025 14.258 16.800 3.039 1.227 1997 0.053 0.747 71.819 1,811.8 0.318 6.505 0.007 12.601 7.865 16.668 6.919 1998 14.480 0 132.130 2,003.7 59.282 448.563 0.020 76.343 412.839 480.557 51.528 (1) Silversides were not identified to species.

Source: NJPDES Application (PSEG, 1999a).

C0 CD

-V CD 3

07 CD C0 C0

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual Entrainment and Annual Entrainment Losses for 2 Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 2002-2004 Total Entrained Entrainment Losses (in millions) (in millions)

Taxon 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Alewife 9.8 5.2 2.5 9.4 4.5 2.4 American shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atlantic croaker 448.0 211.5 213.2 182.5 86.4 87.9 Bay anchovy 946.4 366.4 2,343.2 946.4 366.4 2,343.2 Blueback herring 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.934 Spot 2.3 0.047 0 0.454 0.009 0 Striped bass 403.6 120.3 35.7 159.5 37.6 14.3 Weakfish 29.2 11.9 46.8 19.2 8.5 32.8 White perch 18.7 19.5 25.8 18.0 13.9 23.9 Atlantic silverside 44.8 3.6 10.1 44.8 3.6 10.1 Atlantic menhaden 190.3 4.9 6.8 190.3 4.9 6.8 Source: Comprehensive Demonstration Study (PSEG, 2006a).

September 2010 4-15 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

m zc 0 m Table 4-8. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1995-2008 CD 0M Density (n/100 M 3)

Taxon 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

- - nnC .- n fl1 I nl r)' .-n lI n)l nnc .- f) A

~0 Cn Al, VV ;f nI -l - -

U .UJ.L U A.)..) ~UAJ1 U.i.J UAJL ~.U.A.Ji. U.U~. lJ.UJ .-A.UJAJ (n

American shad - 0.01 0.01 - - U.UU - - - - - - -

(D Atlantic croaker 3.03 1.60 8.19 9.48 15.45 6.70 4.17 12.52 2.62 5.05 5.56 10.51 5.88 7.74 0 CD CD Atlantic menhaden 2.91 0.38 0.46 1.68 2.23 1.34 1.04 4.92 0.20 0.47 1.06 5.01 1.47 16.21 R Atlantic silverside 0.13 0.29 0.69 0.22 2.20 0.36 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.47 0.55 0.29 0.12 0.10 0 Bay anchovy 66.55 17.43 42.95 61.88 292.14 12.72 8.86 24.18 13.15 100.52 54.57 101.45 174.66 41.87 Blueback herring - 0.02 - 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 Blueback 0.01 0.12 - 2.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 - 0.03 0.72 herring/alewife Bluefish 0.01 - 0.00 - - - - - - <0.01 Spot 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.10 <0.01 - 0.25 <0.01 0.03 0.14 Striped bass 0.03 1.55 0.02 11.50 0.03 13.97 9.07 7.20 5.07 1.84 4.03 0.55 42.34 1.72 Weakfish 11.86 3.69 0.76 1.99 6.61 2.48 2.25 0.64 0.43 1.10 2.09 0.70 1.44 0.52 White perch 0.02 0.88 4.49 0.11 6.15 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.64 0.24 0.55 1.19 0.01 White perch/striped 0.06 1.10 - 3.63 0.00 - - <0.01 0.87 0.44 0.40 0.11 10.69 0.02 bass

• B Eggs 47.54 0.51 21.41 41.84 278.18 0.35 2.97 8.42 2.06 74.22 28.56 78.20 149.59 23.82 Larvae 48.46 26.52 31.66 78.64 97.93 47.13 29.13 67.53 46.10 51.12 62.67 82.92 103.57 39.65 Juveniles 11.84 7.87 19.15 13.11 21.17 11.10 7.27 16.74 5.67 7.84 9.46 15.99 10.79 21.86 Adults 0.14 0.07 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.19 Note: Blank spaces (-) indicate the species was not identified-elleeted in entrainment samples that year.

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

(D CD

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-9. Species Entrained at Salem During Annual Entrainment Monitoring, 2 1995-2008 Common Name Scientific Name Average Density (n/100 m3)

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 72.35 Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 27.58 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 7.07 Atlantic croaker Micropogoniasundulatus 7.04 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 6.91 Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 2.81 Goby Gobiidae 2.61 White perch/striped bass Morone spp. 1.57 White perch Morone americana 1.15 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 0.66 Unidentifiable silverside Antherinidae 0.47 Blueback herring/alewife Alosa spp. 0.37 Silversides Menidia spp. 0.22 Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 0.18 American eel Anguilla rostrata 0.13 Unidentifiable fish 0.13 Summer flounder Paralichthysdentatus 0.12 Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 0.10 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 0.09 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.08 Herrings Clupeidae 0.08 Black drum Pogoniascromis 0.07 Carps and minnows Cyprinidae 0.06 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 0.06 Unidentifiable larvae 0.06 Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 0.06 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 0.05 Smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus 0.04 Rough silverside Membras martinica 0.03 Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 0.03 Yellow perch Perca*/avescens 0.03 Spotted hake Urophycis regia 0.02 Killifishes Fundulus spp. 0.02 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 0.01 Northern searobin Prionotuscarolinus 0.01 Quillback Carpiodescyprinus 0.01 Unidentifiable eggs 0.01 Silver perch Bairdiellachrysoura 0.01 Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectesamericanus 0.01 September 2010 4-17 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation Common Name Scientific Name Average Density (n/100 M3)

Threespine stickleback Gasterosteusaculeatus 0.01 Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 0.01 Unidentifiable 0.01 Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 0.01 Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 0.01 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0.01 American shad Alosa sapidissima 0.01 Striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 0.01 Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 0.004 Green goby Microgobius thalossinus 0.004 Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 0.004 Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 0.004 American sand lance Ammodytes americanus 0.004 Bluefish Pomatomus salatrix 0.003 Unidentifiable juvenile 0.003 Striped searobin Prionotusevolans 0.003 Conger eel Conger oceanicus 0.003 Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens 0.003 Unidentifiable drum Sciaenidae 0.003 Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 0.003 Perches Percidae 0.003 Northern kingfish Menticirrhussaxatilis 0.003 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0.002 Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 0.002 Unidentifiable sucker Catostomidae 0.002 Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 0.002 Northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 0.002 White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0.002 Tautog Tautoga onitis 0.002 Unidentifiable porgy Sparidae 0.001 Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 0.001 Black sea bass Centropristisstrioto 0.001 Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegauts 0.001 Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 0.001 Unidentifiable sunfish Centrarch idae 0.001 White sucker Cotostomus commersoni 0.001 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus 0.001

.) Species in bold are RS at Salem.

3 (2) Average density expressed as number of organisms entrained (n) per 100 cubic meters (M ) of water withdrawn through the intake screens.

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-18 September 2010

CED CD Table 4-10. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978-2008 3

CD-*Density (n/100 M3)

N) Taxon 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1985 1 986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 o Alewife 0.03 - - - 0 .01 - 0.01 - - - - - -

Alosa sp. - - - 0.14 0.01 - 0.02 0.15 0.11 American shad Atlantic croaker 0.10 0.02 0.02 1.24 - 0.02 0.07 - 0.07 2.76 0.72 3.47 2.51 2.71 1.19 Atlantic menhaden 0.02 0.25 1.13 0.27 Atlantic silverside Bay anchovy 349.64 1848.55 845.68 706.22 148.12 1799.26 2527.17 2094.53 618.68 314.27 243.26 416.78 111.59 416.25 27.22 Blueback herring 0.06 - 0.07 0.12 - 0.03 - - 0.04 - - - - -

Blueback herring/alewife Morone sp. .. ..... 0.21 0.01 - 0.03 0.90 0.01 Bluefish Silversides 6.32 15.33 4.77 4.04 0.86 -

Spot 0.07 0.10 1.53 0.86 3.69 0.04 0.01 - 1.64 0.02 0.16 0.09 7 0.01 1.17 Striped bass 0.05 - - 1.87 0.01 0.03 0.06 3.63 0.29 I Weakfish 16.31 3.35 5.15 1.20 2.63 1.77 4.50 3.09 1.11 0.08 0.28 1.43 0.25 1.91 2.46

, White perch 0.09 - 0.26 - 0.01 0.01 0.10 4.16 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.46 0.81 White perch/striped bass Taxon 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alewife 0.01 .- - 0.05 < 0.01 0.11 0.02 < 0.01 0.02 0.05 < 0.01 Alosa sp. 0.01 0.13 - 1.58 - - - - - - - - - -

American shad 0.01 - - - 0.00 - - - - -

Atlantic croaker 3.07 1.64 12.48 8.52 15.45 6.70 4.17 12.52 2.62 5.05 5.56 10.51 5.88 7.74 Atlantic menhaden 2.90 0.37 0.86 3.19 2.23 1.34 1.04 4.92 0.20 0.47 1.06 5.01 1.47 16.21 Atlantic silverside - - 2.20 0.36 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.47 0.55 0.29 0.12 0.10 Bay anchovy 64.18 17.63 52.89 53.31 292.14 12.72 8.86 24.18 13.15 100.52 54-57 101.45 174.66 41.87 Blueback herring 0.02 - 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 rr Blueback herring/alewife - - 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 - 0.03 072 z Morone sp. 0.06 1.11 - 2.92 - - - - - - - - 0.02 0 Bluefish - - 0.00 - ......- <0 01 CD Silversides 0.99 0.30 0.96 0.87 - - -

Spot 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.10 <0.01 - 0.25 <0.01 0.03 0.14 Striped bass 0.03 1.58 0.03 9.92 0.03 13.97 9.07 7.20 5.07 1.84 4.03 0.55 42.34 1.72

-4 Weakfish 11.78 3.75 0.77 1.80 6.61 2.48 2.25 0.64 0.43 1.10 2.09 070 1.44 0.52 cn White perch 0.02 0.90 3.73 0.11 6.15 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.64 0.24 0.55 1.19 0.01

- 0.00 - - 0.44 0.40 0.11 10.69 - 0 White perch/strioed bass < 0.01 0.87 (D Note: Blank spaces (-) indicate the species was not identifiedGelleoted in entrainment samples that year.

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; CD 0 PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c) C3

-N1

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.5.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 2 Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are held against the intake screens by the force of 3 the water being drawn into the cooling system. Impingement mortality can occur directly as a 4 I result of the force of the water,-e o._r indirectly due to stresses from the time spent on the 5 screens or as a result of being washed off the screens.

6 Regulatory Back-ground 7 EPA regulates ilmpingement and entrainment under ae,both .egulatcd by Section 316(b) of the 8 CWA through the NPDES permit renewal process. A history of NPDES permitting at Salem can 9 be found in Section 4.5.2 under the heading Regulatory Background.

10 Impingement Studies 11 PSEG has performed annual impingement monitoring at the Salem plant since 1977 in. order to 12 determine the impacts that impingement at Salem might have on the aquatic environment of the 13 Delaware Estuary. The monitoring program described in the early 316(b) demonstration 14 focused on seven target fish species. The two macroinvertebrates included in the entrainment 15 study program are too small to be impinged and, therefore, were not included in the 16 impingement study program. The fish species are weakfish, bay anchovy, white perch, striped 17 bass, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, spot, and Atlantic croaker (PSEG, 1984).

18 Impingement abundance samples were collected at the CWS and SWS intakes from May 1977 19 through December 1982. CWS samples were collected at least four times per day at six-hr 20 intervals three days a week from May 1977 through September 1978. In September 1978 21 sampling frequency was increased to a minimum of 10 samples per day six days a week. In the 22 spring of 1980, sampling frequency was reduced to four times a day, but remained at six days a 23 week (PSEG, 1984).

24 Impinged organisms are washed off the CWS intake screens and returned to the Delaware 25 Estuary through a fish return system. Impingement samples were collected in fish counting 26 pools constructed for this purpose that are located adjacent to the fish return system discharge 27 troughs at both the northern and southern ends of the CWS intake structure. Screen-wash 28 water was diverted into the counting pools for an average sample duration of 3 minutes (min; 29 depending on debris load, sampling time varied from 1 to 15 min). Water then was drained from 30 the pools, and organisms were sorted by species, counted, measured, and weighed (PSEG, 31 1984).

32 Impingement abundance samples were collected from the SWS intake screens by a higlh-33 pressure spray wash into collection baskets through a trough. Screen washes were conducted 34 at either 12 hr or 24 hr intervals depending on debris loads. Samples were collected from the 35 SWS three times a week from April 1977 through September 1979. Organisms were sorted, 36 counted, and weighed (PSEG, 1984)..

37 Special impingement-related studies in addition to impingement monitoring studies also were 38 performed. Studies were conducted from 1979 through February 1982 to quantify impingement 39 collection efficiency. Studies of blueback herring, bay anchovy, white perch, weakfish, spot, and 40 Atlantic croaker were conducted to determine the percentage of different size classes of fish 41 that would not be collected by the screen washing and fish collection procedures (PSEG, 1984).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-20 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Because individual organisms that are impinged on the intake screens are washed off and 2 returned to the estuary, studies of impingement mortality rates also were conducted from May 3 1977 through December 1982. Studies were conducted to estimate the percentage of impinged 4 individuals that do not survive being impinged and washed from the intake screens (initial 5 mortality) and the percentage that exhibit delayed mortality and do not survive for a longer 6 period of at least two days (extended or latent mortality). Studies of initial mortality were 7 conducted at a rate of three times per week until October 1978, after which samples were 8 collected six times per week if impingement levels for target species exceeded predetermined 9 levels. Initial mortality studies were conducted using the same counting pools as the 10 abundance samples. Screen-wash water was diverted into the counting pool, samples were 11 held for five min, the water was drained from the pool, and organisms were sorted as live, 12 damaged, or dead. Each subset was identified to species and the total number and weight, 13 maximum and minimum lengths, and length frequency distribution were recorded. Studies of 14 latent mortality were conducted using the organisms classified as live or damaged in the studies 15 of initial mortality. At the beginning of the latent mortality studies, only organisms classified as 16 live were used, but damaged fish also were evaluated after November 1978. Two-dayLatent 17 mortality studies were conducted at least weekly and entailed holding impinged organisms in 18 aerated tanks for 48 hrs. Organisms were monitored continuously for the first 30 min, at hour 19 intervals for the next four hrs, and then at approximately 24-hr intervals. Control specimens 20 also were collected with a seine and subjected to the same survival study (PSEG, 1984).

21 Impingement mortality was found to be seasonally variable and dependent on several 22 environmental factors, including temperature and salinity. Initial and latent mortality rates were 23 estimated on a monthly basis and summed to provide a total mortality rate (PSEG, 1984).

24 Estimated impingement mortality rates by species evaluated are summarized in Table 4-11.

25 26 September 2010 4-21 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-11. Estimated Impingement Mortality Rates by Species at Salem, 1977-1982 Estimated Impingement Mortality Taxon (percent)

Spot 30.2 -67.7 Blueback herring 71.9- 100 Alewife 72.6 - 100 American sShad 20.8- 100 Atlantic croaker 38.8 - 87.9 Striped bass 10.0-84.8 White perch 29.4 - 52.9 Bay anchovy .77.0-95.1 Weakfish 71.2 - 78.3 Source: PSEG, 1984.

2 3 PSEG submitted a 316(b) demonstration in 1999 as part of the application for NJPDES permit 4 renewal (PSEG, 1999a). This demonstration assessed the effects of Salem's cooling water 5 intake structure on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary (PSEG, 1999a). It 6 focused on the same RS fish species as the earlier studies and added the blue crab (Callinectes 7 sapidus). Impingement losses at Salem were estimated using impingement density (the 8 number of impinged individuals collected divided by the total volume sampled, expressed as 9 number/m3) and adjusting for impingement survival, collection efficiency, and recirculation 10 factor. This result was then scaled by month using the water withdrawal rates and summed for 11 the year to provide annual impingement losses for the facility. Estimated annual impingement 12 losses for the RS at Salem from 1978 through 1998 are summarized in Table 4-12. Bay 13 anchovy was the species most frequently lost to impingement from 1978 to 1998, constituting 14 46 percent of the RS impingement loss. Weakfish was the next most frequently lost species, 15 making up 20 percent of the RS impingement losses (PSEG, 1999a).

16 Impingement monitoring was conducted annually in accordance with the BMWP from 1995 17 through 2002. In 2002, the IBMWP was developed to include improvements to the BMWP.

18 These monitoring plans include provisions to quantify impingement and entrainment losses at 19 Salem, as well as fish populations in the Delaware Estuary and the positive effects of the 20 restoration program (PSEG, 2006a).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-22 September 2010

Cl)

CD CD (D

Table 4-12. Estimated Annual Impingement Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978 to 1998 Cý C)

Estimated Annual Impingement Losses American Atlantic Bay Blueback Striped White Year Alewife Shad croaker anchovy herring Blue crab Spot bass Weakfish perch 1978 17,057 4,549 125,822 2,623,694 438,248 111,627 84,519 3,213 6,391,256 254,688 1979 11,513 2,144 8,494 1,321,105 651,005 97,434 292,471 9,625 580,628 541,715 1980 11,301 6,382 93,232 11,046,658 460,638 501,000 146,794 4,350 1,821,462 403,453 1981 647,832 8,820 14,996 11,264,933 364,803 347,436 857,167 1,895 1,818,578 344,726 1982 46,951 9,406 2,975 3,846,612 418,130 122,032 979,961 542 967,867 261,912 1983 19,584 5,359 2,326 3,784,994 224,303 100,953 681,704 924 1,038,356 143,904 1984 128,002 3,266 853 2,444,847 1,335,665 87,890 316,579 430 357,125 300,333 1985 4,676 11,033 275,670 3,771,190 162,478 1,011,790 183,679 193 1,263,119 582,528 1986 20,788 11,007 233,915 2,011,567 467,361 1,228,076 52,445 2,875 756,956 1,033,048 1987 74,461 24,120 1,245,098 3,346,956 157,496 834,857 2,204 6,673 1,095,105 715,912 1988 31,082 35,182 4,046 4,657,784 357,896 1,247,649 1,917,236 10,450 427,218 646,825 1989 137,998 65,138 24,168 781,653 891,085 344,310 119,381 26,006 184,538 760,842 1990 50,074 15,393 5,787 1,373,446 168,555 178,511 120,833 28,003 170,778 768,431 1991 21,275 22,874 45,535 1,719,784 137,107 307,591 134,807 10,089 575,349 688,724 1992 23,847 64,807 55,267 1,286,667 120,649 370,591 2,999 20,966 841,319 1,158,199 1993 23,267 22,087 176,279 596,243 100,999 387,190 16,869 74,100 723,366 1,043,913 1994 22,946 6,315 31,538 178,764 31,835 491,199 247,677 23,612 2,130,349 1,266,489 z 0 1995 14,745 7,940 610,261 363,601 143,846 1,012,348 27,435 10,812 890,341 321,359 1996 1,321 829 21,010 18,802 5,548 83,457 7,281 9,191 130,459 75,006 CD 1997 5,899 819 266,558 309,018 50,879 475,443 30,245 12,779 1,582,441 228,996 :3 1998 8,037 2,214 2,370,135 1,104,126 57,267 280,741 2,654 10,660 1,572,811 124,351 Cn Source: PSEG, 1999a.

(j2 0

-a 0

-Ch. -a (D

C" 0

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The 316(b) demonstration submitted during the 2006 NJPDES renewal process (PSEG, 2006a) 2 included the CDS as required by the Phase II rule and a demonstration that the plant satisfies 3 the impingement mortality and entrainment reductions required by the rule. The CDS included 4 an estimation of impingement losses for the RS developed from data collected during annual 5 impingement monitoring conducted in accordance with the IBMWP. A revised RS list was 6 developed for the IBMWP and subsequently used in the 2006 CDS that included the nine finfish 7 and the blue crab from previous studies and added the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia),

8 Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and bluefish (Pomotomus saltrix) (PSEG, 2006a).

9 Estimated annual impingement and impingement losses for the study period 2002 to 2004 are 10 summarized in Table 4-13. Atlantic croaker was the species most impinged in 2002 and the RS 11 most often lost to impingement that year. White perch was the RS most impinged in 2003 and 12 2004, while weakfish was the species most often lost to impingement in those years.

13 Table 4-13. Estimated Annual Impingement and Annual Impingement Losses for 14 Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 2002-2004 Total Impingement Impingement Losses Taxon 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Alewife 87,001 31,275 134,149 10,996 16,360 63,492 American shad 5,879 31,584 227,103 1,672 15,354 72,486 Atlantic croaker 21,313,809 620,754 3,260,494 6,332,522 143,298 332,644 Bay anchovy 424,168 475,799 544,177 197,496 326,839 341,135 Blueback herring 184,095 133,328 1,110,952 28,113 50,790 265,866 Spot 1,131 2,714 366 253 721 133 Striped bass 101,208 776,934 505,340 5,351 167,332 66,007 Weakfish 722,090 3,129,152 3,531,713 428,300 1,953,299 2,118,736 White perch 2,044,207 9,424,768 11,181,299 163,505 773,818 970,462 Atlantic silverside 509,142 220,114 156,495 138,270 44,951 48,609 Atlantic menhaden 534,646 31,211 20,420 360,931 21,769 15,724 Blue crab 2,739,118 356,983 831,320 172,725 27,483 57,931 Bluefish 45,292 31,311 44,533 3,884 7,592 17,433 Source: PSEG, 2006a.

15 16 Table 4-14 provides a summary of annual impingement densities based on monitoring results 17 for RS at Salem from the annual monitoring reports for the period 1995 through 2007.

