ML18095A415

Forwards Response to Request for Addl Info Re Reinstatement of OL Expiration Dates Based on Original Issuance of Ols. Advises That Correct Expiration Date for OL Proposed to Be 200418

ML18095A415
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	08/10/1990
From:	LABRUNA S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NLR-N90159, NUDOCS 9008150285
Download: ML18095A415 (67)

Text

. ' .I, ., T Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4800 Vice President

-Nuclear Operations AUG* 1 0 1990 NLR-N90159 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas hereby provides the additional information requested in your letter of April 10, 1990. This information pertains to our request for restatement of the operating license expiration dates based on issuance of the original operating licenses rather than issuance of the construction permits (PSE&G request for license amendment, NLR-N87142, August 3, 1987). The requested information is contained in three attachments to this submittal; Attachment 1 pertains to the environmental impacts of the proposed license extension; Attachment 2 addresses the NRC's concerns pertaining to the Pressurized Thermal Shock rule; and Attachment 3 discusses the transport of spent fuel and radwaste.

Please note that in PSE&G's original amendment aaeed August 3, 1987), the new expiration date for the Salem Unit 2 operating license was proposed to be April 18, 2020. But in your letter of April 10, 1990, the date is referenced as April 20, 2020. April 18, 1990 is the correct date. ( Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us. Thank you. Attachment

[ 0--------..._,_.

05000:;;'.:72 PDC Sincerely,

" :I ... , l ;.-1 '} l Document Control Desk NLR-N90159 c Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief 2 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 AUG 1 0 1990-

• NLR-N90159 ATTACHMENT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REQUESTED OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSIONS

,.*

1' I l * ' j 'I A. B. c . TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION/ISSUE 1 RESPONSE ******************************************

1 1 1 1 1 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF STATION OPERATION

.**. 1. 1 LA.ND USE **...*..***...******.*.**..*****

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1. 3 Site location ................. . Regional aspect **.***.*..**.***

Salem Generating Station land use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1.1.4 Principal use of land and water adjacent to the Artificial Island site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 1.1.5 Land use within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of Salem Generating Station ....................... . WATER USE ..****.**...***.**.***.****.*.*

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

• .*...******..*.**

1.3.1 Diamondback

Terrapin survey .*** 1.3.2 Osprey/ Bald Eagle survey ***..* AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

• • ...*.****.*****.*.**

1.4.1 Impingement

and Entrainment 2 3 4 4 6 7 Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 1.4.2 Sea turtle impact study ****..** 17 2.0 HYDROLOGICAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION

• • • • • • .*.**

20 2.1 THE DELAWARE RIVER **.*****.**..*********

20 2

• 2 SURFACE DRAINAGE.

• . . * . * * . * . . * * * * * * * * . * * . 2 2 2

• 3 GROUND WATER. * * . . . * . * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * . . * *

• 2 3 2

• 4 WATER QUALITY. * . . * . . * * . * * * . * * * * * * * * * * . * . 2 6 2.5 CHEMICAL WASTE AND SANITARY WASTE *.*.**. 27 3.0 POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..****...*.

27 3.1 IMPACT FROM INCREASED FUEL BURNUP **..**. 27 3.2 IMPACT FROM EXTENDED OPERATING CYCLES *** 27 3.3 IMPACT FROM EXTENDED OPERATING LICENSE ** 28 4

• 0 OTHER IMPACTS * * * * * * * * * * * . . . . * * * * * * * . * . * * * * * .

• 2 8 4.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION LABOR FORCE. * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * . * * * * * * * * * . . . . * * * *

• 2 8 4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ********.***.**.*..*****

29 4.2.1 Direct benefits *************.**

29 4.2.2 Indirect benefits .******.******

29 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS *.****..*******.****.*****

31 6.0 SHORT TERM USE AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY

• .*. 31 7. 0 DECOMMISSIONING.

• * * * * * * * . * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * . * * * . 31 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

• 3 3 9.0 RECREATIONAL IMPACTS *******.*.*************.*

33 10. 0 PLA.NT MODIFICATIONS.

• . . * * * . * * * * * * * * * . . * . * . * *

• 3 3 REFERENCES

II * * * * *

• 3 6 TABLES

• r.*

• 1 * * ;:' A. QUESTION/ISSUE "The staff has reviewed your submittal and based upon this review we find additional information is required to address the environmental impacts of the extended operating licenses.

The information supporting your amendment request should address (using current data) the impacts of the additional period of operation of the Salem Units and project whether it will result in greater impacts than those predicted by your Environmental Report (ER), Supplemental ER, and the staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES), respectively.

The enclosure contains a list based on the environmental areas addressed in the Salem FES which should be updated." B. RESPONSE 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF STATION OPERATION 1.1 LAND USE 1.1.1 Site Location Salem Station is located on 220 acres of PSE&G's 740 acre site at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The Island (in actuality, an artificial peninsula) projects from the eastern shore about one-third of the way across the Delaware River estuary which has a width of about 2.5 miles at this location (Figures 1.1 to 1.4). The station is essentially midway between Wilmington and Dover, Delaware, 20 miles north and south of the site, respectively.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is approximately 30 miles north and Salem, New Jersey, is 7.5 miles northeast of the site. 1.1.2. Regional Aspect The Salem Generating Station site lies on the low-lying coastal plain of New Jersey. The region of the site features extensive tidal marsh and meadow lands. Although much of the land in the vicinity is undeveloped, approximately

3.5 miles

to the east of the site the land is at an elevation suitable for farming and grazing. Tidal marshes to the north and northeast are more extensive and range for several miles. The Delaware side of the river is similar to the New Jersey side, except that the tidelands and marshes are not as extensive.

1.1.3 Salem

Generating Station Site land Use Figure 2.1 shows existing land use within the vicinity of Salem Generating station. The location of the PSE&G property and the exclusion area boundaries are shown in Figure 2.2

• Page 1 of 36

• *' j The total land area owned by PSE&G is 740 acres, of which 220 acres are occupied by Salem Generating Station and its facilities.

A visitors center is also located on the utility property.

At present there are no plans for future site modifications.

1.1.4. Principal

Uses of Land and Water Adjacent to the Artificial Island Site The principal uses of land adjacent to the Artificial Island site are vacant wetlands and agricultural.

The Delaware River extends along the western site boundary.

The primary commercial use of the river is barge and freight traffic between the Atlantic Ocean and ports within the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area. Plant operations at the Artificial Island site are self-contained within the utility property.