18 Impingement densities were calculated by relating impingement abundance to the circulating 19 water flow and extrapolating to the number of organisms impinged per million m 3 for every week 20 of each year (PSEG, 1999a). The four most commonly impinged species were Atlantic croaker 21 (23 percent), blue crab (21 percent), white perch (19 percent), and weakfish (14 percent). Table 22 4-15 provides a list of species collected and average densities impinged during this period.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-24 September 2010

C, (D

CD 3

C 1 Table 4-14. Impingement Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1995-2008 N)

CD C Density (nil 06 M3)

Taxon 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Blue crab 1901.05 620.48 2033.08 824.27 636.84 393.89 606.88 502.13 76.41 171.28 1895.82 694.73 797.66 640.45 Alewife 3.09 5.47 10.8 12.09 15.78 27.41 20.55 13.91 4.84 25.99 8.19 2.41 7.66 0.66 American shad 3.1 2.63 1.00 3.39 14.5 3.82 0.57 0.79 6.43 43.24 10.11 4.01 16.98 1.7 Atlantic croaker 887.71 112.71 623.81 1489.08 625.94 403.53 412.56 3820.65 101.22 626.74 845.57 1405.31 951.09 545.25 Atlantic menhaden 14.72 9.9 38.36 78.79 15.78 20.5 25.55 88.9 6.26 4.82 22.22 44 27.49 57.85 Atlantic silverside 44.15 12.61 40.7 43.54 111.15 49.67 42.28 78.46 35.67 25.71 24.08 46.89 44.52 56.28 Bay anchovy 136.82 66.52 229.13 367 127.83 122.62 84.1 74.09 89.5 93.89 49.33 202.44 132.62 72.27 N) Blueback herring 30.78 8.64 126.62 107.8 110.7 73.14 81.06 31.05 23.27 156.55 19.75 25.37 17.76 7.34 Cn Bluefish 2.69 8.88 6.41 4.79 2.55 6.00 1.14 7.89 8.14 11.67 2.06 7.44 2.95 5.7 Spot 10.28 3.38 88.74 3.94 0.53 7.28 0.05 0.34 0.8 0.14 55.11 10.38 3.73 23.65 Striped bass 64.89 82.05 62.91 28.61 52.83 102.49 54.62 20.04 159.93 110.86 29.72 10.22 47.88 32.56 White perch 641.12 543.08 1625.16 425.98 384.33 273.32 263.56 427.71 1771.18 2113.19 1042.62 360.51 429.81 662.14 Weakfish 1071.27 441.89 1370.74 528.95 228.01 369.57 524.64 172.98 530.71 725.72 930.88 343.81 379.65 304.8 Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

2 a' rn z!5 C 0 m 3 o CD C,,

CD 0 "10 3 ~o 0 CD CD (3' 3

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-15. Species Impinged at Salem and Average Impingement Densities, 2 Based on Annual Impingement Monitoring for 1995-2008 Average Density (nl10' mi) 1 1 (2)

Common Name( ) Scientific Name( )

Atlantic croaker Micropogoniasundulatus 917.94 Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 842.50 White perch Morone americana 783.12 Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 565.97 Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 231.95 Spotted hake Urophycis regia 135.03 Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 132.01 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 61.40 Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 58.56 Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 46.84 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 42.11 Atlantic menhaden Brevoortiatyrannus 32.51 Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 27.64 Striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 20.78 Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 14.88 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 11.35 Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus 10.53 American shad Alosa sapidissima 8.02 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 7.71 Black drum Pogoniascromis 6.29 Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 6.05 Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 5.60 Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 5.59 American eel Anguilla rostrata 5.32 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4.90 Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura 4.62 Summer flounder Paralichthysdentatus 4.48 Northern kingfish Menticirrhussaxatilis 4.29 Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 3.68 Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 3.59 Red hake Urophycis chuss 3.26 Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 3.25 Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectesamericanus 2.59 Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 2.41 Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 2.13 Smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus 2.00 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1.89 Striped searobin Prionotus evolans 1.81 Scup Stenotomus chrysops 1.38 Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus 1.01 Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 1.00 Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 0.87 Black sea bass Centropristisstriata 0.83 Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0.76 River herring Alosa spp. 0.75 Unknown spp. Unknown spp. 0.52 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-26 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation Average Density (ni10 0 mr) 1 1 (2)

Common Name( ) Scientific Name( )

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus 0.52 Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 0.51 Rainbow smelt Osmerus punctatus 0.48 Northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 0.45 Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus 0.44 Conger eel Conger oceanicus 0.43 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 0.43 Temperate bass Morone sp. 0.38 Rough silverside Membras martinica 0.36 Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 0.36 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.33 White mullet Mugil curema 0.32 Spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 0.28 Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 0.27 Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 0.26 Crevalle jack Caranx hippos 0.25 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.24 Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 0.24 Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis 0.23 Lookdown Selene vomer 0.20 Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 0.20 Permit Trachinotus falcatus 0.16 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0.14 Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 0.14 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.14 Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 0.14 Sheepshead Archosargusprobatocephalus 0.13 Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus 0.13 Fourspot flounder Paralichthysoblongus 0.12 Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis 0.12 Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 0.12 Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus 0.11 Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens 0.11 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 0.11 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.11 Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterusfaber 0.10 White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0.10 Unidentifiable Fish Unidentifiable fish 0.10 White catfish Ameiurus catus 0.10 White sucker Catostomus commersoni 0.09 Spotfin killifish Fundulus luciae 0.09 Pigfish Orthopristischrysoptera 0.09 Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 0.09 Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 0.09 Bluespotted cornetfish Fistulariatabacaria 0.09 Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 0.08 Goosefish Lophius amenicanus 0.08 Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum 0.07 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 0.07 September 2010 4-27 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation Average Density (n/10r rn)

Common Name(1 ) Scientific Name 1 ) (2)

Redfin pickerel Esox americanus 0.07 Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 0.07 Redeared sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0.07 Tautog Tautoga onitis 0.06 Fat sleeper Dormitatormaculatus 0.06 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0.06 Cownose Rhinoptera bonasus 0.06 Satinfin shiner Cyprinella analostana 0.06 Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 0.06 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 0.06 Green goby Microgobius thalassinus 0.06 Eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea 0.06 Mud sunfish Acantharchuspomotis 0.05 Atlantc sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus 0.05 Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiuruslepturus 0.05 Southern kingfish Menticirrhusamericanus 0.05 (1) Species in bold are RS at Salem.

(2) Average density expressed as number of fish impinged (n) per million (106) cubic meters (M3) of water withdrawn through the intake screens.

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

1 2 Due to the differences in methods used during the more than 30 years since Salem Unit 1 3 began commercial operation in 1978, it is difficult to compare impingement estimates across 4 studies. The NRC staff used impingement density as a metric to evaluate trends in 5 impingement and abundance of RS in water withdrawn at the Salem intake over the operational 6 period 1978 through 2008 (Table 4-16). NRC Staff plotted itmpingement density-was-plotted by 7 year to, and the resulting graphso provided an indication of trends in the abundance of RS 8 species at the Salem intake. The annual average densities of most of the 13 RS were highly 9 variable from year to year, but trends were discernable for all but three species (Atlantic 10 silverside, bay anchovy, and bluefish). Spot was the only species with an apparent overall trend 11 of declining densities. In contrast, the densities of Atlantic menhaden appear to show a slight 12 increasing trend, and the densities of eight species (alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, 13 blue crab, blueback herring, striped bass, weakfish, and white perch) show apparent increasing 14 trends, with most beginning notable increases in densities around 1993 to 1998. Overall, 15 impingement densities of 12 of the 13 RS generally have been stable or increasing over the 16 decades during which Salem has operated. The trend of declining densities of spot appears to 17 reflect a widespread reduction in abundance in the species range well beyond Delaware Bay 18 (ASFMC, 2008) and, thus, does not appear to be associated with Salem. Overall, these 19 apparent trends do not supqqestfindate impacts on most fish populations in the estuary in the 20 vicinity of the intake over the period of Salem operation. Salem iss not implicated as a 21 substantial

• • ontibutor to possible delines in abund.an*e*, of spot.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-28 September 2010

m 0

0 z 3 CD Table 4-16. Impingement Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978-2008 C 3 6 3 Density (nil0 M )

0)

Taxon 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 0)

Alewife 0.26 0.95 0.89 26.35 2.02 0.75 3.81 0.13 0.75 2.04 0.94 3.70 1.33 0.75 0.89 0.91 0

O CD American shad 0.12 0.39 0.41 0.38 0.69 0.38 0.20 0.48 0.64 1.04 1.57 2.78 0.70 1.14 4.04 0.95 -0 3 0.70 0.15 0.30 0.09 9.36 7.23 43.97 0.42 1.66 0.25 3.21 7.55 11.22 Atlantic croaker 7.04 0.42 5.89 (D CD 01)

Atlantic menhaden - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Atlantic silverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 O3 Bay anchovy 228.56 204.95 459.35 406.60 97.15 142.69 106.59 81.99 SS.35 78.23 94.96 19.52 36.61 40.94 17.09 16.44 Blue crab 56.97 44.45 151.83 66.59 16.33 16.24 19.73 141.62 181.63 109.58 160.39 47.22 38.04 45.42 75.99 65.48 Blueback herring 28.28 27.13 17.98 14.93 17.79 10.80 54.15 4.54 10.04 4.40 7.90 27.43 4.70 6.19 5.27 2.77 Bluefish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Spot 15.42 52.60 17.58 45.34 60.92 47.50 32.48 4.37 3.85 0.09 96.29 7.08 5.43 5.38 0.12 0.98 Striped bass 0.83 2.58 0.64 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.39 1.95 1.62 3.84 3.84 2.08 3.59 15.85 Weakfish 910.81 149.03 105.78 78.91 43.69 49.78 30.34 55.38 36.60 52.25 18.39 7.27 10.70 25.20 48.07 40.86 White perch 32.27 69.78 33.33 33.24 25.47 20.91 23.30 25.69 75.29 49.20 38.93 52.33 57.08 52.80 55.23 123.43 3

Density (n/106 M )

Taxon 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alewife 0.65 3.09 5.47 10.8 12.09 15.78 27.41 20.55 13.91 4.84 25.99 8.19 2.41 7.66 0.66 American shad 0.32 3.1 2.63 1 3.39 14.5 3.82 0.57 0.79 6.43 43.24 10.11 4.01 16.98 1.7 Atlantic croaker 3.59 887.71 112.71 623.81 1489.08 625.94 403.53 412.56 3820.65 101.22 626.74 845.57 1405.31 951.09 545.25 Atlantic menhaden - 14.72 9.9 38.36 78.79 15.78 20.5 25.55 88.9 6.26 4.82 22.22 44 27.49 57.85 Atlantic silverside - 44.15 12.61 40.7 43.54 111.15 49.67 42.28 78.46 35.67 25.71 24.08 46.89 44.52 56.28 CO 89.5 93.89 49.33 202.44 132.62 72.27 Bay anchovy 5.11 136.82 66.52 229.13 367 127.83 122.62 84.1 74.09 Blue crab 88.60 1901.05 620.48 2033.08 824.27 636.84 393.89 606.88 502.13 76.41 171.28 1895.82 694.73 797.66 640.45 Blueback herring 1.30 30.78 8.64 126.62 107.8 110.7 73.14 81.06 31.05 23.27 156.55 19.75 25.37 17.76 7.34 Bluefish - 2.69 8.88 6.41 4.79 2.55 6 1.14 7.89 8.14 11.67 2.06 7.44 2.95 5.7 Spot 26.78 10.28 3.38 88.74 3.94 0.53 7.28 0.05 0.34 0.8 0.14 56.11 10.38 3.73 23.65 Striped bass 0.73 64.89 82.05 62.91 28.61 52.83 102.49 54.62 20.04 159.93 110.86 29.72 10.22 47.88 32.56 Weakfish 132.51 1071.27 441.89 1370.74 528.95 228.01 369.57 524.64 172.98 530.71 725.72 930.88 343.81 379.65 304.8 White Derch 96.26 641.12 543.08 1625.16 425.98 384.33 273.32 263.56 427.71 1771.18 2113.19 1042.62 360.51 429.81 662.14 Note: Blank spaces (-) indicate the species was not identifiedellGeted in impingement samples that year.

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; Cl) PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006b; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c).

CD 3

CD C-CD

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 IM.p ent-Reductions in Impingement Mortality 2 Due to the potential for impingement to have adverse effects on the aquatic environment in the 3 I vicinity of Salem--ai*d andin response to thc requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit, PSEG 4 has taken steps to reduce impingement mortality and its effects in the Delaware Estuary. PSEG 5 has made many improvements to the cooling water intake system at Salem over the years, 6 including modifications to the intake screens and fish return system (PSEG, 1999a).

7 Improved intake screen panels that have a smooth mesh surface were installed to allow 8 impinged fish to more easily slide across the panels. The Ristroph buckets and screen-wash 9 system were modified to increase survival of impinged organisms. The new buckets are 10 constructed from smooth, non-metallic materials and have several design elements that 11 minimize turbulence inside the bucket, including a reshaped lower lip, mounting hardware 12 located behind the screen mesh, a flow spoiler inside the bucket, and flap seals to prevent fish 13 and debris from bypassing their respective troughs (PSEG, 1999a). The screen wash system 14 was redesigned to provide an optimal spray pattern using low-pressure nozzles to more gently 15 remove organisms from the screens prior to use of high pressure nozzles that remove debris.

16 In addition, the maximum screen rotation speed was increased from 17.5 feet per minute (fpm) 17 (5.3 m/min) to 35 fpm (11 m/min) to reduce the differential pressure across the screens during 18 times of high debris loading. The screens are continuously rotated, and the rotation speed 19 automatically adjusts as the pressure differential increases. The fish return trough was 20 redesigned from the original rectangular trough to incorporate a custom formed fiberglass 21 trough with radius rounded corners. The fish return system has a bi-directional flow that is 22 coordinated with the tidal cycle to minimize re-impingement. The flow from the trough 23 discharges to the downstream side of the cooling water intake system on the ebb tide and to the 24 upstream side on the flood tide (PSEG, 1999a).

25 PSEG (1999a) reports eEstimates of impingement mortality with the modified screens-we-e 26 compared to estimates ofd mortality with the original screens to assess the reduction in 27 impingement mortality due to the screen modifications. The assessment relied on dData from 28 impingement studies conducted in 1995, 1997, and 1998 were used for this assessment of the 29 modified screens and. These data were compared to data collected in 1978 through 1982 30 when impingement survival studies were conducted for the original screen configuration. A 31 side-by-side comparison also was conducted in 1995 when only one of the units had the 32 modified intake system. Table 4-17 showing data from PSEG (1999a) provides a comparison of 33 estimated impingement mortality rates for the original screens versus the modified screens 34 (P-S4E GI -a).

35 PSEG (1999a) concluded that rlesults from the comparison of 1997 and 1998 data for the 36 modified screens to data from 1978 to 1982 for the original screens indicates that the modified 37 intake system generally provides reductions in impingement mortality. They found that wWhite 38 perch, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, and Alosa species (blueback herring, alewife, and 39 American shad combined) had lower mortality rates for all months studied during the 1997 and 40 1998 studies compared to those estimated for the 1978 to 1982 study of the original screens. In 41 contrast, weakfish had higher mortality rates for the modified screens in June and July, but 42 lower in August and September. Those authors speculated that t-This difference may result from 43 the much smaller size of the weakfish impinged in June and July - impingement mortality rates 44 for smaller fish generally are higher than for larger fish (however, they are lower than estimated 45 entrainment mortality rates, and the modifications to improve impingement survival increase this Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-30 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 difference). Pseq (1999a) found that tlhe 1995 side-by-side study showed higher survival rate 2 estimates for weakfish with the modified screens- (PSEG, 1999*a.

3 Table 4-17. Comparison of Impingement Mortality Rates (percent) for Original Screens 4 (1978-1982 and 1995 Studies) and Modified Screens (1995 and 1997-1998 Studies)

Original Screens Modified Screens Taxon Month 1978-1982 1995 1995 1997-1998 Weakfish June 39 33 17 79 July 51 31 18 82 August 52 51 25 38 September 40 - 12 October 53 -

White perch January 13 -

February 16 -

March 12 -

April 15 - 7 October 21 -

November 16 - 7 December 8 2 Bay anchovy April 54 May 81 55 June 89 78 July 90 80 August 85 September 72 October 65 35 November 32 28 Atlantic croaker April 42 May 34 June 28 July 35 October 5 November 2 Dec-Jan 49 15 Spot June 31 September 2010 4-31 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation July 48 August 47 Original Screens Modified Screens October 38 -

November 19 -- 7 December 29 -

Alosa species Mar-Apr 89 -- 18 Oct - Dec 31 -- 22 Note: Mortality rate estimates for Alosa species for original screens are based on blueback herring only while estimates for modified screens are based on Alosa species (blueback herring, alewife, and American shad combined). Estimates include initial and 48-hr latent mortalities.

Blank spaces (-) indicate months in which the species was not identifiedGolleGted in sufficient numbers in the impingement survival studies to allow reliable estimates of impingement mortality rates.

Source: PSEG, 1999a.

1 4.5.4 Heat Shock 2 NRC uses the term Heat shock to refer to the isdefined as "acute thermal stress caused by 3 exposure to a sudden elevation of water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and 4 behavior of fish and can lead to death.-__ (RC, 209),j.n HHeat shock can occur at power plants 5 when the cooling water discharge elevates the temperature of the surrounding water.

6 The NRC considers heat shock to be a gieneric (Category 11 issue at power plants with closed-7 cycle cooling systems. HCGS uses closed-cycle cooling;-therefee-,and if NRC finds no new 8 and significant information, site-specific evaluation is not required to determine that impacts to 9 fish and shellfish from heat shock associated with the continued operation of HCGS during the 10 renewal term would be SMALL. In contrast, heat shock is a site-specific (Category 21 issue at 11 power plants with once-through cooling systems. Salem has a once-through cooling system; 12 therefore, heat shock is considered a Category 2 issue for Salem, and a site-specific analysis is 13 required to determine the level of impact that heat shock may have on the aquatic environment.

14 The potential for heat shock at Salem is discussed below.

15 Regulatory Backgiround 16 The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is a federal interstate compact agency charged 17 with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin without regard to political 18 boundaries. It regulates water quality in the Delaware River and Delaware Estuary through 19 DRBC Water Quality Regulations, including temperature standards. The temperature standards 20 for Water Quality Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary, where the Salem discharge is located, state 21 that the temperature in the river outside of designated heat dissipation areas (HDAs) may not be 22 raised above ambient by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (OF; 2.2 degrees Celsius [°C]) during 23 non-summer months (September through May) or 1.50 F (0.8°C) during the summer (June 24 through August), and a maximum temperature of 86 0 F (30.0°C) in the river cannot be exceeded 25 year-round (DRBC, 2001; DRBC, 2008). HDAs are zones outside of which the DRBC 26 temperature-increase standards shall not be exceeded. HDAs are established on a case-by-27 case basis. The thermal mixing zone requirements and HDAs that had been in effect for Salem 28 since it initiated operations in 1977 were modified by the DRBC in 1995 and again in 2001 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-32 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 (DRBC, 2001), and the 2001 requirements were included in the 2001 NJPDES permit. The 2 HDAs at Salem are seasonal. In the summer period (June through August), the Salem HDA 3 extends 25,300 ft (7,710 m) upstream and 21,100 ft (6,430 m) downstream of the discharge and 4 does not extend closer than 1,320 ft (402 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel. In 5 the non-summer period (September through May), the HDA extends 3,300 ft (1,000 m) 6 upstream and 6,000 ft (1,800 m) downstream of the discharge and does not extend closer than 7 3,200 ft (970 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel (DRBC, 2001).

8 Section 316(a) of the CWA regulates thermal discharges from power plants. This regulation 9 includes a process by which a discharger can obtain a variance from thermal discharge limits 10 when it can be demonstrated that the limits are more stringent than necessary to protect aquatic 11 life (33 USC 1326). PSEG submitted a comprehensive Section 316(a) study for Salem in 1974, 12 filed three supplements through 1979, and provided further review and analysis in 1991 and 13 1993. In 1994, NJDEP granted PSEG's request for a thermal variance and concluded that the 14 continued operation of Salem in accordance with the terms of the NJPDES permit "would 15 ensure the continued protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population of 16 aquatic life" in the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 1994). The 1994 permit continued the same 17 thermal limitations that had been imposed by the prior NJPDES permits for Salem. This 18 variance has been continued through the current NJPDES permit. PSEG subsequently 19 provided comprehensive Section 316(a) Demonstrations in the 1999 and 2006 NJPDES permit 20 renewal applications for Salem. NJDEP reissued the Section 316(a) variance in the 2001 21 NJPDES Permit (NJDEP, 2001).

22 The Section 316(a) variance for Salem limits the temperature of the discharge, the difference in 23 temperature (AT) between the thermal plume and the ambient water, and the rate of water 24 withdrawal from the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 2001). During the summer,-per4e* the 25 maximum permissible discharge temperature is 115°F (46.10C). In non-summer months, the 26 maximum permissible discharge temperature is 11 0 0 F (43.3°C). The maximum permissible 27 temperature differential year round is 27.5°F (15.30C). The permit also limits the amount of 28 water that Salem withdraws to a monthly average of 3,024 MGD (11 million m 3/day) (NJDEP, 29 2001).

30 In 2006, PSEG submitted an NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006a) with a request 31 for renewal of the Section 316(a) variance. The variance renewal request summarizes studies 32 that have been conducted at the Salem plant, including the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, 33 and evaluates the changes in the thermal discharge characteristics, facility operations, and 34 aquatic environment since the time of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration. PSEG 35 concluded that Salem's thermal discharge had not changed significantly since the 1999 36 application and that the thermal variance should be continued. In 2006, NJDEP administratively 37 continued Salem's NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), including the Section 316(a) variance. No 38 timeframe for issuance of the new NJPDES permit has been determined.

39 Characteristics of the Thermal Plume 40 Cooling water from Salem is discharged through six adjacent 10 ft (3 m) diameter pipes spaced 41 15 ft (4.6 m) apart on center that extend approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the shore (PSEG, 42 1999c). The discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they discharge horizontally 43 into the water of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 31 ft (9.5 m). The discharge 44 is approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. Figure 4-1 provides a plan view of the September 2010 4-33 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Salem discharge, and Figure 4-2 is a section view. At full power, Salem is designed to 2 discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s).

3 The location of the discharge and its general design characteristics have remained essentially 4 the same over the period of operation of the Salem facility (PSEG, 1999c).

5 The thermal plume at Salem can be defined by the regulatory thresholds contained in the DRBC 6 water quality regulations, consisting of the 1.50 F (0.830C) isopleth of AT during the summer 7 period and the 4 0 F (2.20C) isopleth of AT during non-summer months. Thermal modeling, to 8 characterize the thermal plume, has been conducted numerous times over the period of 9 operation of Salem. Since Unit 2 began operation in 1981, operations at Salem have been 10 essentially the same and studies have indicated that the characteristics of the thermal plume 11 have remained relatively constant (PSEG, 1999c).

12 The most recent thermal modeling was conducted during the 1999 Section 316(a) 13 Demonstration. Three linked models were used to characterize the size and shape of the 14 thermal plume: an ambient temperature model, a far-field model (RMA-1 0), and a near-field 15 model (CORMIX). The plume is narrow and approximately follows the contour of the shoreline 16 at the discharge. The width of the plume varies from about 4,000 ft (1,200 m) on the flood tide 17 to about 10,000 ft (3,000 m) on the ebb tide. The maximum plume length extends to 18 approximately 43,000 ft (13,000 m) upstream and 36,000 ft (11,000 m) downstream (PSEG, 19 1999c). Figures 4-3 through 4-6 depict the expansion and contraction of the surface and bottom 20 plumes through the tidal cycle. Table 4-18 includes the surface area occupied by the plume 21 within each AT isopleth through the tidal cycle.

22 The thermal plume consists of a near-field region, a transition region, and a far-field region. The 23 near-field region, also referred to as the zone of initial mixing, is the region closest to the outlet 24 of the discharge pipes where the mixing of the discharge with the waters of the Delaware 25 Estuary is induced by the velocity of the discharge itself. The length of the near-field region is 26 approximately 300 ft (90 m) during ebb and flood tides and 1,000 ft (300 m) during slack tide.

27 The transition region is the area where the plume spreads horizontally and stratifies vertically 28 due to the buoyancy of the warmer waters. The length of the transition region is approximately 29 700 ft (200 m). In the far-field region, mixing is controlled by the ambient currents induced 30 mainly by the tidal nature of the receiving water. The ebb tide draws the discharge downstream, 31 and the flood tide draws it upstream. The boundary of the far-field region is delineated by a line 32 of constant AT (PSEG, 1999c).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-34 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-18. Surface Area within Each AT Contour through the Tidal Cycle Ebb: 6/2/1998 at End of Ebb: Flood: 6/4/1998 at End of Flood:

0830 hrs 6/2/1998 at 0000 hrs 1630 hrs 5/3111998 at 1600 hrs Surface Percent of Surface Percent of Surface Percent of Surface Percent of AT Area Estuary Area Estuary Area Estuary Area Estuary

(*F) (Acres) Area (Acres) Area (Acres) Area (Acres) Area

>13 0.08 0.00002 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00000

>12 0.46 0.00010 0.47 0.00010 0.21 0.00004 0.00 0.00000

>11 0.98 0.00020 2.15 0.00045 0.61 0.00013 0.00 0.00000

>10 1.66 0.00034 2.15 0.00045 1.15 0.00024 0.85 0.00018

>9 222 0.00046 2.15 0.00045 1.82 0.00038 1.93 0.00040

>8 319 0.00066 2.15 0.00045 2.64 0.00055 1.93 0.00040

>7 4,32 0.00090 5.10 0.00106 3.59 0.00075 1.93 0.00040

>6 5,61 0.00116 11.32 0.00235 4.68 0.00097 1.93 0.00040

>5 36.60 0.00760 21.43 0.00445 56.58 0.01174 2.14 0.00044

>4 150.08 0.03115 45.11 0.00936 245.94 0.05105 205.37 0.04263

>3 631.42 0.13106 739.88 0.15357 585.78 0.12158 920.75 0.19111

>2 1947.91 0.40430 2519.94 0.52303 2212.75 0.45927 2093.04 0.43442

>1.5 3156.56 0.65517 3725.19 0.77319 3703.61 0.76871 3596.95 0.74657 Notes:

Plant Conditions: Low flow (140,000 gpm/pump), high AT (18.6 0 F).

Total surface area of the estuary is 481,796 acres.

To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.4047.

Reasonable worst-case tide phases were selected based on analysis of time-temperature curves.

Running tides (e.g., ebb and flood) include area approximation of the intermediate field.

Source: PSEG, 1999c.

September 2010 4-35 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1

10vol" Rio Rap

,21 4

-26.4 ,31 N

/

W

.01

~. -

• ,if*"

3=4~ a, Few Deav us0 promma.. MLW 2

3 4 Figure 4-1. Plan View of Salem discharge pipes (Source: PSEG, 1999c).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-36 September 2010

C',

CD

-n

_0 0~ CD CD cn 0D 0

C.,

cn G)

CD wD 0

z CD m

0 c 0

_0 CD 0

37

~1

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 W001, i...

36,30oU*

34,3003 32)GQPD 32i00 NJ 2?8)00*

4 F S22,)C*0 ~ &i LANC) 24r0*xio 14JOC E 1,50) ......... <':

0000*:

62)00}

43 000 ,...

23 00

• 0 SCALE INA01ES 7

1 041 Ea--1 , 1"I ( NSPCS) 1 2 Figure 4-3. Surface AT isotherms for Salem's longest plume at the end of flood on May 3 31, 1998 (Source: PSEG, 1999c).

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-38 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1

2 Figure 4-4. Surface AT isotherms for Salem at the end of ebb on June 2, 1998 (Source:

3 PSEG, 1999c).

September 2010 4-39 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 340~000 3a0000 r

/

28 000O hlJ/

2C00CO K~K ~

2200GOf 20000DJ 14 C200~0 DE 12M000 100000 4-000 20000

ýKý NMWUi (A 0 r, .L3 2C00000 no feei ý,JGPC8,,

2 Figure 4-5. Bottom AT isotherms for Salem's longest plume at the end of the flood on 3 May 31, 1998 (Source: PSEG, 1999c).

4 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-40 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 400000 38000D 360000 34 M000 320000 300000 230000 ARTiFICIAL 24000M ýSLANIQ

~2Fi~ ~

Ž20000 p 200000 z

160-00(

DE 1413000 120000 10000o 80000

.0 400)0 1700000 18000001900000 2000000 Easti tg, f"i fNJ $PCS) 2 Figure 4-6. Bottom AT isotherms for Salem at the end of the ebb on June 2, 1998 3 (Source: PSEG,'1999c).

4 September 2010 4-41 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Thermal Discharge Studies 2 Extensive studies were conducted at Salem between 1968 and 1999 to determine the effects of 3 the thermal plume on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary. Initial studies were 4 conducted in 1968 to determine the location and design for the outfall that would best minimize 5 the potential for adverse environmental effects. Several hydrothermal and biothermal studies 6 subsequently have been conducted in support of requests for variance from thermal discharge 7 limitations pursuant to Section 316(a). The Section 316(a) Demonstrations from 1974 through 8 1979 evaluated information on the life history, geographical distribution, and thermal tolerances 9 of the RIS compared to the characteristics of the projected thermal plume. Supplements 10 included information on the potential for Salem's thermal plume to promote the presence of 11 undesirable organisms; use of the area in the vicinity of the Salem facility as spawning and 12 nursery habitat; attraction of fish to the thermal plume and the potential for cold shock; effects of 13 thermal plume entrainment on ichthyoplankton and zooplankton; effects of the plume on 14 migration of anadromous fishes; and effects of the thermal plume on macroinvertebrates, such 15 as blue crabs, oysters (Crassostreavirginica), and shipworms (Teredinidae), and other benthos 16 (PSEG, 1975).

17 In 1995, PSEG applied to the DRBC for revision of the Salem Docket to provide seasonal HDAs 18 to assure compliance with DRBC's water quality regulations. PSEG used mathematical 19 modeling and statistical analyses to characterize the maximum size of the summer thermal 20 plume (June through August) and non-summer thermal plume (September through May) in 21 terms of the 24-hr average AT between the thermal plume and ambient water temperatures.

22 PSEG also updated the information collected on the thermal tolerances, preferences, and 23 avoidances of the RIS and conducted an evaluation of the potential for the thermal plume to 24 have adverse effects on these species. The assessment indicated that Salem's thermal plume 25 and the proposed HDAs would not have the potential to adversely affect aquatic life or 26 recreational uses in the Delaware Estuary, and the DRBC granted the requested HDAs (PSEG, 27 1999c).

28 In 1999 PSEG submitted an application to renew the NJPDES permit for Salem, and the 29 Section 316(a) Demonstration included provided another thermal plume characterization, 30 biothermal assessment, and detailed analysis of the potential effects of Salem's thermal plume 31 on the aquatic community. NJDEP reviewed this Section 316(a) Demonstration, determined 32 that a "thermal discharge at the Station, which does not exceed a maximum of 115 OF, is 33 expected to assure the protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population," and 34 included a Section 316(a) variance in Salem's 2001 NJPDES permit (NJDEP, 2001).

35 The 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration includes the most detailed and most recent evaluation 36 of the potential effects of the thermal discharge on the aquatic environment near Salem. This 37 evaluation includes a four-part assessment of the potential for the discharge to negatively affect 38 the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary, including consideration of the 39 following factors: (1) the vulnerability of the aquatic community to thermal effects; (2) the 40 potential for the survival, growth, and reproduction of the RIS to be affected; (3) the potential for 41 effects of other pollutants to be increased by heat; and (4) evidence of prior appreciable harm 42 from the thermal discharge (PSEG, 1999c).

43 PSEG (1999d) cGoncluded that sionR of the vulnerablity analysis indicates that the location and 44 design of Salem's discharge minimize the potential for adverse environmental effects. They Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-42 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 reported that tlhe high exit velocity produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to 2 relatively small areas in the zone of initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish 3 and other nektonic organisms are essentially excluded from these areas due to high velocities 4 and turbulence. (PSEG, 1999c) found that tihe offshore location and rapid dilution of the 5 thermal discharge also places the highest temperature plumes in an area of the Estuary where 6 productivity is lowest-(PSE4.G, 1 999r.

7 The RIS evaluation in the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999c) included an 8 assessment of the potential for the thermal plume to adversely affect survival, growth, and 9 reproduction of the selected RIS. The RIS included alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),American 10 shad (Alosa sapidissima),Atlantic croaker (Micropogoniasundulatus), bay anchovy (Anchoa 11 mitchilli), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), striped bass (Morone 12 saxatilis), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), white perch (Morone americana),blue crab (Callinectes 13 sapidus), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and scud (Gammarus daiberi, G. fasciatus, 14 G. tigrinus). For each of the RIS, temperature requirements and preferences as well as thermal 15 limits were identified and compared to temperatures in the thermal plume to which these 16 species may be exposed (PSEG, 1999c).

17 This biothermal assessment (PSEG, 1999c) concluded that Salem's thermal plume would not 18 have substantial effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of the selected species from 19 heat-induced mortality. Scud, blue crab, and juvenile and adult American shad, alewife, 20 blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, Atlantic croaker, and spot have higher thermal 21 tolerances than the temperature of the plume in areas where their swimming ability would allow 22 them to be exposed. PSEG (1999c) concluded that jJuvenile and adult weakfish and bay 23 anchovy could come into contact with plume waters that exceed their thermal tolerances during 24 the warmer months, but the mobility of these organisms shouldis- expete4-te allow them to 25 avoid contact with these temperatures (PE 1 99,-9G).

26 The biothermal assessment also concluded that less-mobile organisms, such as scud, juvenile 27 blue crab, and fish eggs, would not be likely to experience mortality from being transported 28 through the plume. American shad, alewife, blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, 29 Atlantic croaker, spot, and weakfish are not likely to spawn in the vicinity of the discharge.

30 Scud, juvenile blue crab, and eggs and larvae that do occur in the vicinity of the discharge have 31 higher temperature tolerances than the maximum temperature of the centerline of the plume in 32 average years. PSEG (1999c) concluded that oOpossum shrimp, weakfish, and bay anchovy 33 may experience some mortality during peak summer water temperatures in warm years 34 (approximately 1 to 3 percent of the time)-(P&SEG, 1-999e).

35 Interactions of heat with other pollutants were also evaluated in the 1999 Section 316(a) 36 Demonstration. The assessment concluded that the thermal plume has no observable effects 37 on the dissolved oxygen level near the Salem discharge. In addition, the assessment indicates 38 that there is no potential for plume interaction with other contaminants in the Estuary from other 39 industrial, municipal, or agricultural sources such as polycarbonated biphenyols (PCBs),

40 dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

41 tetrachloroethene (PCE), dichloroethene (DCE), and copper due to the low concentrations of 42 such contaminants in the vicinity of Salem (PSEG, 1999c).

43 As part of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, an analysis of the biological community in 44 the Delaware Estuary was conducted to determine whether there has been evidence of September 2010 4-43 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 changes within the community that could be attributable to the thermal discharge at Salem.

2 I PSEG (1999c) concluded that observed changes in the species composition or overall 3 abundance in organisms in the estuary since Salem began operation are within the range 4 expected to occur as a result of natural variation or changes in water quality. PSEG found no

5. indications of increases in populations of nuisance species or stress-tolerant species, and it 6 found statistically significant increases in the abundance of juveniles for almost all species of 7 RIS evaluated. PSEG (1999c) concluded that a declining trend for blueback herring was a 8 coast-wide trend and not related to Salem's operation (PSEG, 194-ooQ.

-9 1 4.5.5 Restoration ActivitiesTota! Impact on Aquatic R.sourc.s 10 The principal means by which the Salem; facility may affect aquatic resources6 of the Delaware 11 Estuary are the processes of entrainment and impingement of orFganismns at the cooling wateF 12 intake and the discharge of thermnal effluent. These processes simultaneously and cumulatively 13 affect the aquatic comnmunity of the estuary, ro assessment of their collective impacts i6 14 warranted. Because the Salemq facility has been operating for more than 30 years, the total 15 impacts Of its o)peration are integrated and reflected in the condition of the ecosystem of the 16 estuary. in adMOa Ro, Ras ocen operating ror over 2- years ana, aRRnougn Rts use OT waler 17 from the estuary is substantially less than Salem, it contributes Ito the impacts 18 discuIsed herein. By evaluating total iVpaGctS frM the hisoFrical, long term operation of these 19 facilities and the beneficial effectS Of ongoing restoration activities, total imApacts on the estuary 20 f. rom futur eoperation during the relicensing period can be assessed.

21 22 PSEG prepared an assessment of Adverse EnviFromental Imnpact for the Salem facility as part 23 of its, 2006 NJPIDES application (PSE=G, 2006a). The asse~ssment analyzed the composition of 24 the fish community in the vicinity, trends6 in the relative abundance o~f the IRS, and the long term 25 SUStainability of fish stocks in the Delaware Estuary. The assessment demAonstrated that the 26 Salemn cooling water intake has not caused and is unlikely to cause in the futur subsantial 27 harmn to the sustainability of populations of important aquatic spcis includin threatened or 28 e.pecies, Or t the struG re and function of the eosystem inthe Delaware Estuay 29 30 PSEG (2006a) calculated estimates of production lost due to imigeet and entrainment at 31 Salem for the 13 IRS, or target species, of PSE=Gs monitoring rga (i e., American shad, 32 alewife, Atlanti croaker, Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic *ilverside,bay anchovy, blueback herring, 33 bluefish, spot, striped bass, weakfish, white perch, and blue crab). These species make up 34 morGe than 98 percent of the age 0 biomass lost to ipnentand entrainment. ProducGtionR 35 lost was calculated fi-rtyearo ie using data on biomass rdcinfron a lestriccto impngmet sn ieaueetmtsoand entrainment from 2002 r~hrts 36 through 2004 and adding projections Of producItion for egone for those organisms through the 37 38 Biomass fi

• e vOee Fo lostietoimnget viin ~d G and entrainment . wPi;A.as Gte estimated lieat.

to be 138,057 evstiv a%

pounds G F

(!b6) hFts wet 39 weight'year (yr; 62,623 kilograms, [kg] wet weightYr)0. Production forgone wasestim~ated tobe 40 4,664,837 lbs wet weight'yr (2,115,9170 kg wetwightVy). Pro~duction lost was therefr 41 estimated to be 1,802,891 lbs wet w ie-II ghty (2 ,178,593 kg wet weigh* tl). Producti0n lost was 42 also GaI*culated separately for river he*ring to facilitate direct comparison. of loss to prodwution 43 gained from restoration activities (fish ladders). The producGtion of river hering* foregone due to Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-44 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 impigemnt and entarainment losses was estimated to be 6,093 lbs wet weight/yr (2,764 kg wet 2 weight'yr) (PSEG, 200Wa.

3 PSEG (2006a) analyzed data on the composition of the fish communinRty in the Delaware Es:tuary 4 over the period from 197-0 through 2004 to estimate species richness and species density.

5 Species richness is the nuwmbher oef -pecie- pr-eset in a commu1nity regardless; of the area 6 analyzed; species densit" is the number of species per unit of area or volume. Neafed 7 sampling using a 16 ft (4.9 m) bottom trawl was conducted in most years since 19:70. Bottom 8 trawl data f -* 1970 to 1977, the pre operational period, were c.mpared to data fro)m 1986 to 9 2004, the operational period. Species richness and density in the vicinity of Salem generally 10 were higher for the operational period than the pre. operationRal period, though no long term 11 trends in species richness Or density were evident (PSEG, 2006a).

12 PSE&G (2006a) also evaluated abundance data for the IRS at Salem to assess long term 13 population trends. Government agencies and PSEG have conducted several monitoring 14 programs in the Delaware Estuary far many years. Data from four. monitorin programs were 15 used by PSEG (2006a) for the trends analysis: the DNREC juvenile TrFawl Survey, the NJDEP 16 Beach Seine Surwey, the PSEG Bay wide Bottom Trawl Survey, and the PSEG Beach Seine 17 Surv.ey. Results of the PSEG tre*ds anRalysi indi.ate that seven species (alewife, Amnerican 18 shad, Atlantic croaker, blue crab, sti4ped bass, weakfish, and white pe.rh) have .howna trend 19 of generally incesn abundance, one species (spot) has shown a trend of declining 20 abundance',-a~nd the remRaining five species (Atlantic m~enhaden, Atlantic silverside, bay 21 anc hovy, and bluebhcn k herring) 6hoW no) clear trn~ds in abuRdance oveF the long term iR the 22 Delaware stuar-y (PSEG, 2006a).

23 Stock assessment data are lacking forF Spot, the only species to show a long termn decline in the 24 trends analysis. Significant population fluctuations are expected because spot are shodt lived 25 adtheir nmesare directly affected by changing enviFronmental conditions insawigand 26 nursery area in a gie year. Spot use brackish and saltwater habitats ail fo 27 Chesapeake Bay to South Carolina, and those that spend the summer in the no~thern pGotwGn o 28 their range m..ve south in autumn. A coastwide assessment of the species has not been 29 pe~formed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commiss6ion (ASFMVC), but National Marine 30 Fmisheries Serice (NMF=S) landings data and survey data from several States proideincaos 31 of spot abundanRe. Annual coastal landiRgs data for spot beginning in 1950 fluctuate 32 signifi*a*tly but indicate a gradual declining t*e* d in comm..r.ia landings through 2005.

33 juvenile abundance indices for spot have been highly variable, were below average in 2006 in 34 the Delaware Estuary, and have generally declined in Chesapeake Bay since 1992.

35 Commercial catch -per unit effo~t for spot generally has inrGeased in Maryland since 1991 36 (ASEMO÷, 2008). GiveR theseIndGIatIons of a general decliRe iR spot abundance in theonh-hhe R 37 peotien of its range, the decline in abundance in the Delaware Estuary does not appear to be 38 related to the operation of the Salem facility.

39 PSE=&G (2006a) pe~fermed a stock jeopardy analysis to determine whether Salem has an 40 impact on the long term su-Stai-ability of fish stocks. The models used in the analysis assess 41 the effect of impingement and e*-rainment losses on spawnirnRg stock biom-a (SSB) and 42 spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBPR). These metrics are commonly used by fisheries 43 managers to establish maximum fishing rates forF managed fish populations. The stocGk jeopardy 44 analysis, utilizing methodology decr;ibed in Barnthouse t al. (2002), compared the estimated 45 impacts of Salem or these metrics with the impacts of fishing 9nthe same metrics. PSEG September 2010 4-45 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 (20066a) concluded that for those

• Pe*ies analyzed the efe tsof impingement.and entrainment 2 aro negligible cOMparcd to the effectS of fishing and that reducing Or eliminating impingcment 3 and entrainment at Salem would not measurably increase the reproductiVe potential orf 4 spanin stock biomass of any of these speciesc.

5 ResteFatieR 6 In addition to the changes in technology and operations of the Salem facility, PSEG has 7 implemented restoration activities that enhance the fish and shellfish populations in the 8 Delaware Estuary. In compliance with Salem's 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, PSEG 9 implemented the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP), which has preserved and/or restored 10 more than 20,000 acres (ac; 8,000 hectares [ha]) of wetland and adjoining upland buffers 11 (PSEG, 2009a).

12 In particular, the program restored 4,400 ac (1,800 ha) of formerly diked salt hay farms to 13 reestablish conditions suitable for the growth of low marsh vegetation such as saltmarsh cord 14 grass (Spartina alterniflora)and provide for tidal exchange with the estuary. These restored 15 wetlands increase the production of fish and shellfish by increasing primary production in the 16 detritus-based food web of the Delaware Estuary. Both primary and secondary consumers 17 benefit from this increase in production, including many of the RS at Salem and federally 18 managed species with essential fish habitat (EFH) in the estuary. PSEG (2006a) estimated the 19 increase in production of secondary consumers due to this restoration to be at least 18.6 million 20 lbs/yr (8.44 million kg/yr). These secondary consumers include species of fish and shellfish 21 affected by impingement and entrainment at Salem, as well as other species.

22 The EEP also included the installation of 13 fish ladders at impoundments in New Jersey and 23 Delaware (PSEG, 2009a). The fish ladders eliminate blockages to spawning areas for 24 anadromous fish species such as alewife and blueback herring (both RS at Salem). Fish 25 ladders were constructed in New Jersey at Sunset Lake, Stewart Lake (two ladders), Newton 26 Lake and Cooper River Lake, and in Delaware at Noxontown Pond, Silver Lake (Dover), Silver 27 Lake (Milford), McGinnis Pond, Coursey Pond, McColley Pond, Garrisons Lake, and Moore's 28 Lake (PSEG, 2009a). Most anadromous fish exhibit spawning site fidelity, returning to the same 29 areas where they hatched to spawn. Therefore, PSEG undertook a stocking program that 30 transplanted gravid adults into the newly accessible impoundments to induce future spawning 31 runs (PSEG, 2009a).

32 Along with the active restoration programs described above, PSEG has provided funding 33 through the EEP for many other programs in the area, including some managed by NJDEP and 34 the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC).

35 Examples of these funded programs are restoration of three areas in Delaware dominated by 36 common reed (Phragmitesaustralis), State-managed artificial reef programs, revitalization of 37 150 ac (61 ha) of State-managed oyster habitat, and restoration of 964 ac (390 ha) of degraded 38 wetlands at the Augustine Creek impoundment (PSEG, 2009a).

39 A requirement of the 2001 NJPDES permit for Salem was for PSEG to evaluate and quantify the 40 increased production associated with its restoration activities and compare it to the production 41 lost due to entrainment and impingement at the facility. These restoration production estimates 42 were provided in Section 7 of the 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006a).