There are no required off-site access corridors for cooling water conveyance, future roads or other cultural features relating to the principal purpose of the facility.

Also, there are no plans for future plant expansion at the present time or through the proposed plant operation extension period. 1.1.5 Land Use Within 8 Kilometers (5 Miles) of Salem Generating Station Existing and projected land uses within eight kilometers (five miles) of Salem Generating Station are shown on Figures 2.1 and 2.2. The master plan for Salem County and the Middletown

-Odessa -Townsend Planning District show no projected major changes in the eight kilometer (5 mile) radius area. Population in the area is expected to remain essentially stable because more than 60 percent of the area is either water, wetland, or publicly-owned parks and wildlife refuges (Reference 1.0). No major transportation routes in New Jersey are located within eight kilometers (five miles) of the Salem Generating Station site. Route 9, a designated scenic highway in Delaware, passes within 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) of the site. Zoning in the eight kilometer (five mile) radius area of Salem Generating Station is shown in Figure 3.1. Artificial Island, on which Salem Generating Station is located, is zoned for industrial purposes, which include nuclear generating facilities.

In addition, two other parcels of land are zoned for industrial use. One is located 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) northeast and the other is adjacent to the stations northern boundary.

Most of these areas are wetlands; these will not be developed due to state and federal legislation prohibiting development within these areas. The Salem County Comprehensive plan, Figure 2.1 shows the remaining area to be agricultural and open space

• Page 2 of 36

,. ' ' * ,J Land use, zoning and township master plans have not changed to any great extent since the latter 1970 1 s. No townships in the immediate vicinity of Artificial Island have, in their master plans, indications of significant alterations to the existing plans at this time. Based on available material, PSE&G assumes that land use, zoning, and municipal master plan activities will not change significantly through the proposed extended operating lifetime.

1.2 WATER

USE The water of the Delaware River at the site and for some 25 miles upstream is brackish and, consequently, in this region is not used for domestic supplies and its industrial use is limited to cooling applications.

On the New Jersey side of the Delaware River there are six towns within a 25-mile radius of the site that have public water supplies.

Salem is the only one of these that obtains a part of its water supply from surface sources (Alloways Creek about 8 miles north-east of the site). Water for the other towns (and about one-third of the supply for Salem) is pumped from wells. Nearly all of the water supplies for private use are obtained from wells, most of which are two inches in diameter and more than 75 feet deep. There are no known production wells closer than 2 miles to the site and the nearest residences (summer cottages) are about 3 miles away. Dames and Moore was retained by PSE&G to investigate the status of groundwater supply at Salem Generating Station. Their report entitled, "Study of Long Term Groundwater Withdrawals and Water-Supply Alternatives of PSE&G's Salem/Hope Creek Generating Stations, July 1988," is available from PSE&G upon request. The scope of work included:

an investigation of the condition of site production and observation wells;

• a study of current ground-water levels and ground-water quality in site wells;

• modeling the effects of future withdrawals from site aquifers, particularly as such withdrawals relate to the position and possible movement of salt-water/fresh-water interfaces; performing a feasibility study of water-supply alternatives.

This involved formulation and screening of water-supply alternatives, including water recycling and surface water sources, to possibly replace a portion or all of the ground water currently being used for the plant service water requirements; Page 3 of 36

] ' * * ) ' development of a site-wide groundwater monitoring program; development of a plan for the abandonment of selected site wells. The modeling used in this study assumed twenty years withdrawal at the current rate (Reference 2.0). Several recommendations were made, and findings stated that a feasible water use management plan can be implemented to insure low-impact sustenance of current use rates. However, since groundwater withdrawal has not been modeled in consideration of the duration of a full 40 year operating lifetime , additional studies on feasibility, alternatives, and groundwater use management will have to be conducted as needed. Operational life extension will not alter rates of evaporation, therefore license extension impact to consumption rate of this resource will be insignificant.

1.3 TERRESTRIAL

ECOSYSTEMS Terrestrial ecological effects of the operation of Salem Generating Station have been minimal, as predicted in the FES. Several terrestrial ecological monitoring surveys have been conducted prior to and during operational years, namely, an osprey/bald eagle nesting survey and a diamondback terrapin nesting survey. No major impacts or negative population responses to station operation have been observed in the subject populations studied. Section 4.2.2 of the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 required monitoring nesting and occurrence of diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin, and osprey, Pandion haliaetus, in the region surrounding Artificial Island. The ETS has since been replaced with an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) which no longer requires these monitoring programs.

Pertinent sections and summaries of the 1989 surveys of both these species follows. 1.3.1 Diamondback Terrapin Survey The objectives of this study were to monitor nesting activity and success of the northern diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin in the vicinity of Salem Generating station. Northern diamondback terrapin inhabit brackish water along the Atlantic Coast from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.

They nest above the high tide level in flat areas on sand dunes or beaches that are heavily vegetated.

Females are reported to take less than an hour to Select a site, dig a flask-shaped hole, lay and cover her eggs, and return to the water. Locally, nesting usually begins in mid-June and hatching usually commences from mid to late August and may continue into November.

Cold weather may cause the young to hibernate in or near the nest and emerge the next spring. Page 4 of 36

*

• Study Area Observations were made at suitable nesting beaches at each of two locations:

Sunken Ship Cove, New Jersey and Liston Point, Delaware (Fig. 4.1). Sunken Ship Cove is at the southeastern end of Artificial Island. The beach is partially bound by a breakwater.

Half lies within the cove and half is to the east of the cove. The area monitored is about 210 m long and 15-30 m wide. Primary vegetation consists of a dense stand of saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), sea rocket (Cakile edentula), and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) occurring in clumps. The Liston Point site is about 400 m long and 20-30 m wide. Primary vegetation is saltmeadow cordgrass and American beachgrass, (Ammophila breviligulata), in sparse to dense stands; with marsh elder, (Iva frutescens) and sedge, (Cyperus sp., occurring in clumps. The vegetation is located behind a 7-12 m wide shoreline strip of sand. An intertidal stand from 3-5 m wide of predominantly saltmarsh cordgrass occurs on the southern half of the site. Summary Since 1975 approximately 400 visits were made to Sunken Ship Cove and Liston Point beaches to monitor nesting activity and success of the northern diamondback terrapin.

The data suggests that the Liston Point beach annually has greater activity and higher productivity than sunken Ship Cove (Tables 1.1 through 1.4). These findings are not unexpected since Liston Point beach is a larger, more isolated area, possibly more conducive to nesting activity.

All observations on local diamondback terrapin suggest behavior, and response to environmental conditions typical of the species and of a healthy biological population.

Since 1975, when this study began, construction of the Salem Generating Station (SGS Units 1 and 2 was completed and both units underwent power-level staging and reached 100 percent (commercial) operation (Unit 1 in June 1977 and Unit 2 in October 1981). There is no evidence that operational levels or characteristics of SGS have affected, in any way, the activities of local diamondback terrapin.

It is probable that the Artificial Island access road has indirectly had a negative affect on the degree of utilization of the Sunken Ship Cove beach as a nesting site. The road provides ready, and literally the only land access to Sunken Ship Cove and the Delaware River. The presence of this road has enabled utilization of this area by fisherman, boaters and picnickers.

This human recreational activity during the nesting period probably discourages or disrupts nesting behavior.

It is unlikely that this very localized action has any substantive effect on the regional diamondback terrapin population.

Currently, little is known about the factors limiting terrapin reproduction and success (Reference 3.0). Page 5 of 36

. l * -' j Since operating license extension to 40 years will not involve any additional construction, new and previously unreviewed impacts to diamondback terrapin nesting efforts will be nonexistent.

The continued use of the access road for a full 40 years of plant operation will sustain the current impact, which, as previous stated, is unlikely to have any substantive effect on regional diamondback terrapin population trends. 1.3.2 Osprey/Bald Eagle Survey The North American Osprey , had been federally classified as "status undetermined" (USDI, 1973), but has since been deleted from the list. It was historically listed as endangered by the state of New Jersey but was down listed to threatened in 1985 (NJAC 7:25-4.17 as amended May 6, 1985). The State of Delaware does not include osprey on its Endangered and Threatened species list (DE DNREC 1981). The southern bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus, is federally classified as "endangered" (USDI, 1979). Osprey surveys were conducted in the study area from April 4 through August 10, 1989. Thirteen nests were considered active, twelve of which fledged a total of 21 young. Due to the absence of bald eagle nesting in the study area, no special study program was established.

However, three immature and three adult bald eagles were observed in the study area in early April 1989. Study Area Observations were made at the site of actual and potential osprey nesting sites in the general area shown in Figure 4.1. The region extends roughly 16 km north, 13 km south and 8 km east and west of Salem Generating Station. The area features bay, riverine, marsh, upland field and wooded habitats.

Duck blinds,. pilings, navigation range markers and powerline towers are common features.

Results and Discussion During 1989, osprey abundance in the area was surveyed from April 10 through August 10. The greatest number of adults sighted occurred during the aerial survey in April at the start of the egg-laying period when twenty-five (25) osprey were counted within the study area. These adult birds were typically seen on or near the nesting structures.

During 1989, twenty nests were located and surveyed during the nesting period. Thirteen nests were occupied by osprey and appeared active (Table 2.1). Of the total number of nests, 17 were in electrical transmission line towers, one was in a navigational rangelight tower, one was on a nesting platform, and one was in a dead cedar tree (Figure 4.1). Page 6 of 36

. '*

• Of the 13 active nests, it is estimated that twelve (12) were successful and fledged 21 young. This compares with 17 fledged in 1988, 15 fledged in 1987, nine in 1986, and is well within the range (4 to 23) and substantially above the mean (10.6) for the previous 15 years of study (1974 through 1988). Three osprey nests were constructed on the relatively new Salem-Deans transmission line (1984) during 1989. Although only two of these nests were considered active , the third nest, plus four additional nests on the adjacent Hope Creek -New Freedom line demonstrate greater nesting activity than has occurred in previous years. Construction of this transmission line increased the number of available nesting sites for osprey and should facilitate an increase in the number of osprey nests in the study area. Three immature and two adult bald eagles were observed in the study area in early April 1989. One adult bald eagle was observed perched in several locations along the Artificial Island access road on April 6, 1989 and three immature and one adult eagle were observed in the region of Raccoon Ditch during the aerial survey on April 10, 1989. This bald eagle activity greatly exceeds the level of activity seen in historical years of Artificial Island monitoring and may be the result of efforts by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife to reestablish a viable southern New Jersey population.

Also, the NJDEP reported a newly established bald eagle nest during 1989 in the Dix Wildlife Management Area located approximately 20 kilometers south of Artificial Island. Summary As the 1989 data show, osprey populations in the area continue to increase.

Osprey are not disturbed by the presence of any of the facilities on Artificial Island and do not appear to be limited by the available food supply. Not all of the existing transmission towers are currently being used by nesting ospreys, but their presence, provides a wide selection of available nest sites. Construction of transmission towers in this vicinity has not hampered, but augmented nesting opportunities (Reference

5. 0)

• Extending the SGS operating license to the full 40 year design basis lifetime will have no negative impact (based on information to date) on osprey/eagle nesting efforts at the Artificial Island locale. Any new tower/transmission line construction during the extended lifetime period can only serve to increase osprey nesting and utilization of this area. 1.4 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS PSE&G's Salem (Unit Nos. 1 and 2) Stations are located on the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The station is situated on the eastern shore of the Delaware River Estuary. Page 7 of 36

---

---

,, *, . *

• Artificial Island is located approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) upstream of the head of Delaware Bay and approximately 50 miles (80 kilometers) upstream of the mouth of the Bay. Freshwater flow in the estuary is 23,532 cubic feet per second (661 cubic meters per second) and tidal flows average 399,710 cubic feet per second (11,320 cubic meters per second). The salinity ranges from zero parts per thousand (ppt) to a maximum of 20 ppt. Water temperature in the river in the vicinity of Artificial Island varies from 32 degrees F (O degrees C) to 86 degrees F (30 degrees C). Salem Generating Station consists of two pressurized water nuclear reactors with an electrical capacity of approximately 1,100 megawatts (MWe) per unit. Salem Station has two water intake structures, the Circulating Water System (CWS) and the Service Water System (SWS). The cws intake withdraws

1.1 million

gallons of water per minute (gpm) to condense steam in the main condensers of each unit. The SWS intake withdraws approximately 40,000 gallons per minute to cool heat exchangers for the remainder of the equipment for both units including the safety related cooling systems. Both intakes utilize trash racks and vertical travelling screens to remove river debris from the water. The cws intake has been modified with Ristroph fish buckets and a fish return system. PSE&G has conducted several extensive studies of Salem Generating Station's impact to aquatic ecological communities.