43 The assessment included estimates of increased production associated with the restoration of 44 the three salt hay farms and 12 fish ladder sites. It did not include production associated with Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-46 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 the restoration of marshes dominated by common reed, upland buffer areas, and artificial reefs 2 (PSEG, 2006a).

3 PSEG (2006a) used an Aggregated Food Chain Model (AFCM) to estimate the annual 4 production (Ibs wet weight/yr) of secondary consumers attributable to the restoration of the salt 5 hay farm sites. This method used data for the biomass of above-ground vegetation collected 6 during the annual monitoring from 2002 through 2004 to estimate primary production 7 (production of above-ground marsh vegetation). This primary production was then converted to 8 production of secondary consumers through three trophic transfers: vegetation to detrital 9 complex (dissolved and particulate organic matter, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, 10 rotifers, copepods, and other microscopic organisms) to primary consumers (zooplankton and 11 macroinvertebrates) to secondary consumers (age-0 fish). PSEG also used two independent 12 methods, an ecosystem model and a fish abundance model, to corroborate the AFCM 13 estimates.

14 PSEG (2006a) calculated the production of secondary consumers attributable to the restoration 15 of the salt hay marsh sites to be 11,228,415 lbs wet weight/yr (5,093,209 kg wet weight/yr).

16 PSEG (2006a) concluded that the methods used were likely to have underestimated total 17 production attributable to the salt hay marsh restoration because they did not include production 18 associated with below-ground plant parts (roots and rhizomes), benthic algae, or other primary 19 producers such as photosynthetic bacteria. PSEG (2006a) estimated the increase in production 20 attributable to restoration of the salt hay farms to be 2.3 times the annual production lost from 21 impingement and entrainment at Salem.

22 PSEG (2006a) estimated the annual production of river herring (blueback herring and alewife) 23 attributable to the installation of fish ladders at 12 impoundments in New Jersey and Delaware 24 using results from surveys of juvenile fish in the impoundments, which were then converted to 25 weight using an age-1 average weight. PSEG (2006a) calculated the production of river herring 26 due to the fish ladders to be 944 lbs wet weight/yr (428 kg wet weight/yr), which it estimated 27 was equivalent to about 1/6 of the production of river herring lost to impingement and 28 entrainment at the facility.

29 4.5.6 Conclusions 30 Entrainment, impingement, a44-heat shock, and the restoration progqrams 31 simultaneouslyvGiuwm4 affect the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary. PSEG has 32 conducted extensive studies of the effects of entrainment (Section 4.5.2) and impingement 33 (Section 4.5.3) at Salem over the more than 30-yr period during which it has been operating.

34 PSEG also has conducted extensive studies of the thermal plume at Salem (Section 4.5.4) that 35 have shown that the thermal discharge from operation of the Salem facility has not had a 36 noticeable adverse effect on the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary in the 37 vicinity of the outfall. Thus, PSEG was granted a thermal variance in accordance with Section 38 316(a) of the CWA in 1994, and this variance remains a part of the current NJPDES permit 39 issued to PSEG in 2001 and was administratively continued in 2006. Multiple long-term, large-40 scale studies of the estuary by PSEG and State and Federal agencies have documented the 41 ecological condition of the estuary through time and allowed the analysis of long-term trends in 42 populations of RS. The results of the studies indicate that the processes of entrainment, 43 impingement, and thermal discharge collectively have not had a noticeable adverse effect on 44 the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem.

September 2010 4-47 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The Staff considered these results and reviewed the available information, including that 2 provided by the applicant, the Staff's site visit, the States of New Jersey and Delaware, the 3 NJPDES permits and applications, and other public sources. The NJDEP, not the NRC, is 4 responsible for issuing and enforcing NPDES permits. NRC assumes that NJDEP will continue 5 to apply the best information available to the evaluation and approval of future NJPDES peFmits.

6 The Staff conclu'de so that impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of 7 entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL.

8 The Staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential impacts resulting from 9 continued operation of the Salem cooling water system, although it should be notcd that the 10 NRC cannot impose mitigation requirements on the applicant. The Atomic Safety and Licensing 11 Appeal Board in the "Yellow Creek" case determined that EPA has sole jurisdiction over the 12 regulation of water quality with respect to the withdrawal and discharge of waters for nuclear 13 power stations and that the NRC is prohibited from placing any restrictions or requirements 14 upon the licensees of those facilities with regards to water quality (Tennessee Valley Authority 15 [Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 712-13 [1978]).

16 A few mitigation measures for the effects of the cooling water system on aquatic organisms 17 include conversion to a closed cycle cooling water system, scheduling plant outages during 18 historic peak impingement and entrainment periods, installing variable speed drive controllers 19 on the pump motors to allow flow reductions during months of high biological activity, the use of 20 dual-flow fine-mesh screens, and the use of a sound deterrent system for fish. These mitigation 21 measures could reduce impacts by reducing the flow rate of water drawn into the facility, 22 resulting in a commensurate decrease in impingement and entrainment, or by excluding 23 organisms from the intake or deterring them from entering the area.

24 PSEG performed a cost-benefit analysis of these mitigation measures as part of its CDS for the 25 2006 NPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006a). EPA's evaluation of the Salem 26 NPDES permit renewal application would likely address any applicable site-specific mitigation 27 measures that may reduce entrainment and impingement impacts. EPA's Phase II Rule has 28 been suspended, and compliance with CWA Section 316(b) is presently based on EPA's best 29 professional judgment.

30 4.6 Terrestrial Resources 31 The Category 1 issues related to terrestrial resources and applicable to Salem and HCGS are 32 listed in Table 4-19. There are no Category 2 issues related to terrestrial resources. Section 33 2.2.6 provides a description of the terrestrial resources at the site of the Salem and HCGS 34 facilities and in the surrounding area.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 .4-48 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-19. Terrestrial Resources Issues Applicable to Salem and/or HCGS.

GElS Issues Section Category Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation(a) 4.3.4 1 Cooling tower impacts on native plants(a) 4.3.5.1 1 Bird collisions with cooling towers(a) 4.3.5.2 1 Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application)(b) 4.5.6.1 1 Bird collisions with power lines(b) 4.5.6.1 1 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, 4.5.6.3 agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) (b)

Floodplains and wetland on power'line right-of-way(b) 4.5.7 1 (a)Applicable only to HCGS.

2 (b)Applicable to Salem and HCGS.

3 4

5 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information during the review of the Salem and 6 HCGS ER documents (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the Staff's site audit, the scoping process, 7 or the evaluation of other available information (including bird mortality surveys conducted for 8 the HCGS cooling tower from 1984 to 1986). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 9 would be no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GElS (NRC, 1996).

10 Regarding these issues, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and additional site-11 specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

12 4.7 Threatened or Endangered Species 13 Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are listed as a site specific or Category 2 14 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The GElS section and category for 15 this issue are listed in Table 4-20. ANDY: SEE BRIANA'S EDITS FOR 4.7 16 Table 4-20. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During 17 the Renewal Term Issue GElS Section Category Threatened or endangered species 4.1 2 18 19 This site-specific issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether 20 threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by 21 continued operation of the nuclear facility during the license renewal term. The presence of 22 threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the site of the Salem and HCGS facilities is September 2010 4-49 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 discussed in Sections 2.2.7.1 and 2.2.7.2. In 2009, the Staff contacted NMFS and U.S. Fish 2 and Wildlife Service (FWS) to request information on the occurrence of threatened or 3 endangered species in the vicinity of the site and the potential for impacts on those species from 4 license renewal. NMFS identified in its response a species federally listed as endangered, the 5 shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and a candidate species, the Atlantic sturgeon 6 (Acipenseroxyrinchus oxyrinchus), as having the potential to be affected by the proposed action 7 (NMFS, 2010). Additionally, NMFS identified four Federally listed sea turtle species, the 8 threatened loggerhead (Carettacaretta), and the endangered Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys 9 kempi), green (Chelonia mydas), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), as having the 10 potential to be adversely affected by the proposed action. These six species, their habitats, and 11 their life histories, are described in Section 2.2.7.1.

12 In response to the NRC's request for information on Federally listed species potentially affected 13 by the proposed action, FWS (2010) indicated that there were no Federally listed species under 14 its jurisdiction present on the Salem and HCGS site. In letters to PSEG on September 9, 2009 15 (FWS, 2009a) and the NRC on June 29, 2010 (FWS, 2010), FWS stated that along Salem and 16 HCGS transmission line Right-of-Ways (ROWs) in New Jersey are areas of potential habitat for 17 the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergil)and known occurrences and other areas of potential 18 habitat for the swamp pink (Helonias bullata). Both of these species are Federally listed as 19 threatened.

20 The Staff has prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) for NMFS that documents its review of the 21 potential for the proposed action to affect the Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of 22 NMFS. The BA is provided in Appendix D of this draft SEIS. During informal consultation with 23 FWS regarding the potential for effects on terrestrial threatened or endangered species, the 24 staff determined that a BA for FWS was not needed because there was no likelihood of adverse 25 effects on Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of FWS at known occurrences along the 26 transmission line corridors or potentially occurring within the vicinity of the power plant or within 27 the transmission line ROWs. PSEG (2009a) committed to FWS that it will protect both Federally 28 and State-listed threatened or endangered species along PSEG transmission line ROWs and 29 adopted the conservation measures recommended by FWS for the swamp pink and bog turtle, 30 which are described in Section 4.7.2.

31 4.7.1 Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species of the Delaware Estuary 32 Pursuant to consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 33 the Staff sent a letter to NMFS dated December 23, 2009 (NRC, 2009b) requesting information 34 on Ffederally-listed endangered or threatened speciesand-as-we.-as proposed or candidate 35 species. In its response on February 11, 2010, NMFS stated that the shortnose sturgeon, the 36 Atlantic sturgeon, and four sea turtle species are known to occur in the Delaware River and 37 estuary in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS, and that no critical habitat is currently designated by 38 NMFS near these facilities (NMFS, 2010).

39 At Salem, NMFS considers takes to include mortalities as well as turtles that are impinged but 40 removed alive and released. In 1991, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that found that 41 continued operation of Salem and HCGS would affect threatened or endangered sea turtles but 42 was not likely to jeopardize any populations, and it issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 43 for Kemp's ridley, green, and loggerhead turtles and shortnose sturgeon. The number of turtles Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-50 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 impinged in 1991 was unexpectedly high, exceeding the incidental take allowed and resulting in 2 additional consultation. An opinion issued in 1992 revised the ITS. The impingement of sea 3 turtles exceeded the allowable take in 1992 as well, prompting additional consultation between 4 NRC and NMFS (NMFS, 1999). A 1993 Biological Opinion (NMFS 1993) required that PSEG 5 track all loggerhead sea turtles taken alive at the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and 6 released. Also in 1993, PSEG implemented a policy of removing the ice barriers from the trash 7 racks on the intake structure during the period between May 1 and October 24, which resulted 8 in substantially lower turtle impingement rates at Salem.

9 In 1999, NRC requested that the studies of released turtles be eliminated due to the reduction in 10 the number of turtles impinged after the 1993 change in procedure regarding the removal of ice 11 barriers. NMFS responded in 1999 with a letter and an incidental take statement stating that 12 these studies could be discontinued because it appeared that the reason for the relatively high 13 impingement numbers previously was the ice barriers that had been left on the intake structure 14 during the warmer months (NMFS, 1999). This letter allowed an annual incidental take of 5 15 shortnose sturgeon, 30 loggerhead sea turtles, 5 green sea turtles, and 5 Kemp's ridley sea 16 turtles. In addition, the statement required ice barrier removal by May 1 and replacement after 17 October 24, and it required that in the warmer months the trash racks must be cleaned weekly 18 and inspected every other hour, and in the winter they should be cleaned every other week.

19 The statement requires that if a turtle is killed, the racks must be inspected every hour for the 20 rest of the warm season. Dead shortnose sturgeon are required to be inspected for tags, and 21 live sturgeon are to be tagged and released (NMFS, 1999). No sea turtles have been captured 22 at Salem since 2001 (NMFS, 2009).

23 No shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles have been impinged at the HCGS intake structure (NMFS, 24 2009), and NMFS has not required monitoring at HCGS beyond normal cleaning of the intake 25 structure (NMFS, 1993).

26 The Staff discusses the potential effects of entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharges 27 on these and other important species in Sections 4.5.2, 4.5.3, and 4.5.4. Based on 28 examinationval -atien by the Staff of entrainment data provided by PSEG, there is no evidence 29 that the eggs or larvae of either sturgeon species are commonly entrained at Salem and HCGS.

30 Neither of the sturgeon species is on the list of species that has been identifiedoolleeted in 31 annual entrainment monitoring during the 1978 - 2008 period (Table 4.21). The life histories of 32 these sturgeon, described in Section 2.2.7.1, suggest that entrainment of their eggs or larvae is 33 unlikely. Shortnose sturgeon spawn upstream in freshwater reaches of the Delaware River and 34 are most abundant between Philadelphia and Trenton. Their eggs are demersal and adhere to 35 the substrate, and juvenile stages tend to remain in freshwater or fresher areas of the estuary 36 for 3 to 5 years before moving to more saline areas such as the nearshore ocean. Thus, 37 shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae are unlikely to be present in the water column at the Salem 38 or HCGS intakes well downstream of the spawning areas. Similarly, the life history of the 39 Atlantic sturgeon makes entrainment of its eggs or larvae very unlikely.

September 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-21. Impingement data for shortnose sturgeon and three sea turtle species with 2 recorded impingements at Salem intakes, 1978-2008.

Year Number Impinge&'d)

Shortnose Kemp's ridley sea Green sea Loggerhead sea sturgeon turtle turtle turtle 1978 2(2) 0 0 0 1979 0 0 0 0 1980 0 1 1 2 (2) 1981 1(1) 0 3 (2) 1982 0 1(1) 0 0 1 (1) 1983 0 0 2(2) 1984 0 0 2(2) 1985 0 2(1) 0 6(5) 1986 0 1 (1) 0 0 1987 0 3(1) 0 3 1988 0 2(1) 0 8(6) 1989 0 6(2) 0 2 1990 0 0 0 0 1991 3 (3) 1 1 23(1) 1992 2 (2) 4 (2) 1 (1) 10 1993 0 1 0 0 1994 2(2) 0 0 1 1995 0 0 0 1 (1) 1996 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 1998 3(1) 0 0 1 (1) 1999 1 0 0 0 2000 1(1) 0 0 2(1) 2001 0 0 0 1(1) 2002 0 0 0 0 2003 1(1) 0 0 0 2004 2(1) 0 0 1 2005 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 1(1) 0 0 0 2008 1 (1) 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 Total J 20(16) [ 24(10) 3(1) [ 69(25)

(1) Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of individuals out of the yearly total shown that were 3

4 either dead when found at the intakes or died afterward. Impingements of Atlantic sturgeon or 5 leatherback sea turtles were not reported in the data on which this table was based.

6 Source: PSEG, 2010a.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-52 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Both sturgeon species and three of the four turtle species have been impinged at Salem.

2 Atlantic sturgeon were collected in impingement studies in a single year, 2006 (PSEG biological 3 monitoring reports 1995-2006). From 1978 through 2009, 20 shortnose sturgeon were 4 impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 16 died. Between 1978 and 2008, 24 Kemp's ridley 5 sea turtles were impinged, of which ten died. Three green turtles (one died) and 69 loggerhead 6 turtles (25 died) also were impinged. Impingement of the turtles was greatest in 1991 and 1992 7 (Table 4.21). After PSEG modified its use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement 8 numbers returned to levels much lower than in 1991. From 1994 through 2009, Salem 9 impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads), and four of these died. Also during this 16-yr 10 period, 12 shortnose sturgeon were impinged, of which eight died. Sea turtles have not been 11 impinged at Salem since 2004 (NMFS, 2009).

12 Section 4.5.4 discusses potential impacts of thermal discharges on the aquatic biota of the 13 Delaware Estuary, and the Staff expects that impacts on fish and invertebrates, including those 14 preyed upon by sturgeon and sea turtles, to be minimal. The high exit velocity of the discharge 15 produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of 16 initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish and many other organisms are 17 largely excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. Shortnose and Atlantic 18 sturgeon and the four sea turtle species have little potential to experience adverse effects from 19 exposure to the temperatures at the discharge because of their life history characteristics and 20 their mobility. Sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge 21 in the estuary, and adult sturgeon forage on the bottom while the buoyant thermal plume rises 22 toward the surface. Sea turtles prefer warmer water temperatures, occur in the region only 23 during warm months, and are unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated 24 temperatures at the discharge. NMFS (1993) considered the possibility that the warm water 25 near the discharge could cause sea turtles to remain in the area until surrounding waters are too 26 cold for their safe departure in the fall, but it concluded that this scenario was not supported by 27 any existing data.

28 The Staff reviewed information from the site audit, the applicant's ERs for Salem and HCGS, 29 biological monitoring reports, other reports, and coordination with NMFS, FWS, and State 30 regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The Staff concludes 31 that the impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species of the Delaware 32 Estuary during an additional 20 years of operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would be 33 SMALL. NRC provides a Biological Assessment of the potential effects from the proposed 34 license renewal for the Salem and HCGS facilities on Federally listed endangered or threatened 35 species under NMFS jurisdiction in Appendix D.

36 4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 37 Two Federally listed terrestrial or freshwater aquatic species that might occur near the Salem 38 and HCGS facilities and their associated transmission line ROWs are the bog turtle and swamp 39 pink. Section 2.2.7.2 discusses characteristics, habitat requirements, and likelihood of 40 occurrence of these species. Coordination correspondence between FWS and NRC (FWS, 41 2010) indicates that no Federally listed species occur on the site of the Salem and HCGS 42 facilities, but that there are areas of potential habitat for the bog turtle and known occurrences 43 and other areas of potential habitat for the swamp pink along the New Freedom North and New 44 Freedom South transmission line ROWs.

September 2010 4-53 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 FWS coordinated with PSEG to review all of its transmission line spans in New Jersey, including 2 the lines from Salem and HCGS, and transmitted to PSEG the known locations of the presence 3 or potential presence of Federally listed species along each span. FWS (2009a) also 4 recommended to PSEG conservation measures for each Federally listed species that potentially 5 could occur along its transmission line spans. In October 2009, PSEG (2009d) confirmed to 6 FWS its commitment to protecting both Federally and State-listed threatened or endangered 7 species along PSEG transmission line ROWs and adopted the conservation measures 8 recommended by FWS for each species, including the swamp pink and bog turtle. Based on 9 PSEG's adoption of these conservation measures, in November 2009 FWS concurred that 10 "continued vegetation maintenance activities within the transmission system are not likely to 11 adversely affect Federally listed or candidate species" (FWS, 2009b). Thus, the Federally listed 12 species potentially occurring in the transmission line ROWs for Salem and HCGS in New Jersey 13 would not be adversely affected by future vegetation maintenance activities. The FWS New 14 Jersey Field Office also coordinated with the FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office regarding the 15 transmission line ROW from HCGS that crosses the river and traverses New Castle County in 16 Delaware. FWS (2009b) concluded that "no proposed or federally listed endangered or 17 threatened species are known to exist" within that ROW area.

18 The ROW maintenance procedures agreed upon for protection of the bog turtle include: use of 19 a certified bog turtle surveyor to examine spans containing known or potential habitat, to flag 20 areas of potential habitat plus a 150-ft (46 m) buffer, and to be on site during maintenance 21 activities in flagged areas; performance of maintenance activities by hand in flagged areas, 22 including selective use of specific herbicides; no use of herbicides in known nesting areas, 23 which include all flagged areas around extant occurrences; timing restrictions to avoid 24 disturbance during nesting season; and provision of the surveyor's reports to FWS (PSEG, 25 2009d). The ROW maintenance procedures agreed upon for protection of the swamp pink 26 include: use of a qualified botanist to survey suitable forested wetland habitat on and adjacent 27 to the ROW for the plant; flagging of a 200-ft (61 m) radius area around any identified 28 populations of swamp pink; avoidance of any maintenance activities within the flagged areas 29 without FWS approval; limitation of herbicide use within 500 ft (152 m) of a population to manual 30 applications to woody stumps only; and provision of the surveyor's reports to FWS (PSEG, 31 2009d).

32 The Staff reviewed information from the site audit, ERs for Salem and HCGS, other reports, and 33 coordination with FWS and State regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding 34 listed species. The NRC staff concludes that the impacts on Federally listed terrestrial and 35 freshwater aquatic species from an additional 20 years of operation and maintenance of the 36 Salem and HCGS facilities and associated transmission line ROWs would be SMALL.

37 4.8 Human Health 38 The human health issues applicable to Salem and HCGS are discussed below and listed in 39 Table 4-22 for Category 1, Category 2, and uncategorized issues.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-54 . September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Table 4-22. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR 2 Part 51 contains more information on these issues.

Issues GElS Section Category Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment NAa 1 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment NAa 1 Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1 Microbiological organisms (public health, for plants 4.3.6b 2 using lakes or canals or discharging small rivers)

Noise 4.3.7 1 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 1 Occupation radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 1 Electromagnetic fields - acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 2 Electromagnetic fields - chronic effects 4.5.4.2 Uncategorized 3 a - Issues apply to refurbishment, an activity that neither Salem nor HCGS plan to undertake.

4 b _ Issue applies to plant features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small 5 rivers. Neither Salem nor HCGS have applicable features.

6 4.8.1 Generic Human Health Issues 7 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information related to human health issues or 8 radiation exposures during its review of the PSEG environmental reports, the site audit, or the 9 scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 10 discussed in the GELS. For these issues, the GElS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and 11 additional site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be 12 warranted (Category 1 issues). These impacts will remain SMALL through the license renewal 13 term.

14 4.8.2 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 15 Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, applicable to Salem 16 and HCGS in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-22. PSEG stated in its ER that 17 it was not aware of any new radiological issues associated with the renewal of the Salem and 18 HCGS operating licenses. The Staff has not identified any new and significant information, 19 during its independent review of PSEG's ER, the site audit, the scoping process, or its 20 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there would be no 21 impact from radiation exposures to the public or to workers during the renewal term beyond 22 those discussed in the GELS.

23 According to the GELS, the impacts to human health are SMALL, and additional plant-specific 24 mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be, warranted September 2010 4-55 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1

• Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GELS, 2 the Commission found the following:

3 Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with 4 normal operations.

5 Occupational exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the GELS, the 6 Commission found the following:

7 Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are 8 within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal 9 maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

10 Therefore, the Staff expects that there would be no impacts during the renewal term beyond 11 those discussed in the GELS.