An extensive study of circulating water intake impingement/entrainment impacts to aquatic biological communities was conducted as part of Salem Generating Station's 316(b) demonstration (Available from PSE&G upon request).

A study of SGS's intake structure impact to sea turtle populations has also been conducted.

• Summaries and pertinent excerpts of both studies follow. 1.4.1 Impingement/Entrainment Studies (Reference 4.0) Communities Impacted The populations of all species (freshwater, estuarine, and ocean) that interact in the Delaware estuary constituted the community of interest for SGS's 316(b) demonstration.

To facilitate evaluation, this "total community" of the Delaware River/Bay system is subdivided into smaller communities based on habitat zones and/or tropic function within the food web presented schematically in Figure 5.1. Only the downstream fringe of the range of obligate freshwater species ever extends as far south as Salem during rare periods of extraordinary freshwater flow. Since such species do not become involved*

with the cooling water system, they do not warrant further consideration.

Similarly, obligate marine species of the Page 8 of 36

• * . . ocean community that rarely, if ever, come into the estuary are excluded from further discussion.

The following subsections present evaluations of the potential for impact among component communities of organisms that live more than an incidental part of their life cycle in the dynamic environment of the Delaware estuary. Communities With Negligible Potential for Impact The discussion of communities with negligible potential for adverse impact is limited to a general description of the location, composition, and function of the community in the ecosystem, accompanied by a technical rationale explaining why the potential for adverse impact to the community is negligible.

Biological communities accorded with very low potential impact status in this Demonstration include all of the obligate freshwater communities that occupy the upstream Delaware River and tributaries; the marshland plants (and associated aufwuchs, invertebrates, nekton, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds that live in the extensive marshlands and associated tidal creeks along both shores of the brackish water zone of the Delaware estuary);

the microbial decomposers (bacteria, fungi, and protoza);

and benthic invertebrates.

Communities With Low Potential For Impact The discussion of communities with low potential for adverse impact include an examination of the total community to determine if it has special and unique value qualitatively and quantitatively that could be affected by Salem's cooling water intake. The following sections include descriptions of tropic function, trends in abundance and dominant taxonomic associations, and technical rationales that explain why the potential for adverse impact to the community is low. Low potential impact communities for this Demonstration include the phytoplankton, microzooplankton, and pelagic macroinvertebrates.

Due to their small size relative to the 9.5-cm mesh of the cooling water intake screens, these organisms are not impinged but are susceptible to being entrained.

Community Most Susceptible To Impact: Fish The fish community within the Delaware estuary comprises a widely varied assemblage of species. To date, more than 90 distinct species have been collected as part of the biological investigations conducted for Salem station. This assemblage of fish species serves a variety of trophic functions within the estuary ecosystem.

Some species, such as the anchovy and the clupeids, are planktivorous throughout their entire life cycle. These often highly abundant species serve as energy transfer links between the highly productive lower trophic levels and predominately predaceous fishes. Other species, such as striped Page 9 of 36 I . ' * * . . bass and weakfish, have larvae which are planktivorous, but which shift to a diet of macroinvertebrates and/or fish prey as they grow older. As a consequence of this life history pattern, these species can be competitors for food as larvae, and later become predators of their own and many other fish species (Table 3.1). In terms of their utilization of the Delaware estuary, fish can be loosely categorized into three groups. First, there are those which permanently inhabit the estuary. Examples of this group include white perch, hogchoker, and numerous killifishes--all species which are euryhaline.

The second group includes species which utilize the estuary only during specific life stages or time periods. This group includes anadromous and catadromous species such as striped bass, American shad, alewife, and blueback herring, which spawn in fresh water, as well as marine-brackish water spawners such as spot, croaker, weakfish, bay anchovy, bluefish, and menhaden.

These species most commonly utilize the estuary as part of their spawning and nursery areas for their young, and in some instances as overwintering grounds for older individuals.

This group typically dominates fish biomass and production within the estuary, particularly during the warmer months of the year. The third group includes both marine and freshwater species which are only occasional visitors to the Delaware estuary. Examples of this group include freshwater minnows and esocids as well as tropical and offshore marine inhabitants such as crevalle jacks, lookdowns, and various gadids. Although individuals of this grouping may be frequently encountered, they are never abundant and do not play significant roles in either energy production or transfer within the estuary. As a consequence of Salem's location in the transition zone between fresh and brackish waters, species from all three groupings occur in the vicinity of the station at certain times of the year. However, the potential for adverse impact due to operation of the Salem cooling water system is negligible for most of the more than 90 species collected.

The occasional freshwater and marine visitors are never abundant enough, nor occur frequently enough, for there to be any potential for adverse impact. In addition to this relatively large number of uncommon species, many other species are not involved with Salem station due to their specific location within the estuary. For example, species such as killifish, silversides, and pipefish spend most if not all of their estuarine existence within the littoral zone and consequently are not frequently exposed to the Salem cooling water intake. Other species, such as flounders and the catfishes, inhabit the generally deeper benthic areas and are also not vulnerable to Salem's cooling water system. Together, these three categories of species with negligible potential for adverse impact due to the operation of Salem account for most of the fish species collected within the Delaware estuary

• Page 10 of 36

• ' The species with some potential for adverse impact are restricted to those which are abundant in the vicinity of Salem at a time -when a general pelagic distribution renders them vulnerable to withdrawal by the station's cooling water flow. For purposes of this Demonstration, nine species of fish were selected for detailed impact evaluation.

These were selected on the basis of estimated numbers entrained or impinged or due to particular concern by regulators.

This species list focused on certain "target species" as those most likely to reflect any environmental effects of Salem station operation.

Detailed discussions on the potential for adverse impact due to entrainment or impingement at the Salem station are presented for each of the nine species in the following sections.

Ecosystem

-Level Effects Portions of the 316 (b) provide assessments for each of various biological communities that occupy portions of the Delaware estuary and coastal marine ecosystem.

Consistent with general practice, each community was defined by both the trophic function and habitat zone it occupies in the ecosystem.

For each community, an initial assessment as made of the potential of the community was then adjusted so as to be proportional to its potential for impact. These analyses focused on the amount of each community's involvement with Salem's cooling water system and entrainment and impingement survival estimates, in relation to distribution, abundance, life expectancy, generation time, reproduction and mortality rates, and, where applicable, exploitation by sport and commercial fishing. These assessments uniformly concluded that no significant adverse environmental impact was likely to occur to any of these communities as a result of operation of Salem station's present cooling water system. Each of these trophic levels interact with each other to varying degrees as they all respond to the ever-changing physical-chemical environment in the estuary. This results in an overall pattern of ecosystem characteristics which include, but are not directly dependent on the particular species that occupy each trophic level in the system. Figure 5.1 presents a conceptual diagram of the food-energy flow for the Delaware estuary ecosystem.

Ecosystem Trophodynamics The high biological productivity characteristic of ecosystems such as the Delaware estuary is explained by the fact that food energy and nutrients from multiple sources (the food-energy base) are cycled through several successions of organisms (the food web) before being either dissipated as heat, stored in the system in the form of organic detritus, or exported to the ocean. Page 11 of 36

• The primary pathways of food-energy input to the Delaware estuary include: transport of already synthesized organic matter and .nutrients into the system by freshwater tributaries, sewers, and surface runoff; photosynthesis by macrophytes and periphyton in the extensive marshland/littoral zone along both sides of the estuary; and photosynthesis by phytoplankton in the open water (pelagic) zone. The Food-Energy Base There is virtually total assurance that the food-energy base of the Delaware estuary is not affected adversely by the operation of Salem's cooling water system. The primary reasons for this conclusion are as follows: The location of the Salem station CWS intake assures that there is no direct involvement with two of the three primary source-inputs to the food-energy base. The Salem CWS intake withdraws water from the open water (pelagic) zone in the reach traversed by the front of intermixing fresh and salt water (the transition zone). Because of this location, there is no direct involvement either of the tributaries, sewage, surface runoff source, or the macrophyte-periphyton synthesis of detritus in the littoral zone marshes.

• The pelagic portion of the detritus-microbe complex is not reduced by operation of the Salem station cooling water system. Detritus and associated microbes, flushed from the littoral zone by tidal action, are a major source of food-energy for animal life in the pelagic zone. Detritus small enough to pass through the Salem cws intake screens is returned within minutes to the pelagic zone. Larger detritus that collects on the intake screen is also washed from the screens and returned to the pelagic zone.

• Although directly involved, there is no. appreciable adverse effect on the phytoplankton community due to operation of the Salem station cooling water system. The phytoplankton community is the only source-input to the food-energy base that occupies the open water (pelagic) zone, which is the source of cooling water for Salem. Because of high turbidity in this pelagic, salinity transition reach, the contribution of phytoplankton to the food base is reduced compared with less turbid reaches toward the confluence of Delaware Bay with the ocean. Additional bases for concluding that no adverse effects due to entrainment are occurring, discussed in more detail in Section 7.3.2.1 of the Salem 316 (b), include: the high abundance and ubiquitous distribution of dominant taxa, high entrainment survival except during the Page 12 of 36

', *

• periods of intermittent chlorination, the rapid reproduction (1-3 generations per day) potential of phytoplankton; rapid mixing of entrained water with the relatively much larger total flow of water past the Salem station location; and results of studies at a multitude of similarly sized operating power plants during the past 15 years which document the absence of appreciable effects on phytoplankton communities in the source water bodies. In summary, the fact that the input pathways either are not involved at all or are not appreciably affected, assures that the food-energy base of the Delaware estuary ecosystem is not and will not be disrupted by operation of the existing Salem station cooling water systems. Primary Consumer Trophic Level This level of the Delaware ecosystem consists of small animal life which eat detritus and/or phytoplankton and, in turn, may be eaten by larger animals. Included are epifauna, benthos, and microzooplankton, and fish larvae. There are numerous reasons for concluding that this portion of the trophic structure and function is not adversely affected by operation of the Salem station cooling water system. These include the following:

The Salem CWS intake location assures that there is not direct involvement of major portions of this trophic level. Since the intake location draws water from the pelagic zone in the salinity transition (oligohaline) reach the estuary, the benthos and epifauna communities in the littoral zone marshes along both sides of the estuary are not directly involved with the intake (Figure 5.1). Neither are the benthos, epifauna, drift, and microzooplankton in the tidal creeks tributary to the estuary. Neither are the obligate fresh water benthic, epifauna, and microzooplankton in the tidal fresh water portion of the Delaware upstream of Salem, nor the obligate mesohaline to marine benthos, epifauna, and microzooplankton which occupy the more saline reaches of the middle and lower Delaware Bay. Obligate fresh water and marine organisms that get transported by currents into the oligohaline reach, where the Salem intake is located, are likely to succumb and become part of the detrital food-energy base for the estuary. There are no appreciable adverse effects on the benthos which occupy the bottom of the pelagic zone in the salinity transition reach of the estuary. Involvement of the benthos in this reach with the Salem CWS intake is meager because of their relatively fixed, resident existence in or on the bottom substrate.

Page 13 of 36

! .,

• Some of the benthos detach and drift with the currents where they become more susceptible to entrainment.

However, these euryhaline forms have been shown to be quite tolerant of entrainment through cooling water systems with temperature elevations, flow velocities, and transit times characteristic of the Salem station. The microzooplankton in the salinity transition reach are involved, but incur no appreciable adverse impact due to operation of the Salem cooling water system. The viable microzooplankton in the salinity transition reach consists primarily of euryhaline fresh water and marine forms that are able to tolerate oligohaline conditions.

There is continual transport of these forms with freshwater and tidal flows into the salinity transition reach. Studies at a multitude of operating power plants at estuarine and coastal locations have shown no appreciable impact on the microzooplankton community, even in the near vicinity of the discharge.

These results are explained by one or more of the following factors, which are discussed in more detail in Section 7.3.2.2 of the Salem 316 (b): most forms are generally tolerant of the entrainment and exhibit high entrainment survival, except during periods of chlorine application.

The abundant microzooplanktors are readily transported by currents, which serves to replenish and obliterate localized areas of reduced abundance.

Short generation times and high reproductive potential are characteristics that help these forage organisms to sustain high exploitation rates by predators.

In summary, the primary consumer trophic function of the Delaware estuary ecosystem is not appreciably affected by operation of the Salem station cooling water system because most of the participant communities are not involved with the intake. Also, the one that is most involved (microzooplankton) is not adversely affected.

The abundance, numerically dominant taxa, and variety of .microzooplankton in the oligohaline, salinity-transition reach of the Delaware estuary are typical for this portion of Middle Atlantic estuaries.