12 There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations.

13 The information presented below is a discussion of selected radiological programs conducted at 14 Salem and HCGS.

15 Radiological Environmental Monitorinq Program 16 PSEG conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) to assess the 17 radiological impact, if any, to its employees, the public, and the environment around the plant 18 site. The REMP provides measurements of radiation and of radioactive materials for the 19 exposure pathways and the radionuclides which lead to the highest potential radiation 20 exposures to the public. The REMP supplements the radioactive effluent monitoring program 21 by verifying that any measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation 22 in the environment are not higher than those calculated using the radioactive effluent release 23 measurements and transport models.

24 The objectives of the REMP are as follows:

25 9 To fulfill the requirements of the radiological surveillance sections of the Plants' Technical 26 Specifications and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.

27

• To determine whether any significant increase occurred in the concentration of radionuclides 28 in critical pathways for the transfer of radionuclides through the environment to man.

29 9 To determine if operation of the plants caused an increase in the radioactive inventory of 30 long-lived radionuclides in the environment.

31 e To detect any change in ambient gamma radiation levels.

32 9 To verify that operation of the plants have no detrimental effects on the health and safety of 33 the public or on the environment.

34 An annual radiological environmental operating report is issued, which contains a discussion of 35 the results of the monitoring program. The report contains data on the monitoring performed for 36 the most recent year as well as graphs containing historical information. The REMP collects 37 samples of environmental media in order to measure the radioactivity levels that may be 38 present. The media samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways that may 39 impact the public. The REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environment Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-56 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 for radioactivity, as well as the ambient radiation. Ambient radiation pathways include radiation 2 from radioactive material inside buildings and plant structures and airborne material that may be 3 released from the plant. In addition, the REMP measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic 4 sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring radioactive material, including radon).

5 Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure ambient radiation. The 6 atmospheric environmental monitoring consists of sampling and analyzing the air for 7 particulates and radioiodine. Terrestrial environmental monitoring consists of analyzing 8 samples of locally grown vegetables and fodder crops, drinking water, groundwater, meat, and 9 milk. The aquatic environmental monitoring consists of analyzing samples of surface water, 10 fish, crabs, and sediment. An annual land use census is conducted to determine if the REMP 11 needs to be revised to reflect changes in the environment or population that might alter the 12 radiation exposure pathways. Salem and HCGS has an onsite groundwater protection program 13 designed to monitor the onsite plant environment for early detection of leaks from plant systems 14 and pipes containing radioactive liquid (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b; PSEG, 2010b). Additional 15 information on the groundwater protection program is contained later in this section and in the 16 Ground Water Quality section in Chapter 2 of this document.

17 The Staff reviewed the Salem and HCGS annual radiological environmental operating reports 18 for 2005 through 2009 to look for any significant impacts to the environment or any unusual 19 trends in the data (PSEG, 2006c; PSEG, 2007b; PSEG, 2008b; PSEG, 2009e; PSEG, 2010b).

20 A five year period provides a representative data set that covers a broad range of activities that 21 occur at a nuclear power plant such as refueling outages, non-refueling outage years, routine 22 operation, and years where there may be significant maintenance activities. Based on the 23 Staff's review, no unusual trends were observed and the data showed that there was no 24 significant radiological impact to the environment from operations at Salem and HCGS. Small 25 amounts of radioactive material (i.e., tritium, cesium-137, and manganese-54) were detected 26 below NRC's reporting values for radionuclides in environmental samples. Overall, the results, 27 with the exception of the on-site groundwater contaminated with tritium, were comparable to the 28 results obtained during the preoperational phase of the REMP and with historical results 29 obtained since commercial operation.

30 The NJDEP's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering performs an independent Environmental 31 Surveillance and Monitoring Program (ESMP) in the environment around the Salem and Hope 32 Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. The ESMP provides a comprehensive monitoring strategy 33 that ensures that New Jersey citizens are aware of and, if necessary, protected from harmful 34 exposure to radioactive effluent discharges from New Jersey's nuclear power plants during 35 normal or accident operations.

36 The specific objectives of the ESMP are to monitor pathways for entry of radioactivity into the 37 environment in order to identify potential exposures to the population from routine and 38 accidental releases of radioactive effluent, and to provide a summary and interpretation of this 39 information to members of the public and government agencies.

40 The Staff reviewed the NJDEP's 2008 report (the most recent report available to the Staff at the 41 time this draft SEIS was prepared) which contains information on the environmental sampling 42 conducted during the time period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. The State 43 reported the following: "Overall, the data collected by the NJDEP's ESMP throughout 2008 44 indicate that residents living in the area around Oyster Creek and Salem/Hope Creek nuclear September 2010 4-57 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 power plants have not received measurable exposures of radiation above normal background" 2 (NJDEP, 2009a).

3 Radiological Groundwater Protection Program 4 In response to an identified radioactive liquid release from the Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool in 5 2002, PSEG implemented a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) and developed a voluntary 6 Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) in 2006 that added additional 7 groundwater sampling locations, outside the scope of the REMP. The RAWP, which was 8 reviewed by the NRC and approved by the NJDEP, is a program designed to remediate the 9 site's groundwater to remove the tritiated groundwater and control the tritium plume from 10 reaching the site boundary and impacting the off-site environment. The results of the RGPP 11 groundwater monitoring program have been reported in the annual radiological environmental 12 operating report since 2006.

13 The radiological monitoring data for 2009 showed a wide range of tritium concentrations in the 14 on-site groundwater. For HCGS, the results show that tritium was detected at concentrations 15 that ranged from the lower limit of detection value of 200 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L) to a 16 maximum of 7,778 pCi/L. As a result of the positive indications of tritium, the applicant 17 increased the sampling frequency for the monitoring wells. Subsequent sampling did not 18 reproduce the highest levels observed; however, variations in the levels were observed 19 throughout 2009. As a result, the applicant continues to track the concentrations of tritium in the 20 groundwater to determine if a trend can be observed. For the Salem units, the results show that 21 tritium was detected in on-site groundwater in concentrations that ranged from the lower limit of 22 detection value of 200 pCi/L to a maximum of 2,259 pCi/L. The applicant is tracking the tritium 23 concentration levels to determine if a trend can be observed (PSEG, 2010b). The Staff notes 24 that no groundwater samples reached the NRC's reporting level of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium in 25 environmental samples.

26 As part of the applicant's investigation for new and significant information that is relevant to its 27 license renewal application, the issue of tritium in the groundwater was evaluated. The 28 applicant's evaluation concludes that changes in tritium-related groundwater quality are not 29 significant at Salem and would not preclude current or future uses of the groundwater for the 30 following reasons:

31

• Although tritium concentrations are elevated in the shallow aquifer beneath Salem, PSEG 32 has been performing remedial actions since 2004, and concentrations continue to decrease.

33

• Tritium concentrations in groundwater are due to an historic incident; the source (spend fuel 34 pool water leak) has been eliminated.

35 ° No tritium concentrations above either the EPA Drinking Water Standard or the NJDEP 36 Ground Water Quality Criterion have migrated to the property boundary or into geologic 37 formations deeper than the shallow aquifer. Offsite tritium concentrations are below 38 regulatory limits.

39 ° There is no human exposure pathway and, therefore, no threat to public or employee health 40 or safety.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-58 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Radioactive Effluent Release Program 2 All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release radioactive 3 material to both the air and water during normal operation. However, NRC regulations require 4 that radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from nuclear power plants must meet radiation 5 dose-based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, and as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) 6 criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The regulatory limits protect plant workers and 7 members of the public from radioactive material released by a nuclear power plant. In addition, 8 nuclear power plants are required to file an annual report to the NRC which lists the types and 9 quantities of radioactive effluents released into the environment. The radioactive effluent 10 release and radiological environmental monitoring reports are available for review by the public 11 through the NRC's ADAMS electronic reading room on the NRC website.

12 The Staff reviewed the annual radioactive effluent release reports for 2005 through 2009 13 (PSEG, 2006d; PSEG, 2007c; PSEG, 2008c; PSEG, 2009f; PSEG, 2010c). The review focused 14 on the calculated doses to a member of the public from radioactive effluents released from 15 Salem and HCGS. The doses were compared to the radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 16 20.1301 and the ALARA dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

17 Dose estimates for members of the public are calculated based on radioactive gaseous and 18 liquid effluent release data and atmospheric and aquatic transport models. The 2009 annual 19 radioactive material release report (PSEG 2010c) contains a detailed presentation of the 20 radioactive discharges and the resultant calculated doses. The following summarizes the 21 calculated dose to a member of the public located outside the Salem and HCGS site boundary 22 from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released during 2009:

23 Salem Units 1 and 2 24 0 The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents 25 from Salem Unit 1 was 3.22 E-05 millirem (mrem; 3.22 E-07 millisieverts [mSv]) and 2.72 26 E-05 mrem (2.72 E-07 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose 27 criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

28 0 The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite 29 member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents from Salem Unit 1 was 8.60 E-05 30 mrem (8.60 E-07 mSv) and 8.89 E-05 (8.89 E-07 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 31 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR 32 Part 50.

33

• The air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous effluents from Salem 34 Unit 1 was 1.28 E-04 millirad (mrad; 1.28 E-06 megagray [mGy]), and 2.74 E-05 mrad 35 (2.74 E-07 mGy) for Unit 2, which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose criterion for 36 an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

37 & The air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous effluents from Salem 38 Unit 1 was 3.14 E-04 mrad (3.14 E-06 mGy) and 1.46 E-05 mrad (1.46 E-07 mGy) for 39 Unit 2, which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 mGy) dose criterion for an individual reactor 40 unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

41 0 The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of a member of 42 the public at the site boundary from radioactive iodine, tritium, and radioactive particulate September 2010 4-59 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 matter from Unit 1 was 2.70 E-03 mrem (2.70 E-05 mSv) and 1.65 E-03 mrem (1.65 E-2 05 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose criterion for an 3 individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

4 Hope Creek Generating Station 5

• The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents 6 from HCGS was 8.32 E-05 mrem (8.32 E-07 mSv), which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 7 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

8 0 The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite 9 member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents from HCGS was 3.05 E-04 mrem 10 (3.05 E-06 mSv), which is well below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion for an 11 individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

12 9 The air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous effluents from HCGS 13 was 7.29 E-04 mrad (7.29 E-06 mGy), which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose 14 criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

15 0 The air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous effluents from HCGS 16 was 7.34 E-04 mrad (7.34 E-06 mGy), which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 mGy) dose 17 criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

18 0 The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of a member of 19 the public at the site boundary from radioactive iodine, tritium, and radioactive particulate 20 matter from HCGS was 1.97 E-02 mrem (1.97 E-04 mSv), which is well below the 15 21 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix Ito 10 CFR 22 Part 50.

23 Salem - Hope Creek Site Total 24

• The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from the combined radioactive 25 effluents from all three reactor units was 7.26 E-03 mrem (7.26 E-05 mSv), which is well 26 below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) dose criterion in 40 CFR Part 190.

27 The dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite member of 28 the public from the combined radioactive effluents from all three reactor units was 2.54 29 E-02 mrem (2.54 E-04 mSv), which is well below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) dose criterion 30 in 40 CFR Part 190.

31

• The thyroid dose to an offsite member of the public from the combined radioactive 32 effluents from all three reactor units was 2.41 E-02 mrem (2.41 E-04 mSv), which is well 33 below the 75 mrem (0.75 mSv) dose criterion in 40 CFR Part 190.

34 Based on the Staff's review of the Salem and HCGS radioactive waste system's performance in 35 controlling radioactive effluents and the resultant doses to members of the public in 36 conformance with the ALARA criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, the Staff found that the 37 2009 radiological effluent data for Salem and HCGS are consistent, within reasonable variation 38 attributable to operating conditions and outages, with the historical data. The results 39 demonstrate that Salem and HCGS are operating in compliance with Federal radiation 40 protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR 41 Part 190.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-60 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Routine plant operational and maintenance activities currently performed will continue during 2 the license renewal term. Based on the past performance of the radioactive waste system to 3 maintain the dose from radioactive effluents to be ALARA, similar performance is expected 4 during the license renewal term.

5 The radiological impacts from the current operation of Salem and HCGS are not expected to 6 change significantly. Continued compliance with regulatory requirements is expected during the 7 license renewal term; therefore, the impacts from radioactive effluents would be SMALL.

8 4.8.3 Microbiological Organisms -Public Health . Field 9 Both Salem and HCGS have thermal discharges to the Delaware Estuary, a large brackish, 10 tidally-influenced water body that allows their thermal plumes to disperse quickly. There are no 11 other facilities that release thermal discharges to the Estuary in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.

12 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and Table 4-22 list the effects of 13 thermophilic microbiological organisms on human health as a Category 2 issue and requires the 14 conduct of a plant-specific evaluation before license renewal. This issue applies to plant 15 features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small rivers. NRC has 16 determined that Salem and HCGS discharge to an estuary (NRC, 1996). Neither Salem nor 17 HCGS use cooling ponds, cooling lakes, cooling canals, or discharge to a small river.

18 Therefore, this issue does not apply and the effects of plant discharges on microbiological 19 organisms do not need to be addressed for license renewal.

20 4.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects 21 Based on the GELS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 22 energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 23 problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the 24 license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 25 the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 26 of this SEIS.

27 In the GElS (NRC, 1996), the Staff found that without a review of the conformance of each 28 nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria, it was not 29 possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential (IEEE, 2002). Evaluation of 30 individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was 31 not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity 32 of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to 33 upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an 34 assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the 35 transmission lines if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of 36 connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of.the NESC 37 for preventing electric shock from induced currents.

38 As described in Section 2.1.1.6, four 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines were specifically 39 constructed to distribute power to the electrical grid from the Salem and HCGS. One 500-kV 40 line, the HCGS-New Freedom line, was originally constructed to connect HCGS to the 41 transmission system. Two additional lines, Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney (via September 2010 4-61 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Red Lion substation), were originally built for Salem but have since been connected to HCGS.

2 The fourth line, Salem-New Freedom South, originates at Salem (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).

3 PSEG conducted an analysis of the Salem HCGS transmission lines using a computer model of 4 induced current under the line and the results were field verified. PSEG calculated electric field 5 strength and induced current using a computer code called ACDCLINE, produced by the 6 Electric Power Research Institute. The analysis determined that there are no locations under 7 the transmission lines that have the capacity to induce more than 5 milliamperes (mA) in a 8 vehicle parked beneath the line. Therefore, the lines meet the NESC 5 mA criterion. The 9 maximum induced current calculated for the power lines was 4.2 mA for the Salem-New 10 Freedom South line (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).

11 PSEG also conducts regular aerial and ground surveillance and maintenance to ensure that 12 design ground clearances do not change. The aerial patrols of all corridors include checks for 13 encroachments, broken conductors, broken or leaning structures, and signs of burnt trees, any 14 of which would be evidence of clearance problems. Ground inspections include examination for 15 clearance at questionable locations, examination for integrity of structures, and surveillance for 16 dead or diseased trees that might fall on the transmission line. Problems noted during any 17 inspection are brought to the attention of the appropriate organizations for corrective action 18 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).

19 The Staff has reviewed the available information, including the applicant's evaluation and 20 computational results for the potential impacts of electric shock resulting from operation of 21 Salem and HCGS and their associated transmission lines. The staff concludes that the 22 potential impacts of electric shock during the renewal term would be SMALL.

23 4.8.5 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects 24 In the GElS, the chronic effects of 60-hertz (Hz) electromagnetic fields from power lines were 25 not designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the 26 health implications of these fields.

27 The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at 28 this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 29 research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

30 The report by NIEHS. (NIEHS, 1999) contains the following conclusion: F.iel 31 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field) 32 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that 33 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to 34 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the 35 United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive 36 regulatory action is warranted such as continued emphasis on educating both the public 37 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does 38 not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence 39 of a risk to currently warrant concern.

40 This statement is not sufficient to cause the Staff to change its position with respect to the 41 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The NRC staff considers the GElS finding of "not 42 applicable" still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-62 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.9 Socioeconomics 2 The socioeconomic issues applicable to Salem and HCGS during the license renewal term are 3 listed in Table 4-23, including applicable GElS section and category (Category 1, Category 2, or 4 uncategorized).

5 Table 4-23. Socioeconomic Issues. Section 2.2.8 of this report describes the 6 socioeconomic conditions near Salem and HCGS.

Issue GElS Section Category Housing impacts 4.7.1 2 Public services: public safety, social 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6 1 services, and tourism and recreation Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 2 Public services: education (license renewal4.7.3.1 1 term)

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 2 Public services: transportation 4.7.3.2 2 Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 2 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6 1 Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines 4.5.8 1 (license renewal term)

Environmental justice Not addressed (a) Uncategorized (a)

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GElS and the associated revisions to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in plant-specific reviews.

7 4,9.1 Generic Socioeconomic Issues 8 The NRC reviewed and evaluated the Salem and HCGS ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b),

9 scoping comments, and other available information, and visited the Salem and HCGS sites and 10 did not identify any new and significant information that would change the conclusions 11 presented in the GElS. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the Category 1 issues 12 during the period of extended operation beyond those discussed in the GElS. For Salem and 13 HCGS, the GElS conclusions for category 1 issues are incorporated by reference. Impacts for 14 Category 2 and uncategorized issues are discussed in the following.

15 4.9.2 Housing Impacts 16 According to the 2000 Census, approximately 501,820 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) of 17 Salem and HCGS, which equates to a population density of 450 persons per square mile 18 (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). This density translates to GElS Category 4 - least sparse September 2010 4-63 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 mi [32km]). Approximately 2 5,201,842 people live within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).

3 This equates to a population density of 771 persons per square mile. Applying the GElS 4 proximity measures, this value translates to a Category 4 - in close proximity (greater than or 5 equal to 190 persons per square mile within 50 mi [80 km]). Therefore, according to the 6 sparseness and proximity matrix presented in the GELS, the sparseness Category 4 and 7 proximity Category 4 indicate that Salem and HCGS are located in a high population area.

8 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that impacts on housing 9 availability are expected to be of small significance in high-density population areas where 10 growth control measures are not in effect. Since Salem and HCGS are located in a high 11 population area, and Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem, and New Castle Counties are not subject 12 to growth control measures that would limit housing development, any changes in employment 13 at Salem and HCGS would have little noticeable effect on housing availability in these counties.

14 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 15 employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively constant with no additional 16 demand for permanent housing during the license renewal term. In addition, the number of 17 available housing units has kept pace with or exceeded the growth in the area population.

18 Based on this information, there would be no additional impact on housing during the license 19 renewal term beyond what has already been experienced.

20 4.9.3 -Public Services: Public Utilities 21 As discussed in Section 4.7.4 of the GELS, impacts on public utility services (e.g., water, sewer) 22 are considered SMALL if the public utility has the ability to respond to changes in demand and 23 would have no need to add or modify facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if service 24 capabilities are overtaxed during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if 25 additional system capacity is needed to meet ongoing demand.

26 Analysis of impacts on the public water and sewer systems considered both facility demand and 27 facility-related population growth. As previously discussed in Section 2.1.7, Salem and HCGS 28 obtain their potable water supply directly from groundwater sources. The facility does not 29 purchase water from a public water system. Water usage by Salem and HCGS has not 30 stressed the supply source capacity (usage is approximately 41 percent of the permitted 31 withdrawal [DRBC 2000; NJDEP 2004]) and is not currently an issue. PSEG has no plans to 32 increase Salem and HCGS staffing due to refurbishment or new construction activities, and has 33 identified no operational changes during the license renewal term that would increase potable 34 water use by the facilities.

35 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 36 employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged with no additional 37 demand for public water services. Public water systems in the region are adequate to meet the 38 demand of residential and industrial customers in the area. Therefore, there would be no 39 additional impact to public water services during the license renewal term beyond what is 40 currently being experienced.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-64 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.9.4 Offsite Land Use - License Renewal Period 2 Off-site land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue. Table B-1 of Appendix 3 B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 notes that "significant changes in land use may be associated 4 with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal." In Section 4.7.4 of 5 the GElS, the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant operation during the period of 6 extended operation is defined as follows:

7 SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use 8 pattern.

9 MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-10 use pattern. -

11 LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use 12 pattern.

13 Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public 14 services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1 of 15 the GElS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license renewal 16 term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the community's total 17 revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to 18 which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If 19 the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's total revenue, tax-20 driven land-use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be SMALL, especially 21 where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has provided adequate 22 public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GElS states that if tax 23 payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction's revenue, the 24 significance level would be SMALL. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be medium to 25 large relative to the community's total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be 26 MODERATE. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be a dominant source of the 27 community's total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be LARGE. This would be 28 especially true where the community has no pre-established pattern of development or has not 29 provided adequate public services to support and guide development.

30 Population-Related Impacts 31 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 32 there would be no noticeable change in land use conditions in the vicinity of the Salem and 33 HCGS. Therefore, there would be no population-related land use impacts during the license 34 renewal term beyond those already being experienced.

35 Tax Revenue-Related Impacts 36 As previously discussed in Section 2.2.8.6, PSEG and the Salem site's minority owner Exelon 37 pay annual real estate taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township. From 2003 through 2009, the 38 owners paid between $1.2 and $1.5 million annually in property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek 39 Township. This represented between 54 and 59 percent of the township's total annual property 40 tax revenue. Each year, Lower Alloways Creek Township forwards this tax money to Salem 41 County, which provides most services to township residents. The property taxes paid annually 42 for Salem and HCGS during 2003 through 2009 represent approximately 2.5 to 3.5 percent of September 2010 4-65 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Salem County's total annual property tax revenues during that time period. PSEG pays annual 2 property taxes to the City of Salem for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, located 3 in Salem. However, the tax payments for the Center would continue even if the licenses for 4 Salem and HCGS were not renewed; therefore, these tax payments are not considered in the 5 evaluation of tax revenue-related impacts during the license renewal term.

6 Since PSEG started making payments to the local jurisdiction, population levels and land use 7 conditions in Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County have not changed 8 significantly, which might indicate that these tax revenues have had little or no effect on land 9 use activities within the township or county.

10 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 11 employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged. There would be no 12 increase in the assessed value of Salem and HCGS, and annual property tax payments to 13 Lower Alloways Creek Township would be expected to remain relatively constant throughout the 14 license renewal period. Based on this information, there would be no tax revenue-related land-15 use impacts during the license renewal term beyond those already being experienced.

16 4.9.5 Public Services: Transportation Impacts 17 Table B-, 10 CFR Part 51 states: "Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic 18 generated... during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small 19 significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local 20 road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some 21 sites." All applicants are required to assess the impacts of highway traffic generated by the 22 proposed project on the level of service of local highways during the term of the renewed 23 license (see 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)).