Secondary Consumer Trophic Level This trophic level consists of the full array of intermediate size (mostly <50 mm long) invertebrates and fish which function as the energy transfer link between the lower trophic levels (detritus, phytoplankton, microzooplankton, and benthos) and the top omnivore predators (large fish, crabs, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals including man). The secondary consumers include the macrobenthos, macro-epifauna and macrozooplankton communities, as well as the postlarval to young-of-year stages of fish, and small species of forage fish such as the bay anchovy (Figure 5.1; Table 3.1). Six of the taxa designated as target species for this Demonstration (Neomysis americana, Gammarus spp., the alosids, and bay anchovy) are included among the secondary consumers.

Page 14 of 36

• The assessments in Section 7.3 of the Salem 316 (b) indicate that for even the most involved of secondary consumer communities (the macrozooplankton) in the Delaware estuary, species composition and abundance are not apparently changed by entrainment and remain typical of estuaries along the Middle Atlantic coast. The numerically dominant species of macrozooplankton in the vicinity of Salem station continues to include high densities of the target species !L.. americana and Gammarus spp. The relative abundances of these taxa in the open water (pelagic zone) continues to change, as expected, in response to the daily light/dark cycle and seasonal and annual shifts in salinity.

Similarly, for the small forage fishes, there have been no apparent effects on distribution or abundance due to the operation of Salem's cooling water system. The dynamics of absolute and relative abundance and distribution continue to exhibit patterns expected as the result of interactions of life history and environmental variables.

These findings indicate that the trophic function of these particular components is apparently not impaired by the operation of Salem's cooling water system. Additional bases for concluding that potential is even more remote for impairments of the total secondary consumer trophic level function of the Delaware estuary ecosystem include the following:

Involvement is low-to-nonexistent for most other of the total community components serving this trophic function in the Delaware estuary ecosystem.

The macrobenthos, macro-epifuana, and small fish which occupy the freshwater tidal tributaries and the extensive marsh/littoral zone along both sides of the estuary have little or no direct involvement with the Salem cooling water system. Pelagic, secondary consumer organisms in the system, which are restricted by their salinity tolerance from occupying the oligohaline reach of the estuary, are also not involved except during occasional periods of extraordinary freshwater flow down the estuary, or extraordinary salt-water intrusion upstream in the estuary.

• Prevalence of omnivorous and opportunistic feeding at the secondary and top consumer levels serves to minimize the potential for impairment of food/energy flow through the total biological community in the Delaware estuary ecosystem.

The prevalence of omnivorous and opportunistic feeding behavior by organisms in highly dynamic ecosystems such as the Delaware estuary is to be expected.

This type of feeding behavior throughout the higher of the consumer levels is indicated by the compilation of data for the target species (Table 3.1). The propensity of the omnivorous estuarine organisms to eat whatever is most available at any given time expands the pathways available for food energy flow through the food web in the Page 15 of 36

1.

• ecosystem and, conversely, minimizes the potential for reduced abundance of any particular food item to seriously compromise the food supply for the top level consumers.

Top Consumer Trophic Level Components of the top consumer trophic level include large fishes, reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals, including man. There is virtually no potential for adverse effects to this trophic level due to operation of the Salem cooling water systems. Among these components of the top consumer trophic level of the Delaware estuary ecosystem (Figure 5.1), only the pelagic fishes are located in position to have more than an incidental involvement with the Salem intake. However, large fish (>100-mm long) are hardly entrained at all though the Salem station cooling water system and relatively few fish larger than 150-170 mm (6-7 inches) are impinged.

As indicated in Section 7.3.3 of the Salem 316 (b), no appreciable adverse effects are evident or expected for this pelagic component of the fish community due to operation of the existing Salem cooling water systems. Conclusion There are substantial bases for concluding that the composition and function of the total biological community of the Delaware estuary ecosystem are not appreciably affected by operation of the existing Salem station cooling water systems. Large portions of each trophic level occupy habitats away from the cooling water intake so have little to no involvement with it. Euryhaline, pelagic organisms, which can tolerate the oligohaline conditions in that reach of the waterbody, are the component of the total community that has more than incidental involvement with the cooling water systems. The potential for operation of the existing cooling water systems to cause appreciable adverse effects to this pelagic component is demonstrably quite low (J16 b Sections 7.2 and 7.3). The absence of appreciable adverse impacts is confirmed by empirical information from studies of the Delaware estuary, which indicate no appreciable effect or change in geographical ranges and abundance trends of populations or in the species composition, relative abundance, and principal associations of the species in these pelagic communities.

These findings are consistent with those from extensive studies of similarly designed power plants cooling water system operations on other estuaries.

Empirical information also confirms that the biological community occupying the Delaware estuary is substantially the same with respect to all of these attributes as the biological communities which occupy other estuaries in the Middle Atlantic region. Page 16 of 36

,. I * *

• 1.4.2 Sea Turtle Impact Study This biological assessment, entitled "Impact of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations on Sea Turtles" was prepared by Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) for submittal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Marine Fisheries Service to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (the Act). The purpose of this assessment is to examine the potential impacts associated with the continued operation of PSE&G's Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations on sea turtle species protected under the Act. Five species of sea turtles have been reported from Delaware Bay and coastal New Jersey and Delaware.

These sea turtle species are: loggerhead (Carretta carretta), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretomochelys imbricata).

Three of these sea turtle species, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill and leatherback, are listed as endangered and two, the loggerhead and green turtle are listed as threatened.

The loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles are distributed throughout the Bay. The leatherback, green and hawksbill sea turtles occur primarily in the coastal areas of New Jersey and Delaware and around the mouth of the Bay. The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle in the coastal waters of the United States and occurs in many other locations throughout the world. Population numbers along the south Atlantic coast (North Carolina to Florida) have been estimated at 387,594 turtles based on extrapolations from aerial surveys. The loggerhead population in the southeast is considered to be stable by most investigators but the population is threatened by reductions in nesting and foraging habitat by the continued development of coastal areas and losses due to incidental capture in shrimp trawls. An estimated 9,800 turtles are lost annually from trawling without the use of turtle exclusion devices (TED's) The Kemp's ridley is the most endangered of the sea turtle species. There is only a single known colony of this species, nearly all of which nest near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico and represent the world population of this species. The population for this species has been estimated at 2,200 turtles based on estimates derived from observed numbers of nesting females in recent years and other life history parameters.

Observations over the past ten years suggest that this population is declining at the rate of 3 percent each year. The ridley population is also impacted by coastal development and shrimp trawling.

An estimated 760 turtles are lost annually through trawling alone

• Page 17 of 36

.. *

• Sea turtles have been observed and incidentally captured at Salem Generating Station and during field sampling associated with the station since 1977. A total of 44 sea turtles have been reported since 1979. The majority of these, thirty eight, have been collected from the stations' circulating water intake trash racks. Of the thirty eight turtles from the intake, twenty six were loggerhead sea turtles and twelve were Kemp's ridleys. All specimens were subadults or juveniles.

Loggerheads were the more common of the two species captured from the CWS intake. The number of loggerheads captured annually since 1980 ranged from zero to eight (mean= 3). Eight of the twenty six loggerheads captured were alive and these were released back into the wild. Among the eighteen dead turtles, eight were considered fresh dead and had either collapsed lungs, internal infections or damage which may have contributed to their deaths. The other ten sea turtles were either moderately or severely decomposed.

Necropsies available for these turtles showed evidence of boat propeller damage and internal infections.

Kemp's ridley sea turtles were the less common of the two species captured from the CWS intake. The number of ridley's captured annually since 1980 ranged from zero to three (Mean= 1.3). Six of the twelve ridleys captured were alive and five of these were released back into the wild. Among the six dead turtles, three were considered fresh dead and had collapsed lungs. The other three turtles were either moderately or severely decomposed.

Two of these turtles showed evidence of boat propeller damage. The primary concern with sea turtles at Salem Generating Station is whether or not the losses of these endangered or threatened species "jeopardizes their continued existence".

Federal regulation defines the term as engaging in an action that would reasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. A comparison was made of sea turtle losses at Salem Generating Station, assuming worst case losses, with population estimates for both species. This worst case estimate of losses includes turtles dying of natural mortality that account for a portion of the turtles captured at the Salem intake. Sea turtles captured alive at Salem and returned to the wild are not included.

Calculated accordingly, the maximum estimated, worst case annual loss of loggerheads at the station is nine turtles which represents 0.002 percent of the population in the U.S. southeast.

The maximum, estimated, worst-case annual loss of Kemp's ridleys at Salem is one or two turtles which would represent 0.05 or 0.09 percent of the population.

It is unlikely that losses at these levels would "appreciably reduce" the distribution or numbers of either species. Losses to reproduction would be reduced to "production foregone" due to the loss of the juvenile/subadult animals which could be potentially recruited into the breeding female population in the future. Page 18 of 36

...

• Summary of General Impacts on Sea Turtle Populations Five factors have been listed as factors contributing to the decline in sea turtle populations (43 FR 146:32800-32811);

1. Destruction or modification of habitat; 2. overutilization for commercial, scientific or educational purposes;

3. Inadequate regulatory mechanisms;

4. Disease and/or predation; and, 5. Other natural or man-made sources. The destruction and/or modification of habitat from coastal development and losses due to incidental capture during commercial fishing are likely the two major factors impacting sea turtle populations along the Atlantic coast of the United States. The continued development of beachfront and estuarine shoreline areas are likely to be impacting foraging grounds for several turtle species. Incidental capture (take) is defined as the capture of species other than those towards which a particular fishery is directed.

As implied by this definition, the commercial fishing industry has been implicated in many of the carcass strandings on southeast U.S. beaches. The annual catch of sea turtles by shrimp trawlers in the southeast has been estimated to 45,000 turtles, primarily loggerheads.

The average mortality rate was estimated to be about 27 percent or over 12,000 turtle deaths per year. However, not all beached carcasses are the result of drowning in fish nets. Other human-related causes of mortality include damage from boating, plastic ingestion, etc. More research needs to be conducted to determine the precise cause of death of these animals. The unintentional capture of species during non-fishery related industrial process may also be considered to be incidental capture. In New Jersey and New York, boat damage is a commonly observed injury in stranded turtles. The loggerhead is the most numerous turtle in U.S. coastal waters and therefore would be encountered most frequently by fishermen and recreational boaters. East coast stranding data for 1987 reported approximately 2,500 animals for the Atlantic east coast. The greatest number of these strandings were observed along the southeastern Atlantic coast (i.e. Florida).

Even though any loss of an endangered or threatened species is important, the magnitude of the losses of loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles from Salem Generating Station would not be expected to significantly impact the U.S . Atlantic coast populations of these species. Page 19 of 36

., *

• Summary The results and summaries of both the aforementioned sea turtle and impingement/entrainment studies indicate that Salem Generating Station's operation poses no significant threat to the biological populations considered.

SGS operational impacts are consistent with the FES evaluation.

Information available to date indicates that extension of the operating license to 40 years will not significantly increase impacts to aquatic resources.

2.0 HYDROLOGICAL

IMPACTS OF OPERATION 2.1 THE DELAWARE RIVER Physiography The current status of the hydrosphere at the SGS site is similar to that at the construction permit stage. The Delaware River Estuary, as defined by the DRBC, extends from Liston Point (Delaware River Mile 48.2) to the head of the tide above Trenton at River Mile (RM) 133.4. The generating station is within this estuary, located approximately

3.9 kilometers

(2.4 miles) upstream of the Liston Point Transect.

The Delaware River extends upstream of the Liston Point transect.

The Delaware River extends upstream from RM 133.4, and the Delaware Bay lies below RM 48.2. The largest tributaries of the Delaware River in the estuarine zone are the Schuylkill and Lehigh Rivers in Pennsylvania; the Christiana River in Delaware; the Assunpink, Crosswicks, Rancocas and Salem Rivers, and Big Timber, Hope and Alloways Creeks in New Jersey. The Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal, which connects the Delaware River with Chesapeake Bay, is located about 11 kilometers (seven miles) north of the SGS site (Figure 6.1). The Delaware Estuary system drains a basin of 36,000 square kilometers (13,900 square miles), which includes parts of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 21 square kilometers (8 square miles) in Maryland.

The contributory flows from those tributaries discharging into the Delaware River appear in Table 4.1. Approximately 25,100 square kilometers (9700 square miles) of the drainage area consists of consolidated rock aquifers of low capacity; as a result, the basin tends to drain quickly with highly fluctuating discharges into the estuary at Trenton (Reference 1.0). The mean annual precipitation (from 1921-1950) in the basin is 112 centimeters (44 inches) per year. Freshwater drainage entering the river below Trenton augments this flow. The average freshwater discharge near the site is 645,000 liters per second (22,7675 cubic feet per second). In comparison, the average tidal flow (measured at Wilmington, Delaware, approximately Page 20 of 36

• *

• 32 kilometers upstream of the site is 11,328,000 liters per second (400,000 cubic feet per second). Thus, tidal flow dominates over freshwater discharge for control of flow velocities at the site (Reference 6.0). Even the maximum recorded discharge of 9,317,300 liters per second (329,000 cubic feet per second), that occurred at Trenton on August 20, 1955 (Reference 1.0), is lower than the typical tidal flows described below. The tide in the Delaware estuary is semi-diurnal in character.