24 Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 25 traffic volume and levels of service on roadways in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS would not 26 change. Therefore, there would be no transportation impacts during the license renewal term 27 beyond those already being experienced.

28 4.9.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources 29 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take in to account 30 the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic preservation review process 31 mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council 32 on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an operating license is an undertaking 33 that could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the NHPA, the NRC is to 34 make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in areas of potential effects. If no historic 35 properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation 36 Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present the NRC is 37 required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking.

38 A review of the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM) files shows that there are no previously 39 recorded archaeological or above ground historic architectural resources identified on the 40 Salem/Hope Creek property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.1, literature review and background 41 research of the plant property was conducted as part of the applicant's ER; however, no Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-66 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 systematic pedestrian or subsurface archaeological surveys have been conducted at the 2 Salem/Hope Creek site to date. Background research identified 23 National Register of Historic 3 Places listed resources within a 10 mi (16 km) radius of the facility; however, none are located 4 within the boundaries of the Salem/Hope Creek property.

5 There is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be present on most of the 6 Salem/Hope Creek property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.2, due to the fact that the Salem and 7 Hope Creek generating stations are located on a manmade island, there is little potential for 8 prehistoric archaeological resources to be present. However, because the creation of the island 9 dates to the historic period, there is potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be 10 present in areas not previously disturbed by construction activities.

11 No new facilities, service roads, or transmission lines are proposed for the Salem/Hope Creek 12 site as a part of this operating license renewal, nor are refurbishment activities proposed.

13 Therefore, the potential for National Register eligible historic or archaeological resources to be 14 impacted by renewal of this operating license is SMALL. Based on this conclusion there would 15 be no need to review mitigation measures.

16 4.9.7 Environmental Justice 17 Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 18 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human 19 health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the 20 Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of EnvironmentalJustice Matters in 21 NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, "The Commission is 22 committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of 23 its NEPA review process."

24 The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 25 Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997):

26 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.

27 Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer 28 fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse 29 health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death.

30 Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 31 exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is 32 significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 33 the general population or for another appropriate comparison group (CEQ, 1997).

34 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects.

35 A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) 36 refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-37 income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the 38 larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 39 economic, or social impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is 40 determined to be both harmful and significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing 41 cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically September 2010 4-67 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are 2 considered (CEQ, 1997).

3 The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 4 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 5 could result from the operation of Salem and HCGS during the renewal term. In assessing the 6 impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income 7 population were used (CEQ, 1997):

8 Minority individuals 9 Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population groups:

10 Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, 11 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races, meaning individuals 12 who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races, 13 for example, Hispanic and Asian.

14 Minority populations 15 Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of an affected area 16 exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 17 meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population 18 or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

19 Low-income population 20 Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the annual statistical 21 poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau's Current Population Reports, Series P60, 22 on Income and Poverty.

23 Minority Population in 2000 24 There are a total of 23 counties in the 50-mi (80-km) radius surrounding Salem and HCGS. Of 25 these, seven are in New Jersey (Salem, Cumberland, Cape May, Atlantic, Gloucester, Camden 26 and Burlington), three are in Delaware (New Castle, Kent and Sussex), six are in Pennsylvania 27 (Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Lancaster, and York) and seven are in 28 Maryland (Harford, Cecil, Baltimore, Kent, Queen Anne's, Caroline and Talbot).

29 According to 2000 Census data, 35.1 percent of the population (1,872,783 persons) residing 30 within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of Salem and HCGS identified themselves as minority individuals.

31 The largest minority group was Black or African American (1,213,122 persons or 19.5 percent),

32 followed by Asian (190,983 persons or 3.1 percent). A total of 341,886 persons (5.5 percent) 33 identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (USCB, 2003).

34 Of the 4,579 census block groups located wholly or partly within the 50-mi radius of Salem and 35 HCGS, 1,860 block groups were determined to have minority population percentages that 36 exceeded the 50-mi (80-km) radius percentage (USCB, 2000a). The largest minority group was 37 Black or African American, with 1,284 block groups that exceed the 50-mi (80-km) radius 38 percentage. These block groups are primarily located in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

39 There were 24 block groups with Asian, 94 block groups with Some Other Race, and 1 block 40 group with Two or More Races minority classifications that exceeded the 50-mi (80-km) radius 41 percentage. A total of 202 block groups exceeded the 80-km (50-mi) radius percentage for Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-68 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The minority population nearest to Salem and HCGS is located in 2, the City of Salem, New Jersey.

3 Based on 2000 Census data, Figure 4-7 shows minority block groups within an 50-mi (80-km) 4 radius of Salem and HCGS.

5 Low-Income Population in 2000 6 According to 2000 Census data, 119,283 families (2.2 percent) and 620,903 individuals (11.6 7 percent) residing within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS were identified as living 8 below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2003). (The 1999 Federal poverty 9 threshold was $17,029 for a family of four). The USCB reported 6.3 percent of families and 8.5 10 percent of individuals in New Jersey, 6.5 percent of families and 9.2 percent of individuals in 11 Delaware, 7.8 percent of families and 11.0 percent of individuals in Pennsylvania, and 6.1 12 percent of families and 8.5 percent of individuals in Maryland living below the Federal poverty 13 threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2000a; USCB, 2000b).

14 Census block groups were considered low-income block groups if the percentage of families 15 and individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded the 50-mi (80 km) radius 16 percentage. Based on 2000 Census data, there were 1,778 block groups within a 50-mi (80 17 km) radius of Salem and HCGS that could be considered low-income block groups. The 18 majority of low-income population census block groups were located in Philadelphia County, 19 Pennsylvania. The low-income population nearest to Salem and HCGS is located in Lower 20 Alloways Creek Township in Salem County, New Jersey. Figure 4-8 shows low-income census 21 block groups within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS.

September 2010 4-69 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1

2 Source: USCB, 2003 3

4 Figure 4-7. Census 2000 minority block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and HCGS Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-70 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation Miles 0 5 10 20 30 40 Legend

• Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations rE--80-km (50-mi) radius Census 2000 block groups with low-income populations 1

2 Source: USCB, 2003 3

4 Figure 4-8. Census 2000 low-income block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and 5 HCGS September 2010 4-71 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Radiological Exposure 2 As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license renewal, the Staff also 3 analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of special pathway 4 receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, native vegetation, surface 5 waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the 6 skin; and inhalation of plant materials. The special pathway receptors analysis, discussed 7 below, is important to the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may 8 reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area.

9 Section 4-4 of EO 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 10 appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that 11 rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 12 consumption patterns to the public. In this draft SEIS, the Staff considered whether there were 13 any means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by 14 examining impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway 15 receptors. Special pathways that took into account the levels of contaminants in native 16 vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near Salem 17 and HCGS were considered.

18 PSEG has an ongoing comprehensive REMP at Salem and HCGS to assess the impact of site 19 operations on the environment. To assess the impact of the facilities on the environment, the 20 radiological monitoring program at Salem and HCGS -uses indicator-control sampling. Samples 21 are collected at nearby indicator locations downwind and downstream from the facilities and at 22 distant control locations upwind and upstream from the facilities. Control locations are usually 9 23 to 18 miles (14 to 29 km) away from the facilities. A facility effect would be indicated if the 24 radiation level at an indicator location was significantly larger than at the control location. The 25 difference would also have to be greater than could be accounted for by typical fluctuations in 26 radiation levels arising from other naturally-occurring sources (PSEG, 2010c).

27 Samples are collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways in the vicinity of Salem and 28 HCGS. The aquatic pathways include fish, Delaware Bay and River (Delaware estuary) surface 29 water, groundwater, and sediment. The terrestrial pathways include airborne particulates, milk, 30 food product garden (leaf) vegetation, and direct radiation. During 2009, analyses performed on 31 collected samples of environmental media showed no significant or measurable radiological 32 impact from Salem and HCGS site operations (PSEG, 201 Oc).

33 Aquatic sampling in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS consists of semi-annual upstream and 34 downstream collections of fish, blue crabs, and bottom sediments. Delaware estuary surface 35 water is collected monthly from upstream and downstream locations. All samples are analyzed 36 for gamma-emitting isotopes. Surface water is additionally analyzed for gross beta and tritium.

37 Drinking water is collected daily from the City of Salem Water and Sewer Department water 38 sources (surface water and groundwater) and composited in a monthly sample. Monthly 39 composites are analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, iodine-131, and gamma- emitting 40 isotopes. Well water is collected monthly from one nearby farm's well, located upgradient from 41 Salem and HCGS, and is analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and gamma emitters 42 (PSEG, 2010c).

43 Fish were sampled twice at three locations in 2009 and blue crabs were collected twice at two 44 locations. In the fish and blue crab samples, only naturally-occurring radionuclides were Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-72 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 detected, at concentratiorns less than the pre-operational levels. There was no indication of an 2 effect from Salem and HCGS operations (PSEG, 201 Oc).

3 Sediment samples were collected twice from six indicator stations and one control station.

4 Naturally occurring potassium-40, thorium-232, and radium-226 and radium-228 (RA-NAT) were 5 found at all indicator and control stations, and naturally occurring beryllium-7 was detected at 6 one indicator station; all of these detections were less than pre-operational concentrations.

7 Cesium 137 was detected in two indicator samples, and no control samples. The positive 8 samples contained lower levels than pre-operational samples. Manganese-54 was detected at 9 one indicator station. There are no pre-operational data for this radionuclide; however, the 10 average concentration of all positive sample results from 1988 to 2008 is slightly higher than the 11 2009 detected concentration. There was no indication of an effect from operation of the Salem 12 and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2010c).

13 Surface water samples collected monthly at four indicator stations and one control station 14 contained trace amounts of tritium (slightly above the minimum detectable concentration range) 15 at the indicator stations; no tritium was detected at the control locations. Gross beta activity was 16 found at both indicator and control locations at levels similar to the pre-operational samples.

17 Naturally occurring potassium-40, thorium-232 and RA-NAT were found in both indicator and 18 control samples. Two potable water samples contained gross alpha activity below per-19 operational levels; all samples contained gross beta activity below pre-operational levels; no 20 tritium or iodine-131 was detected; and naturally occurring potassium-40, thorium-232 and RA-21 NAT were detected at levels comparable to previous years sampled. Well water (groundwater) 22 samples had no measureable amounts of tritium, and contained only trace amounts of gross 23 alpha activity. Beta activity levels were lower than the pre-operational data. Potassium-40 and 24 RA-NAT were detected in well water at levels similar to pre-operational levels. There was no 25 indication of an effect from operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2010c).

26 Vegetables and fodder crops are collected annually at harvest and are analyzed for gamma-27 emitting isotopes. Vegetable crops contained only naturally-occurring radionuclides. Potassium 28 40 was detected at similar levels at both indicator and control locations; detected Potassium 40 29 concentrations were below pre-operational levels. RA-NAT was not detected in any of the 30 indicator samples, but was detected at two of the control locations. Beryllium 7 was detected in 31 four of the indicator samples at concentrations comparable to those detected during previous 32 years sampled. Fodder crops contained beryllium-7 and potassium-40 at similar concentrations 33 at both indicator and control locations. Milk samples were collected semi-monthly from three 34 indicator farms and one control farm when cows were at pasture, and monthly when cows were 35 not at pasture; these samples were analyzed for iodine-1 31 and gamma-emitting isotopes.

36 Iodine-1 31 was not detected in any of the samples, while potassium-40 and RA-NAT were 37 detected at naturally occurring levels less than those found in pre-operational samples. There 38 was no indication of an effect from operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2010c).

39 Air quality samples were collected weekly from six locations. These samples were analyzed for 40 gross beta and iodine-1 31 as a weekly composite and for gamma-emitting isotopes on a 41 quarterly composite basis. Air particulate samples had similar results for both indicator and 42 control locations, and were also comparable to pre-operational levels. Air iodine was not 43 detected. There was no indication of an effect from operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities 44 (PSEG, 2010c).

September 2010 4-73 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Previously, PSEG had also tested muskrat populations in the area. Muskrats are trapped and 2 consumed by the local population (PSEG, 2006c). As of 2006, no muskrat samples have been 3 available for testing as the trappers who were supplying PSEG with samples were no longer 4 operating (PSEG, 2007c). The last muskrat data was collected in 2005; only one sample 5 detectable levels of potassium-40; no other radionuclides were detected (PSEG, 2006c).

6 The results of the 2009 REMP sampling and previous REMP reports (including the 7 consideration of 2005 REMP muskrat data) demonstrate that the routine operation at Salem and 8 HCGS has had no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. No 9 elevated radiation levels have been detected in the offsite environment as a result of plant 10 operations and the storage of radioactive waste.

11 The NJDEP Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (BNE) also samples the area around Salem and 12 HCGS for radionuclides that could be elevated due to the presence of the two facilities. Ten 13 stations within the vicinity are monitored with thermoluminescent dosimetry. During 2008, all 14 station results were comparable to previous years. Air samples were taken at three locations, 15 with results not significantly different from ambient background levels. Surface water was 16 collected from the Delaware River at the onsite surface water inlet building discharge and at a 17 location on the west bank of the river upstream from Salem's effluent discharge; potable well 18 water samples were taken on site. No gamma emitting isotopes or tritium were found in these 19 samples. Additionally, NJDEP BNE monitors the groundwater on site at Artificial Island in 20 conjunction with the remedial action being undertaken by PSEG to address tritium 21 contamination detected in shallow groundwater near Salem Unit 1. There is no evidence that 22 the tritium has reached any areas outside of the PSEG property. Analyses of fish, shellfish, 23 vegetation, and sediment samples contained only potassium-40, a naturally-occurring 24 radionuclide. Trace amounts of strontium-90 were detected in all milk samples, at levels 25 consistent with what is expected as a result of nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s 26 (NJDEP, 2009b).

27 Based on these monitoring results, concentrations of contaminants in native leafy vegetation, 28 sediments, surface water, and fish and game animals in areas surrounding Salem and HCGS 29 have been quite low. Consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse human health 30 impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of 31 subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife.

32 Analysis of Impacts 33 The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal through (1) identification 34 of minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed license renewal, 35 and (2) examining any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations to 36 determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse.

37 The discussion and figures above indentifies the location of minority and low-income 38 populations residing within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS. This area of impact is 39 consistent with the impact analysis for public and occupational health and safety, which also 40 considers the radiological effects on populations located within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of the 41 plant.. As previously discussed for the other resource areas in Chapter 4, the analyses of 42 impacts for all resource areas indicated that the impact from license renewal would be SMALL.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-74 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Chapter 5 discusses the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur 2 during the license renewal term, which include both design basis and severe accidents. In both 3 cases, the Commission has generically determined that impacts associated with such accidents 4 are SMALL because nuclear plants are designed to successfully withstand design basis 5 accidents, and that any risk associated with severe accidents were also SMALL.

6 Therefore the Staff concludes that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse 7 impacts to minority and low-income populations from the continued operation of Salem and 8 HCGS during the license renewal term.

9 4.10 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information 10 New and significant information is: (1) information that identifies a significant environmental 11 issue not covered in the GElS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 12 Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GElS 13 and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GElS and 14 codified in 10 CFR Part 51.

15 The Staff has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is 16 described in detail in NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental 17 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: OperatingLicense Renewal (NRC, 1999b).

18 The search for new information includes: (1) review of an applicant's ER and the process for 19 discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public 20 comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with 21 Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies, and (5) review of the 22 technical literature. New information discovered by the Staff is evaluated for significance using 23 the criteria set forth in the GELS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information 24 is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the 25 assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does 26 not include other facets of an issue that are not affected by the new information.

27 The Staff has not identified any new and significant information on environmental issues listed in 28 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, related to the operation of Salem and 29 HCGS during the period of license renewal. The Staff also determined that information provided 30 during the public comment period did not identify any new issues that require site-specific 31 assessment.

32 The Staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts in the GElS (NRC, 1996) and 33 conducted its own independent review (including two public scoping meetings held in November 34 2009) to identify new and significant information.

35 4.11 Cumulative Impacts 36 The Staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of continued 37 operation of Salem and HCGS. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related 38 to the resources at the time of the power plants licensing and construction; present actions are 39 those related to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plants; and future 40 actions are considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant 41 operations including the period of extended operation. Therefore, the analysis considers September 2010 4-75 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 potential impacts through the end of the current license terms as well as the 20-year renewal 2 license renewal terms. The geographic area over which past, present, and future actions would 3 occur depend on the type of action considered and is described below for each impact area.

4 4.11.1 Cumulative Impact on Water Resources 5 For the purposes of this cumulative impact assessment, the spatial boundary of the 6 groundwater system is the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer, which is a large aquifer of 7 regional importance for municipal and domestic water supply. Although other aquifers (the 8 shallow water-bearing zone, Vincentown Aquifer, and Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer) underlie the 9 Salem and HCGS facilities, almost all groundwater use by the facilities is from the Potomac-10 Raritan-Magothy aquifer. The spatial boundary for potential cumulative surface water impacts is 11 the Delaware River Basin.

12 Actions that can impact groundwater and surface water resources in the region include overuse 13 of groundwater resources, unregulated use of water resources, drought impacts, and the need 14 for flow compensation in the Delaware River for consumptive water use.

15 Within the Salem and HCGS local area, groundwater is not accessed for public or domestic 16 water supply within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 17 2009b). However, groundwater is the primary source of municipal water supply within Salem 18 and the surrounding counties, and groundwater within the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer is 19 an important resource for water supply in a region extending from Mercer and Middlesex 20 counties in New Jersey to the north, and towards Maryland to the southwest. Groundwater 21 withdrawal from the early part of the twentieth century through the 1970s resulted in the 22 development of large-scale cones of depression in the elevation of the piezometric surface, and 23 therefore had a cumulative adverse impact on the availability of groundwater within the aquifer 24 (USGS, 1983). In reaction to this impact, NJDEP implemented water management measures, 25 including limitations on pumping. As of 1998, NJDEP-mandated decreases in water 26 withdrawals had resulted in general recovery of water level elevations in both the Upper and 27 Middle Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the Salem County area (USGS, 2009). Therefore, 28 the use of groundwater by the facilities is not contributing to a cumulative effect on local 29 groundwater users or larger regional users. Based on these observations, the Staff concludes 30 that, when added to the groundwater usage from other past, present, and reasonably 31 foreseeable future actions, the cumulative impact on groundwater use is SMALL.

32 Although the Salem and HCGS facilities use surface water from the Delaware River for cooling 33 purposes, the Delaware River is a tidal estuary at the facility location. Therefore, there is no 34 potential for cumulative surface water use conflicts, and the cumulative impact on surface water 35 use is SMALL.

36 4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts on Estuarine Aquatic Resources 37 This section addresses past, present, and future actions that have created or could result in 38 cumulative adverse impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary, the geographic 39 area of interest for this analysis. Cumulative impacts on freshwater aquatic resources other 40 than the Delaware River are discussed with terrestrial resources in Section 4.11.3.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-76 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 A wide variety of historical events have cumulatively affected the Delaware Estuary and its 2 resources (Delaware Estuary Program 1995). Europeans began settling the estuary region 3 early in the 1 7 th century. By 1660 the English had established multiple small settlements, and 4 major changes in the environment began. Philadelphia had 5,000 inhabitants by 1700 and 5 became the predominant city and port in America. Agriculture grew throughout the region, and 6 the clearing of forest led to erosion. Dredging, diking, and filling gradually altered extensive 7 areas of shoreline and tidal marsh. By the late 1800s, industrialization had altered much of the 8 watershed of the upper estuary, and fisheries were declining due to overfishing as well as 9 pollution from ships, sewers, and industry. By the 1940s, anadromous fish were blocked from 10 migrating upstream to spawn due to a barrier of low oxygen levels in the Philadelphia area.

11 This barrier combined with small dams on tributaries nearly destroyed the herring and shad 12 fisheries. A large increase in industrial pollution during and after World War II resulted in the 13 Delaware River near Philadelphia becoming one of the most polluted river reaches in the world.

14 Major improvements in water quality began in the 1960s through the 1980s as a result of State, 15 multi-State, and Federal action, including the Clean Water Act and the activities of the Delaware 16 River Basin Commission.. (Delaware Estuary Program, 1995)7 17 In addition to past events, a variety of current and likely future activities and processes also 18 have cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary to which the 19 proposed action may contribute. Stressors associated with the proposed action and other 20 activities or processes that may contribute to cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the 21 estuary include the following:

22 . continued operation of the once-through cooling system for Salem Units 1 and 2 23 0 continued operation of the closed-cycle cooling system for HCGS 24 9 construction and operation of proposed additional unit at Salem/HCGS site 25 0 continued withdrawal and discharge of water to support power generation, industry, and 26 municipal water suppliers 27 0 fishing pressure 28 0 habitat loss and restoration 29

• changes in water quality 30 0 climate change.

31 Each of these stressors may influence the structure and function of estuarine food webs and 32 result in observable changes to the aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary. In most cases, 33 it is not possible to determine quantitatively the impact of individual stressors or groups of 34 stressors on aquatic resources. The stressors affect the estuary simultaneously, and their 35 effects are cumulative. A discussion follows of how the stressors listed above may contribute to 36 cumulative impacts on aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary.

37 Continued Operation of the Salem Once-Through Cooling System 38 Based on the assessment presented in Section 4.5 of this draft SEIS, the Staff concluded that 39 entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge impacts on aquatic resources from the 40 operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 collectively have not had a noticeable adverse effect on the September 2010 4-77 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem. The 2 continued operation of Salem during the renewal term would continue to contribute to 3 cumulative impacts on the estuarine community of fish and shellfish. As discussed in Sections 4 4.5.2 through 4.5.5, there has been extensive, long-term monitoring of fish and invertebrate 5 populations of the Delaware Estuary. The data collected by these studies reflect the cumulative 6 effects of multiple stressors acting on the estuarine community. For example, data from 1970 7 through 2004 were analyzed using commonly accepted techniques for assessing species 8 richness (the average number of species in the community) and species density (the average 9 number of species per unit volume or area). This analysis found that in the vicinity of Salem 10 and HCGS since 1978, when Salem began operation, finfish species richness has not changed, 11 and species density has increased (PSEG, 2006a). Operation of Salem during the relicensing 12 period likely would continue to contribute substantially to cumulative impacts on aquatic 13 resources in conjunction with HCGS and other facilities that withdraw water from or discharge to 14 the Delaware Estuary. However, given the long-term improvements in the estuarine community 15 during recent decades while these facilities were operating, NRC Staff expects their cumulative 16 impacts aFe.epeGted to be limited, with effects on individual species populations potentially 17 ranging from negligible to noticeable.

18 Continued Operation of the HCGS Closed-Cycle Cooling System 19 As discussed in Section 4.5.1, the closed-cycle cooling system used by HCGS substantially 20 reduces the volume of water withdrawn by the facility and substantially reduces entrainment, 21 impingement, and thermal discharge effects compared to the Salem once-through cooling 22 system. Accordingly, the impacts of these effects from operation of the HCGS cooling system 23 during the relicensing period would be limited, and the incremental contribution of HCGS to 24 cumulative impacts on the estuarine community would be minimal. HCGS has operated in 25 conjunction with Salem since 1986 and the community has been simultaneously affected by 26 both facilities. Therefore, the analysis of Salem's effects on the aquatic community discussed 27 above incorporates the cumulative effects of both HCGS and Salem. Operation of HCGS 28 during the relicensing period would continue to contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction 29 with Salem and other facilities that withdraw water from or discharge to the Delaware Estuary.

30 As described above for Salem, NRC expects these cumulative impacts-are-expeote4 to be 31 limited, with effects on individual species populations potentially ranging from negligible to 32 noticeable.

33 Construction and Operation of Proposed Additional Unit at Salem/HCGS Site 34 On May 25, 2010, PSEG submitted to NRC an application for an Early Site Permit for the 35 possible construction and operation of a new nuclear facility with one or two reactor units on 36 Artificial Island adjacent to Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2010e). The projected start of 37 construction would be in 2016 (NRC, 2010). If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new 38 nuclear power facililty at the Salem/HCGS site, it would contribute to cumulative impacts on 39 aquatic resources during construction and operation. The impacts of this action on aquatic 40 resources during the construction period may be substantial in the immediate vicinity of the 41 construction activities, but would be limited in extent and unlikely to significantly contribute to 42 cumulative impacts on the estuarine community in conjunction with the ongoing operation of 43 Salem and HCGS. Given the planned use of a closed-cycle cooling system for the new facility, 44 the impacts on aquatic resources from its operation likely would be similar to those of HCGS 45 and substantially smaller than those of Salem. Nevertheless, the long-term operation of the Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-78 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 new facility would add to the cumulative impacts on the estuarine community from Salem and 2 HCGS during the period in which their operations overlap.

3 NRC concluded in the GElS that impacts on aquatic ecology are Category 1 issues at individual 4 power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems, such as the system at HCGS and the system 5 planned for the new facility. The Staff concludes in this SEIS (see Section 4.5.5) that impacts 6- on aquatic ecology from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at 7 Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL. Thus, the incremental contributions of each of 8 the three facilities to impacts on aquatic resources would be minor. However, it is possible that, 9 depending on the characteristics of the new facility, their cumulative impacts could alter an 10 important attribute of the Delaware Estuary, such as certain fish populations, to a noticeable 11 degree.

12 The specific impacts of this action ultimately would depend on the actual design, operating 13 characteristics, and construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details are not 14 available at this time. However, if a combined license application is submitted to NRC, the 15 detailed impacts of this additional unit adjacent to the site of the existing Salem and HCGS units 16 then would be analyzed and addressed in a separate NEPA document prepared by NRC.

17 Continued Water Withdrawals and Discharges 18 No large industrial facilities lie downstream of Artificial Island on either side of the estuary south 19 to the mouth of Delaware Bay. An oil refinery lies upstream of Artificial Island in Delaware 20 approximately 8 mi (13 km) to the north, and many industrial facilities are upstream from there 21 (PSEG, 2009a). Many of these facilities are permitted to withdraw water from the river and to 22 discharge effluents to the river. In addition, water is withdrawn from the nontidal, freshwater 23 reaches of the river to supply municipal water throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New 24 York (DRBC, 2010). In the tidal portion of the river, water is used for power plant cooling 25 systems as well as industrial operations. DRBC-approved water users in this reach include 22 26 industrial facilities and 14 power plants in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (DRBC, 27 2005). Of these facilities, Salem uses by far the largest volume of water, with a reported water 28 withdrawal volume in 2005 of 1,067,892 million gallons (4,042 million m3) (DRBC, 2005). This 29 volume exceeds the combined total withdrawal for all other industrial, power, and public water 30 supply purposes in the tidal portion of the river. The volume of water withdrawn by HCGS in 31 2005 was much lower, at 19,561 million gallons (74 million M3) (DRBC, 2005).

32 These activities will likelvayFe epeete continue into the future, and water supply withdrawals 33 likely will increase in the future in conjunction with population growth. Because water 34 withdrawals from the Delaware River will continue, and are likely to increase, during the 35 relicensing term, this activity will continue to contribute to cumulative effects in the estuary.

36 Similarly, ongoing discharges of effluents to the river and estuary will continue to have 37 cumulative effects. Withdrawals and discharges are regulated by Federal and State agencies 38 as well as by the DRBC, and such regulation should limitiwg the magnitude of their effects.

39 Permit requirements are expected to limit adverse effects from withdrawals and discharges, and 40 cumulative impacts from these activities on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary are 41 expected to be minimal.

42 Fishing Pressure 43 The majority of the RS and EFH species at Salem are commercially or recreationally important September 2010 4-79 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 and, thus, are subject to effects from the harvesting of fish stocks. Losses from fish populations 2 due to fishing pressure are cumulative in conjunction with losses due to entrainment and 3 impingement at Salem and HCGS as well as other water intakes. In most cases, Federal or 4 State agqencies requlate the commercial or recreational catches of RS arc regulated by Feder"l 5 OF State agencies, but losses of some RS continue to occur as bycatch caught unintentionally 6 when fishing for other species. The extent and magnitude of fishing pressure and its 7 relationship to cumulative impacts on fish populations and the overall aquatic community of the 8 Delaware Estuary are difficult to determine because of the large geographic scale of the 9 fisheries and the natural variability that occurs in fish populations and the ecosystem. Fishing 10 pressure (and protection of fisheries through catch restrictions) has the potential to influence the 11 food web of the D 12 Delaware Estuary by affecting fish and invertebrate populations in areas extending from the 13 Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay through the estuary and upriver.

14 Habitat Loss and Restoration 15 As described above, alterations to terrestrial, wetland, shoreline, and aquatic habitats have 16 occurred in the Delaware Estuary since colonial times. Development, agriculture, and other 17 upland habitat alterations in the watershed have affected water quality. The creation of dams 18 and the filling or isolation of wetlands to support industrial and agricultural activities has 19 dramatically changed patterns of nutrient and sediment loading to the estuary. Such activities 20 also have reduced productive marsh habitats and limited access of anadromous fish to 21 upstream spawning habitats. In addition, historic dredging and deposition activities have altered 22 estuarine environments and affected flow patterns, and future activities, such as dredging to 23 deepen the shipping channel through the estuary, may continue to influence estuarine habitats.

24 Development along the shores of the estuary in some places also has resulted in the loss of 25 shoreline habitat.

26 Although habitat loss in the vicinity of the Delaware Estuary continues to occur currently and is 27 likely in the future, habitat restoration activities have had a beneficial effect on the estuary and 28 are expected to continue as a requirement of the Salem NJPDES permit during the license 29 renewal term (see Section 4.5.5). In addition, NRC expects wetland permitting regulations to 30 limit future losses of wetland habitat from development in the watershed. Thus, the net 31 cumulative impacts on aquatic habitats associated with the estuary are likely to be minimal in 32 the future, and restoration activities are expected to provide ongoing habitat improvements.

33 Water Quality 34 In general, there is evidence that water quality in the Delaware River Basin, including the 35 estuary, is improving. Upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities and improved agricultural 36 practices during the past 25 years have reduced the amount of untreated sewage, manure, and 37 fertilizer entering the river and contributed to reductions in nutrients and an apparent increase in 38 dissolved oxygen. Chemical contaminants persist in sediments and the tissues of fish and 39 invertebrates, and nonpoint discharges of chemicals still occur (Kauffmann, Belden, and 40 Homsey, 2008). Water quality in the Delaware Estuary likely will continue to be adversely 41 affected by human activities; however, improvement may continue in many water quality 42 parameters, and the incremental contribution of Salem and HCGS to adverse effects on water 43 quality is expected to be minimal.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-80 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Climate Change 2 The potential cumulative effects of climate change on the Delaware Estuary, whether from 3 natural cycles or related to anthropogenic activities, could result in a variety of environmental 4 alterations that would affect aquatic resources. The environmental changes that could affect 5 estuarine systems include sea level rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, and wind and 6 water circulation changes. Changes in sea level could result in dramatic effects on tidal 7 wetlands and other shoreline communities. Water temperature increases could affect spawning 8 patterns or success, or influence species distributions when cold-water species move northward 9 while warm-water species become established in new habitats. Changes in estuarine salinity 10 patterns could influence the spawning and distribution of RS and- the ranges of exotic or 11 nuisance species. Changes in precipitation patterns could have major effects on water 12 circulation and alter the nature of sediment and nutrient inputs to the system. This could result 13 in changes to primary production and influence the estuarine food web on many levels. Thus, 14 the extent and magnitude of climate change impacts may make this process an important 15 contributor to cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary, and these 16 impacts could be substantial over the long term. However, the operation of Salem and HCGS 17 during the renewal term would not emit greenhouse gases that may promote climate change 18 and would not contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change on the Delaware Estuary or 19 the region.

20 Final Assessment of Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 21 Aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary are cumulatively affected to varying degrees by 22 multiple activities and processes that have occurred in the past, are occurring currently, and are 23 likely to occur in the future. The food web and the abundance of RS and other species have 24 been substantially affected by these stressors historically. The impacts of some of these 25 stressors associated with human activities have been and can be addressed by management 26 actions (e.g., cooling system operation, fishing pressure, water quality, and habitat restoration).

27 Other stressors, such as climate change and increased human population and associated 28 development in the Delaware River Basin, cannot be directly managed and their effects are 29 more difficult to quantify and predict. It is likely, however, that future anthropogenic and natural 30 environmental stressors would cumulatively affect the aquatic community of the Delaware 31 Estuary sufficiently that they would noticeably alter important attributes, such as species ranges, 32 populations, diversity, habitats, and ecosystem processes, iust as they have in the past. Based 33 on this assessment, the Staff concludes that cumulative impacts during the relicensing period 34 from past, present, and future stressors affecting aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary 35 would-range from SMALL to MODERATE to LARGE. The incremental contributions specifically 36 from the continued operation of Salem and HCGS to impacts on aquatic resources of the 37 estuary would be SMALL for most impacts.

38 4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial and Freshwater Resources 39 This section addresses past, present, and future actions that could result in adverse cumulative 40 impacts on terrestrial resources, including resources associated with uplands, wetlands, and 41 bodies of freshwater other than the Delaware River (discussed in Section 4.11.2). For the 42 purpose of this analysis, the geographic area of interest includes the Salem and HCGS site on 43 Artificial Island and the associated transmission line ROWs identified in Section 2.1.5.

September 2010 4-81 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Impacts on terrestrial and freshwater resources in the area began with historical settlement and 2 development by Europeans, which involved clearing of forests and filling and draining of 3 wetlands for agriculture. Colonial settlement of the Delaware River area of southern New 4 Jersey began in 1638. During the 1640s, a fortification, Fort Elfsborg, was built in an area that 5 previously was mostly swampland between Salem and Alloway Creek. As settlement 6 progressed, forested regions in this part of southern New Jersey were further cleared for towns, 7 farming, and lumber (Morris Land Conservancy, 2006). Tidal marshes along the margins of the 8 Delaware Estuary were managed for salt hay farms and other agricultural uses, the hydrology of 9 marshes was altered for mosquito control, and marshes were filled for disposal of dredged 10 material and for development (Philipp, 2005). Industrial development in the area began with 11 the glassmaking industry in the early 1700s and continued through the 1800s (Morris Land 12 Conservancy, 2006). The Industrial Revolution and other historical trends continued the 13 changes in land use and the loss of terrestrial communities of native vegetation and wildlife.

14 The Salem and HCGS facilities are located within 740 ac (300 ha) of PSEG property on 1,500-15 ac (600 ha) Artificial Island. Construction of Salem and HCGS converted 373 ac (151 ha) in the 16 southwest corner of Artificial Island to facilities and industrial uses. Artificial Island was 17 originally created by deposition of hydraulic dredge material in the early 20th century, and all 18 terrestrial resources on the island have become established since then. Before development of 19 the land on the Salem and HCGS sites, the vegetative communities of the island consisted 20 mainly of typical coastal tidal marsh species, including salt-tolerant grasses such as cordgrass 21 (Spartina spp.) and common reed (Phragmitesaustralis),which could survive in the brackish 22 habitats. There was no known previous development or use of Artificial Island prior to the 23 construction of Salem and HCGS. Currently, the Salem and HCGS sites are developed and 24 maintained for operation of the facilites. The remainder of Artificial Island consists mainly of 25 undeveloped areas of tidal marsh with poor quality soils and very few trees. Non-wetland areas 26 are vegetated mainly with grasses, small shrubs, and planted trees in developed areas (PSEG, 27 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).

28 Construction of the transmission line ROWs maintained by PSEG for Salem and HCGS resulted 29 in subsequent changes to the wildlife and plant species present within the vicinity of Artificial 30 Island and along the length of the transmission line ROWs. The transmission lines ROWs have 31 a total length of approximately 149 mi (240 km) and occupy approximately 4,376 ac (1,771 ha).

32 The three ROWs for the Salem and HCGS power transmission system pass through a variety of 33 habitat types, including marshes and other wetlands, agricultural or forested land, and some 34 urban and residential areas (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Fragmentation of the previously 35 contiguous forested, agricultural, and swamp areas that the transmission ROWs traverse likely 36 resulted in edge effects such as changes in light, wind, and temperature; changes in abundance 37 and distribution of interior species; reduced habitat ranges for certain species; and an increased 38 susceptibility to invasive species, such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) in uplands, purple 39 loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)in wetlands, and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) in 40 both habitat types (Snyder and Kaufman, 2004). ROW maintenance is likely to continue to have 41 future impacts on terrestrial habitat, such as prevention of natural succession stages within the 42 ROWs, increases in edge species, and decreases in interior species.

43 Land use data provide an indication of the impacts on terrestrial resources that have resulted 44 from historical and ongoing development. Current land uses in the region are discussed by 45 county in Section 2.2.8.3 of this draft SEIS. In Salem County, based on 2008 data, farmland Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-82 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 under active cultivation is the predominant type of land cover (42 percent), followed by tidal and 2 freshwater wetlands (30 percent), forests (12 percent), residential/commercial/industrial uses 3 (13 percent), and other undeveloped natural areas (3 percent) (Morris Land Conservancy, 4 2006). In the two adjacent counties in New Jersey (Cumberland and Gloucester), agriculture 5 accounts for 19 and 26 percent of the land cover, and urban land use in the two counties was 6 12 percent and 26 percent, respectively (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 7 [DVRPC], 2009; Gloucester County, 2009). Thus, commercial and industrial facilities, including 8 the Salem and HCGS site and ROWs, have had a smaller impact on the loss of native terrestrial 9 forest and wetland habitats in the region compared to agricultural development.

10 Although development of PSEG property on Artificial Island has contributed minimally to 11 impacts on terrestrial resources from historical and ongoing development in the region, portions 12 of both PSEG land and the island have been protected from development. Approximately 25 13 percent (100 ac [40 ha]) of PSEG property and approximately 80 percent (1,200 ac [485 ha]) of 14 Artificial Island remain undeveloped. These areas consist predominantly of estuarine marsh 15 and freshwater emergent marsh, wetlands, and ponds. The U.S. government owns the portions 16 of the island adjacent to Salem and HCGS (to the north and east), while the State of New 17 Jersey owns the rest of the island as well as much nearby inland property (Lower Alloways 18 Creek Township [LACT],1988a; LACT, 1988b; PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). In conjunction 19 with the Artificial Island wetlands, public lands in the region also preserve forest and wetland 20 habitat and have a beneficial cumulative impact on terrestrial resources. In compliance with 21 Salem's 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, PSEG implemented the EEP, which has preserved 22 and/or restored more than 20,000 ac (8,000 ha) of wetland and adjoining upland buffers around 23 the Delaware Estuary. In particular, the program restored 4,400 ac (1,780 ha) of formerly diked 24 salt hay farms to reestablish conditions suitable for the growth of low marsh vegetation such as 25 saltmarsh cord grass (Spartina alterniflora)and provide for tidal exchange with the estuary 26 (PSEG, 2009a).

27 PSEG has indicated the possibility of constructing a new reactor unit at the Salem and HCGS 28 site on Artificial Island (PSEG, 2010c). It would be primarily located on previously disturbed 29 land adjacent to the existing Salem and HCGS units. It is not know at this time whether new 30 transmission lines would be constructed. If additional ROW needs to be cleared, terrestrial 31 habitats and the wildlife they support could potentially be affected in the areas it would traverse.

32 The Staff concludes that the minimal terrestrial impacts expected from the continued operation 33 of Salem and HCGS, including the operation and maintenance of the transmission line ROWs, 34 would not contribute to the overall decline in the condition of terrestrial resources. However, 35 while the level of impact due to direct and indirect impacts of Salem and HCGS on terrestrial 36 communities is SMALL, the cumulative impact when combined with all other sources, even if 37 Salem and HCGS were excluded, would be MODERATE.

38 4.11.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts 39 The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by the 40 NRC and EPA to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation 41 and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 42 190. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within a 50-mi (80.4-km) radius of the Salem and 43 HCGS site was included. The radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by September 2010 4-83 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site measures radiation and radioactive materials 2 from all sources (i.e., hospitals and other licensed users of radioactive material); therefore, the 3 monitoring program measures cumulative radiological impacts. Within the 50-mi (80-km) radius 4 of the Salem and HCGS site, there are no other nuclear power reactors or uranium fuel cycle 5 facilities.

6 On May 25, 2010 PSEG submitted an application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the possible 7 construction of a fourth reactor at the Salem and HCGS site (PSEG 2010e). A specific reactor 8 design has not been selected; therefore, the application uses a plant parameter envelope 9 approach to evaluate the suitability of the site based on the potential environmental impacts 10 from a blend of reactor types. This approach uses surrogate values as upper and lower bounds 11 for issues such as power level, radioactive effluents, public dose estimates, thermal discharges, 12 air quality, and accident consequences, for each of the potential reactor designs being 13 considered. This is a conservative approach allowed by the NRC for the analysis of the 14 environmental impacts from an unspecified reactor design at a specific location. A final decision 15 by the applicant on the reactor design will be deferred until the submission of an application for 16 either a construction permit or a combined construction permit and operating license.

17 The NRC will evaluate the ESP application in accordance with its regulations to ensure the 18 application meets the NRC requirements for adequate protection and safety of the public and 19 the environment. As discussed above, any new potential source of radioactive emissions from 20 a uranium fuel cycle facility will be evaluated during the licensing process to address the 21 cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive material.

22 The applicant constructed an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on the Salem 23 and HCGS site in 2007 for the storage of its spent fuel. Currently, only spent fuel from HCGS is 24 being stored in the ISFSI. The installation and monitoring of this facility is governed by NRC 25 requirements in 10 CFR Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent 26 Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C 27 Waste." Radiation from this facility as well as from the operation of Salem and HCGS are 28 required to be within the radiation dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, and 10 CFR 29 Part 72. The NRC performs periodic inspections of the ISFSI and Salem and HCGS to verify 30 their compliance with licensing and regulatory requirements.

31 Radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring data for the five-year period from 2005 to 32 2009 were reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts assessment. These reports show that 33 past and current annual radiological doses to a maximally exposed member of the public at the 34 site boundary are well below regulatory dose limits. In Section 4.8 the Staff concluded that 35 impacts of radiation exposure to the public and workers from operation of Salem and HCGS 36 during the renewal term are SMALL. The possible addition of a fourth reactor to the three-37 reactor site is not expected to result in any substantial increases in doses that would cause the 38 cumulative dose impact to approach regulatory limits. This is because the reactor would be 39 required to maintain its radiological release within NRC's dose limits for individual reactor units 40 and the cumulative dose from all reactor units and the ISFSI on the site. Also, the NRC and the 41 State of New Jersey would regulate any future actions in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS 42 site that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the staff concludes that 43 the cumulative radiological impact to the public and workers from continued operation of Salem 44 and HCGS, its associated ISFSI, and a possible fourth power reactor would be SMALL.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-84 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The Staff has determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the Salem and HCGS 2 transmission lines are below the NESC criteria for preventing electric shock from induced 3 currents. Therefore, the Salem and HCGS transmission lines do not significantly affect the 4 overall potential for electric shock from induced currents within the analysis area; the impact is 5 SMALL. The potential effect from the chronic exposure to these electric fields continues to be 6 studied and is not known at this time. The Staff considers the GElS finding of "Uncertain" still 7 appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

8 4.11.5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 9 The Salem and HCGS facilities are located in Salem County, which is included with the 10 Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), which encompasses 11 the area geographically located in five counties of New Jersey, including Salem and Gloucester 12 Counties, New Castle County Delaware, and five counties of Pennsylvania (40 CFR 81.15).

13 Salem County is designated as in attainment/unclassified area with respect to the National 14 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in 15 diameter T(PM 2 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead.

16 The county, along with all of southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area with respect to the 17 1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, 18 Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment 19 area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 20 City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) non attainment area. Of the adjacent counties, Gloucester County in New 21 Jersey is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, as well as the annual 22 and daily PM2 5 standard (NJDEP 2010b). New Castle County, Delaware is considered to be in 23 moderate non-attainment for the ozone standards, and non-attainment for PM 2.5 (40 CFR 24 81.315).

25 The State of New Jersey has implemented several measures to address greenhouse gas 26 (GHG) emissions within the state. In February 2007, the governor signed EO 54 calling for a 27 reduction in GG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 2006 levels by 28 2050. These objectives became mandatory in July 2007, with passage of the Global Warming 29 Response Act. New Jersey also joined with nine other northeastern and mid-Atlantic states in 30 the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) through Assembly Bill 4559 in January 2008.

31 The RGGI caps carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) emissions from power plants, and requires utilities to 32 purchase emissions credits, with the funds used to finance energy efficiency and renewable 33 energy programs.

34 Potential cumulative effects of climate change on the State of New Jersey, whether or not from 35 natural cycles of anthropogenic (man-induced) activities, could result in a variety of changes to 36 the air quality of the area. As projected in the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 37 States" report by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009), the 38 temperatures in the mid-Atlantic have already risen up to 1OF (0.6°C) since the 1961-1979 39 baseline, and are projected to increase by 3 to 6 0F (1.7 to 3.3 0 C) more by 2090. Increases in 40 average annual temperatures, higher probability of extreme heat events, higher occurrences of 41 extreme rainfall (intense rainfall or drought) and changes in the wind patterns could affect 42 concentrations of the air pollutants and their long-range transport, because their formation 43 partially depends on the temperature and humidity and is a result of the interactions between 44 hourly changes in the physical and dynamic properties of the atmosphere, atmospheric September 2010 4-85 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 circulation features, wind, topography, and energy use (Integrated Panel on Climate Change 2 [IPCC], 2010).

3 Consistent with the findings in the GELS, the Staff concludes that the impacts from continued 4 operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities on air quality are SMALL. As no refurbishment is 5 planned at the facilities during the license renewal period, no additional air emissions would 6 result from refurbishment activities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). In comparison with 7 construction and operation of a comparable fossil-fueled power plant, license renewal would 8 result in a new cumulative deferral of GHG emissions, which would otherwise be produced if a 9 new gas or coal-fired plant were instead constructed. When compared with the alternative of a 10 new fossil-fuel power plant, the option of license renewal also results in a substantial new 11 cumulative deferral in toxic air emissions.

12 For the purpose of this cumulative air impact assessment, the spatial bounds include the 13 Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate AQCR, which encompasses the area geographically 14 located in five counties of New Jersey, including Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Castle 15 County Delaware, and five counties of Pennsylvania. The Staff concludes that, combined with 16 the emissions from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, cumulative 17 hazardous and criteria air pollutant emission impacts on air quality from Salem and HCGS-18 related actions would be SMALL. When considered with respect to an alternative of building a 19 fossil-fuel powered plant, continuing the operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would 20 constitute a net cumulative beneficial environmental impact in terms of emissions offsets (i.e.,

21 reducing hazardous, criteria, and GHG air emissions) that would otherwise be generated by a 22 fossil-fuel plant.

23 4.11.6 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 24 As discussed in Section 4.9 of this draft SEIS, continued operation of Salem and HCGS during 25 the license renewal term would have no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region 26 beyond those already being experienced. Since PSEG has indicated that there would be no 27 major plant refurbishment, overall expenditures and employment levels at Salem and HCGS 28 would remain relatively constant with no additional demand for housing, public utilities, and 29 public services. In addition, since employment levels and the value of Salem and HCGS would 30 not change, there would be no population and tax revenue-related land use impacts. There 31 would.also be no disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts on 32 minority and low-income populations in the region. Based on this and other information 33 presented in this draft SEIS, there would be no cumulative socioeconomic impacts from Salem 34 and HCGS operations during the license renewal term.

35 If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and 36 HCGS site, the cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts of this action 37 could be MODERATE to LARGE in counties located in the immediate vicinity of Salem and 38 HCGS. These impacts would be caused by the short-term increased demand for rental housing 39 and other commercial and public services used by construction workers during the years of 40 power plant construction. During peak construction periods there would be a noticeable 41 increase in the number and volume of construction vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of 42 the Salem and HCGS site.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-86 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 The cumulative long-term operations-related socioeconomic impacts of this action during the 2 operation of the new power plant unit would be SMALL to MODERATE. These impacts would 3 be caused by the increased demand for permanent housing and other commercial and public 4 services, such as schools, police and fire, and public water and electric services, from the 5 addition of operations workers at the Salem and HCGS site during the years of new plant 6 operations. During shift changes there would be a noticeable increase in the number of 7 commuter vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site.

8 Since Salem County has less housing and public services available to handle the influx of 9 construction workers in comparison to New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties, the 10 cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts on Salem County would 11 likely be MODERATE to LARGE. Over the long-term, cumulative operations impacts on Salem 12 County would likely be SMALL to MODERATE since new operations workers would likely reside 13 in the same counties and in the same pattern as the current Salem and HCGS workforce. Many 14 of the operations workers would be expected to settle in Salem County where nearly 40 percent 15 of the current workforce reside.

16 Because New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties each has a larger available 17 housing supply than Salem County, and the current number of Salem and HCGS workers 18 residing in these three counties combined (43 percent) is the same as those residing in Salem 19 County (40 percent), the cumulative construction- and operations-related socioeconomic 20 impacts are likely to be SMALL in these three counties. If PSEG decides to construct a new 21 nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and HCGS site, the cumulative impacts of this action 22 would likely be SMALL on the four-county socioeconomic region of influence.

23 The specific impact of this action would ultimately depend on the actual design, characteristics, 24 and construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details are not available at this 25 time, but if the combined license application is submitted to NRC, the detailed socioeconomic 26 impacts of this action at the Salem and HCGS site would be analyzed and addressed in a 27 separate NEPA document that would be prepared by NRC.

28 4.11.7 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 29 The Staff considered the potential impacts resulting from operation of Salem and HCGS during 30 the period of extended operation and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 31 actions in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. The preliminary determination is that the potential 32 cumulative impacts resulting from Salem and HCGS operation during the period of extended 33 operation would range from SMALL to LARGE. Table 4-24 summarizes the cumulative impact 34 by resource area.

September 2010 4-87 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation Table 4-24. Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resource Areas Resource Area Impact Summary Land Use SMALL With respect to the Salem and HCGS facilities, no measureable changes in land use would occur over the proposed license renewal term. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on land use.

Air Quality SMALL Impacts of air emissions over the proposed license renewal term would be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, impacts to air resources from the Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on air quality. In comparison with the alternative of constructing and operating a comparable gas or coal-fired power plant, license renewal would result in a new cumulative deferral in both GHG and other toxic air emissions, which would otherwise be produced by a fossil-fueled plant.

Ground Water SMALL Groundwater consumption constitutes a SMALL cumulative impact on the resource. When this consumption is added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future withdrawals, cumulative impact on groundwater resources is SMALL.

Surface Water SMALL Impacts on surface water over the proposed license term would be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, impacts to surface water from the Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact.

Aquatic Resources SMALL to Past and present operations have impacted aquatic MODERATE resources in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and would likely continue to in the future. Such impacts would continue to be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impact on aquatic resources.

Terrestrial Resources MODERATE Past and present operations have impacted terrestrial habitat and species in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS.

Continued impacts associated with the proposed license renewal term would be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a MODERATE cumulative impact on terrestrial resources.

2 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-88 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation Resource Area Impact Summary Threatened or SMALL Past and present operations have impacted threatened Endangered Species or endangered species in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and would likely continue to in the future. Such impacts would continue to be SMALL. When combined with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on threatened or endangered species.

Human Health SMALL When combined with the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, the cumulative human health impacts of continued operation of Salem and HCGS from radiation exposure to the public, microbiological organisms from thermal discharges to the Delaware Estuary, and electric-field-induced currents from the Salem and HCGS transmission lines would all be negligible to SMALL.

Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE Impacts on socioeconomics over the proposed license term would be SMALL depending on the alternative selected. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, impacts to socioeconomics from the Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL to LARGE cumulative impact.

1 September 2010 4-89 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 4.12 References 2 10 CFR 20. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for Protection 3 Against Radiation."

4 10 CFR 50. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 5 Production and Utilization Facilities."

6 10 CFR 51. Code of FederalRegulations,Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection 7 Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Function."

8 10 CFR 72. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, "Licensing Requirements 9 for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and 10 Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste."

11 33 USC 1326. United States Code. Thermal Discharges 12 36 CFR 800. Code of FederalRegulations. Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 13 800, "Protection of Historic Properties" Federal Register. August 5, 2004.

14 40 CFR 81. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protectionof Environment, Part 81, 15 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes" Federal Register.

16 40 CFR 190. Code of FederalRegulations, Title 40, Protectionof Environment, Part 190, 17 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power to Establish Requirements 18 for Coolin Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities." Federal Register. July 9, 19 2004.

20 69 FR 52040. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 21 Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register. August 24, 2004.

22 72 FR 37107, Environmental Protection Agency. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 23 System - Suspension of Regulations Establishing Requirements for Cooling Water Intake 24 Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities." FederalRegister, Vol. 72, No. 130, pp. 37107-37109, 25 July 9, 2008.

26 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASFMC). 2008. Species Profile: Spot, Short-27 Lived Fish Supports South Atlantic Fisheries & Serves as Important Prey Species. Excerpted 28 from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 17, Issue 6, August 2008. Accessed at:

29 http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/speciesProfile0505. pdf on 30 August 12, 2010.

31 Barnthouse, L.W., D.G. Heimbuch, V.C. Anthony, R.W. Hilborn, and R.A. Myers. 2002.

32 Indicators of AEI applied to the Delaware Estuary. In Defining and Assessing Adverse 33 Environmental Impact Symposium 2001. TheScientificWorldJournal,2($1), 168-189.

34 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. EnvironmentalJustice: Guidance Under the 35 NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. Executive Order of the President, Washington. DC.

36 Dames & Moore. 1988. Final Report, Study of Groundwater Conditions and Future Water-37 Supply Alternatives, Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station, Artificial Island, Salem County, 38 New Jersey. Prepared for PSE&G. Publication date: July 15, 1988.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-90 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of 2 Water Resources. 2003. Public Water Supply Source Water Assessment for Artesian Water 3 Company (Bayview), PWS ID DE0000553. New Castle County, Delaware. October 2, 2003.

4 Accessed at:

5 http://www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome-old/phase2/final-assess/artesianother/awc-bayview.pdf on 6 February 24, 2010.

7 Delaware Estuary Program. 1995. Comprehensive Conservationand Management Plan for the 8 Delaware Estuary. January.

9 Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 2000. Groundwater Withdrawal. Docket No. D-10 90-71 Renewal. West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Publication 11 date: November 1, 2000.

12 DRBC. 2001. Docket No. D-68-20 CP (Revision 2), Delaware River Basin Commission, PSEG, 13 Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ.

14 September 18.

15 DRBC. 2005. Year 2005 Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use by Large Users on the Tidal 16 Delaware River. Accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/wateruse/largeusers_05.htm on 17 February 15, 2010.

18 DRBC. 2008. Administrative Manual - Part Ill: Water Quality Regulations, with Amendments 19 through July 16, 2008, 18 CFR Part 410. West Trenton, NJ. Printed September 12.

20 DRBC. 2010. "The Delaware River Basin." Accessed at:

21 http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm on February 24, 2010.

22 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). 2009. 2009 Farmland Preservation 23 Plan for the County of Cumberland, New Jersey. Prepared for Cumberland County Agriculture 24 Development Board. Accessed at:

25 http://www.co.cumberland.nj.us/content/1 73/251/761/2947/3098/2969/6996. aspx on May 17, 26 2010.

27 Gloucester County. 2009. Gloucester County Online Web Book. Accessed at:

28 http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/plan/webbook/lud est02.htm December 17, 2009.

29 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2002. National Electrical Safety 30 Code.

31 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2010. "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

32 Working Group II Report - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability." Accessed at:

33 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm on August 5, 2010.

34 Kauffmann, G., A. Belden, and A. Homsey. 2008. Technical Summary: State of the Delaware 35 River Basin Report. July 4. Accessed at:

36 www.wra.udel.edu/files/DRBCStateoftheBasinReport_07042008 on July 9, 2010.

37 Lower Alloways Creek Township (LACT). 1988a. Tax Map, Zone 8, Lower Alloways Creek 38 Township, May 1988.

39 LACT. 1988b. Tax Map, Zone 14, Lower Alloways Creek Township, May 1988.

September 2010 4-91 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 Morris Land Conservancy. 2006. County of Salem Open Space and FarmlandPreservation 2 Plan, Volume 1: Open Space and Recreation Plan. Compiled by Morris Land Conservancy with 3 Salem County Open Space Advisory Committee. December 2006. Accessed at:

4 http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/default.asp?contentlD=1208 on December 9, 2009.

5 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 6 Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication No.

7 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

8 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1993. Biological Opinion, Endangered Species Act 9 Section 7 consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the Salem and Hope 10 Creek Nuclear Generating Stations in Salem, NJ. NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Silver 11 Spring, MD.

12 NMFS. 1999. Letter to Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief, Generic Issues and Environmental 13 Projects Branch, Division of Nuclear Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 14 Commission, regarding consultation and biological opinion on the operation of Salem and 15 HCGS and endangered and threatened species.

16 NMFS. 2009. Letter from M. A. Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected 17 Resources, NMFS Northeast Region, to E. J. Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hancocks Bridge, 18 NJ. Letter responded to request from PSEG for information on listed species or critical habitat 19 at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. April 15. Letter provided in Appendix C of 20 Applicant's Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009a).

21 NMFS. 2010. Letter to Bo Pham, Chief, Project Branch 1. Division of License Renewal, Office 22 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, regarding information on the presence of species listed as 23 threatened or endangered by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service in the vicinity of Salem 24 and Hope Creek generating stations. February 11.

25 New Jersey American Water (NJAW) 2010. 2008 Annual Water Quality Report. Cherry Hill, 26 New Jersey. Accessed at: http://www.amwater.com/njaw/ensuring-water-quality/water-quality-27 reports.html, on February 24, 2010.

28 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 1994. Final NJPDES Permit 29 Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision, Salem 30 Generating Station, NJ0005622. Trenton, NJ.

31 NJDEP. 2001. Final NJPDES Permit Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and 32 Section 316(b) Decision, Salem Generating Station, NJ0005622. Trenton, NJ. Issued June 29.

33 NJDEP. 2004. Water Allocation Permit WAP040001. Trenton, New Jersey. New Jersey 34 Department of Environmental Protection. Issue Date: December 30, 2004.

35 NJDEP. 2007. Determination of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples, Final 36 Report. Accessed at: http:/lwww.state.nj.usldep/watersupplylfinal pfoareport.pdf, on April 23, 37 2010, 38 NJDEP. 2009a. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Report For the Environs of New 39 Jersey's Nuclear Power GeneratingStations, January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008. Bureau of 40 Nuclear Engineering. Accessed at:

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-92 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/bne/bnedown/2008EnvironSurv-MonitReport.pdf on May 17, 2 2010.

3 NJDEP. 2009b. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Report For the Environs of New 4 Jersey's Nuclear Power Generating Stations. January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008. Bureau 5 of Nuclear Engineering. Accessed May 17, 2010 at www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp.

6 Pennsylvania Bulletin (PA Bulletin). 2005. Notices, Delaware River Basin Commission 7 Meeting and Public Hearing 35 Pa.B. 6440), Doc. No. 05-2171, November 23, 2005. Accessed 8 at: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vo135135-48/2171.html, on April 23, 2010.

9. Philipp, K. R. 2005. History of Delaware and New Jersey Salt Marsh Restoration Sites.

10 Ecological Engineering 25 (2005) 214-230.

11 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG). 1975. A Report on the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 12 Artificial Island, Salem County, New Jersey. Supplement to Section 316(a), Demonstration 13 Type 3 (dated 18 September 1974). Newark, NJ. December 5.

14 PSEG. 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration Project. Newark, New Jersey, 15 Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: February 1984.

16 PSEG. 1994. Work Plan for the Biological Monitoring of the Delaware Estuary Under Salem's 17 New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Prepared for Public Service 18 Electric and Gas Company Estuary Enhancement Program. Prepared by EA Engineering, 19 Science, and Technology. October 1994.

20 PSEG. 1996. 1995 Annual Report, Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Electric and 21 Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. June 1996.

22 PSEG. 1997. 1996 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Electric and 23 Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.

24 PSEG. 1998. 1997 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Electric and 25 Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.

26 PSEG. 1999a. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station NJPDES Permit.

27 Public Service Enterprise Group Publication date: March 4, 1999.

28 PSEG. 1999b. 1998 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Electric 29 and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.

30 PSEG. 1999c. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station NJPDES Permit.

31 Publication date March 4.

32 PSEG. 2000. 1999 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Electric and 33 Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program.

34 PSEG. 2001. 2000 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 35 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

36 PSEG. 2002. 2001 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 37 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

38 PSEG. 2003. 2002 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 39 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

September 2010 4-93 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG. 2004. 2003 Annual Report. Newark, Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service 2 Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

3 PSEG. 2005. 2004 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 4 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

5 PSEG. 2006a. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application. NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.

6 Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Issue date: February 1, 2006.

7 PSEG. 2006b. 2005 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 8 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

9 PSEG. 2006c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2005 Annual Radiological 10 Environmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. May 2006.

11 ADAMS No. ML061300067.

12 PSEG. 2006d. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2005 Annual Radioactive Effluent 13 Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2006 ADAMS No.

14 ML061290341.

15 PSEG. 2007a. 2006 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 16 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

17 PSEG. 2007b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2006 Annual Radiological 18 Environmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2007.

19 ADAMS No. ML071230112.

20 PSEG. 2007c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2006 Annual Radioactive Effluent 21 Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2007 ADAMS No.

22 ML071230602.

23 PSEG. 2008a. 2007 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 24 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

25 PSEG. 2008b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2007 Annual Radiological 26 Environmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2008.

27 ADAMS No. ML081280737.

28 PSEG. 2008c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2007 Annual Radioactive Effluent 29 Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2008 ADAMS No.

30 ML081280103.

31 PSEG. 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application, 32 Appendix E - Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage. Lower 33 Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS Nos. ML092400532, 34 ML092400531, ML092430231 35 PSEG. 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal Application, Appendix E -

36 Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek 37 Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMs No. ML092430389 38 PSEG. 2009c. 2008 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, Public Service Enterprise 39 Group, Estuary Enhancement Program.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-94 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 PSEG. 2009d. Letter from PSEG, Newark, NJ to W. Walsh, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2 New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ regarding PSEG freshwater wetlands permit no. 000-3 02-0031.2 and endangered species compliance during electric transmission right-of-way 4 vegetation maintenance activities. October 23.

5 PSEG. 2009e. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2008 Annual Radiological 6 Environmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2009.

7 ADAMS No. ML091200612.

8 PSEG. 2009f. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2008 Annual Radioactive Effluent 9 Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2009 ADAMS No.

10 ML091280377.

11 PSEG. 2010a. Tables summarizing impingement data for shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic 12 sturgeon, and loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Provided by PSEG on May 3 in 13 response PSEG-4 to NRC request for additional information (RAI) dated April 16, 2010.

14 PSEG. 2010b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2009 Annual Radiological 15 Environmental OperatingReport. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2010.

16 ADAMS No. 101241151.

17 PSEG. 2010c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. 2009 Annual Radioactive Effluent 18 Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2010 ADAMS No.

19 ML101300368.

20 PSEG. 2010d. Letter from W. Lewis (PSEG) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 21 Document Control Desk, "

Subject:

PSEG Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC Early Site Permit 22 Application Expected Submission Date', February 11, 2010 23 PSEG. 2010e. Early Site Permit application letter. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New 24 Jersey. May, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101480484.

25 Snyder, D. and S. R. Kaufman. 2004. An Overview of Nonindigenous Plant Species in New 26 Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry, 27 Office of Natural Lands Management, Natural Heritage Program, Trenton, NJ. 107 pages.

28 Accessed at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/lnvasiveReport.pdf on August 22, 2010.

29 TetraTech. 2009. "Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station Calculation Package for Ground 30 Water Pumpage, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Station," TetraTech NUS, Aiken, SC, 31 February 23, 2009.

32 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. "P87. Poverty Status in 1999 by Age [17] - Universe:

33 Population for whom poverty status is determined. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 34 3) Sample Data." Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov/ on June 28, 2010.

35 USCB 2000b. "P90. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families by Family Type by Presence of Related 36 Children under 18 Years of Age by Age of Related Children [41] - Universe: Families. Data Set:

37 Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data." Accessed at: http://factfinder.census.gov/

38 on June 28, 2010.

39 USCB 2003. LandView 6 - Census 2000 Tables "P-4. Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or 40 Latino by Race [73]- Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-41 Percent Data"; "P87. Poverty Status in 1999 by Age [17] - Universe: Population for whom September 2010 4-95 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 poverty status is determined. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data";

2 and "P90. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families by Family Type by Presence of Related Children 3 under 18 Years of Age by Age of Related Children [41] - Universe: Families. Data Set: Census 4 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data" for Census Block Groups within an 80-km (50-mi) 5 radius of Salem and HCGS. December.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Environmental Protection Agency, Safe 7 Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), Salem County, New Jersey. Accessed at 8 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw_queryv2, on February 24, 2010.

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009a. Letter from New Jersey Field Office, 10 Pleasantville, NJ to E. J. Keating, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Hancocks Bridge, NJ in response to 11 PSEG request for information on the presence of federally listed endangered and threatened 12 species in the vicinity of the existing Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations located on 13 Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. September 9.

14 FWS. 2009b. Letter from New Jersey Field Office, Pleasantville, NJ to R. A. Tripodi, Manager, 15 Corporate Licenses and Permits, PSEG Services Corporation, Newark, NJ in response to 16 PSEG letter of October 23, 2009 confirming commitment by PSEG to ROW vegetation 17 maintenance procedures protective of listed species and recommended by FWS. November 4.

18 FWS. 2010. Letter from R. Popowski, Fish and Wildlife Service New Jersey Office, 19 Pleasantville, NJ to B. Pham, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission, Washington D.C. Response to NRC request for information on the presence of 21 Federally listed endangered and threatened species in the vicinity of the existing Salem and 22 Hope Creek Generating Stations located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, 23 Salem County, NJ. June 29.

24 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1983. R.L. Walker, "Evaluation of Water Levels in Major 25 Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain, 1978," Water-Resources Investigations Report 26 82-4077, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

27 USGS. 2000. A Hydrological Primer for New Jersey Watershed Management. Watt, M. U.S.

28 Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4140.

29 USGS. 2005. Documentation of Revisions to the Regional Aquifer System Analysis Model of 30 the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Voronin, L.M. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 31 Investigation Report 03-4268.

32 U.S. Global Research Program (USGCRP). "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 33 States," Cambridge University Press, 2009.

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

36 ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.

37 NRC. 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 38 Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for 39 license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, 40 Washington, D.C.

Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45 4-96 September 2010

Environmental Impacts of Operation 1 NRC. 1999b. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, 2 Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555. Washington, D.C.

3 NRC. 2009a. Or-aft Gencrie Einvir-opmnta! impect Statement for-Licanse Renewa! ef Nuclea; 4 P4pat (NUREG 1437), Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nulear Reactor Regulation.

5 jufly-2009.

6 NRC. 2009b. Letter to NMFS regarding: Request for List of Protected Species within the Area 7 Under Evaluation for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations License Renewal 8 Application Review. December 23.

September 2010 4-97 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 45