There are two high waters and two low waters in a tidal day, with comparatively little diurnal inequality (Figure 6.2). Reedy Point is the tide gage station nearest to the site, as Figure 6.3 shows. The tides at the gage have the following characteristics (Reference 1.0): 1. Mean tide range 4.8 feet 2. Spring tide range 6.0 feet 3. Local mean sea level 2.6 feet above mean low water 4. 10 percent exceedance 6.6 feet high tide Winds exert a significant influence on tidal changes in the estuary. On November 25, 1950, strong easterly winds brought about the highest tide ever recorded, 8.5 feet above MSL. Strong downstream winds generated the lowest tide of record, 8.6 feet below MSL, on December 31, 1962. On this basis, the maximum recorded tidal range is 5.2 meters (17.1 feet). Delaware River velocities near the SGS site are dependent on tidal stage and flow. Figure 6.2 summarizes typical velocity patterns, as defined by measured conditions, and as predicted in the Delaware Estuary Model of the Corps of Engineers (Waterworks Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi).

Main channel current measurements (Reference 6.0) have been superimposed to show the current regime. River Water Quality in DRBC Zone 5 Salem Nuclear Generating Station is located in a sector of the Delaware Estuary designated as Zone 5 by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). It extends from the juncture of the Pennsylvania-Delaware-New Jersey border at Marcus Hook (River Mile 79) to Liston Point, Delaware (River Mile 48.2). This area is recognized, officially as the head of the Delaware Bay. The DRBC annually issues a report. entitled "Water Quality Inventory Report for the Delaware River", a status and progress report under the auspices of Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The 1988-1989 report (Ref. 8.0) summarizes the most recent DRBC findings on water quality of the Delaware River. Page 21 of 36

• Section 5 of the 1988-89 report states that, "Occasional low dissolved oxygen values have been found in the upper portions of the bay. There is very little monitoring in the Bay, except for shellfish sampling.

The MSX parasite has decimated the oyster industry in the Bay. The State of Delaware has banned the use of anti-fouling paints containing the pesticide TBT because of its harmful effects on fish and shellfish.

Commercial shipping, primarily oil tankers and oil barges, pose a risk to the bay and its ecology".

Overall, the Executive Summary of the 1988-1989 report states "Historically, this section of the Delaware has been one of the nation's most grossly polluted rivers. Water quality in 1988-1989 however, reflects substantial water quality improvements as the result of water pollution control efforts extending back 40 years." Recent trends show vast improvement in Delaware River water quality. Since the subject operating license extension will not change the rate of water consumption/evaporation or thermal discharge to the Delaware River, impacts of an extension to full 40 year design basis operation will not be significant.

2.2 SURFACE

DRAINAGE Other than drainage ditches installed for insect control by a local insect control district, Artificial Island does not have an established system of ditches for runoff of surface water. All drainage from the site runs into the Delaware River. Where precipitation collects in puddles, it either seeps into the ground or evaporates.

Stormwater treatment measures such as infiltration trenches, porous paving and swales have been relatively unsuccessful on Artificial Island. The Island's substrate is composed primarily of non-porous dredge soil. Natural filtration can be ineffective.

The low elevation and flatness of the site limits the feasibility of retention basins. Extension of Salem Station's operating life to 40 years will not necessitate creation of any additional impervious surfaces on-site. Therefore, site runoff will not be increased, and impact of an extended operating lifetime to surface drainage will be negligible

• Page 22 of 36

• 2.3 GROUND WATER The site is on the Atlantic Coastal Plain about 18 miles south of the fall zone. several aquifers which underlie the site have been identified for the applicant by their hydrologic consultants, Dames and Moore. They report that the aquifers of the coastal plain are almost all unconsolidated sand and gravel. The most productive aquifers are those of the Cohansey Sand and the Raritan and Magothy Formations.

Other aquifiers are the Wenonah and the Mount Laurel Sands, the Englishtown Formation and the Vincenton Formation.

Sands and gravels of the Pleistocene and Recent Age are irregularly distributed throughout the Coastal Plain, but are used as aquifers only in a few areas adjacent to the Delaware River (Reference 2.0). The Wenonah and Mount Laurel Sands function hydrologically as a single unit and together they are probably the most used aquifers in the region of the site. The aquifer is recharged from precipitation on its upper outcroppings and it discharges water in low areas along its outcrop area, particularly beneath the Delaware River (Reference 2.0). The aquifers beneath the site are separated from the surf icial soils by one or more impermeable silty clay beds. The Pleistocene Sand, which extends to about 30 ft in depth, is probably of limited aerial extent, although it extends over most of the site. It is underlain with the Kirkwood aquitard.

The Vincentown Formation is encountered at about 70 ft and is an aquifer. The Vincentown Formation is underlain with the Hornerstown Sand, which is an aquitard composed of clayey sand. Below is the Navesink Sand and at about 180 ft is the Mount Laurel Sand aquifers.

Since the hydraulic.gradient of the aquifiers at the site is too small to measure, it is likely that any groundwater movement at the site is strongly influenced by the tide. Results of the Dames and Moore report entitled "Study of Long Term Groundwater Withdrawals and Water Supply Alternatives of PSE&G's Salem/Hope Creek Generating Stations, July 1988 11 are summarized in the following text (Taken from Reference 2.0): Based on current aquifer piezometric levels, there is a downward hydraulic gradient from the River Sand & Gravel down to the Upper Raritan aquifers, and an upward gradient from the Middle Raritan aquifer to the Upper Raritan. This is due to the significant amount of onsite pumping occurring from the Upper Raritan. Essentially steady-state conditions seem to have been attained in the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer, probably because of leakage from the underlying Vincentown Formation.

Nearly steady conditions seem to have also been attained in the Upper Raritan aquifer, judging from the water levels measured in Well OW-I over the past five years. Page 23 of 36

• ' * *

• Chloride levels in the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer at the site currently range from 120 to 870 mg/l. In the underlying Upper Raritan aquifer, chlorides appear to range from about 50 mg/1 at the southern end of the site to 10 mg/1 at the northern end. For the Middle Raritan aquifer, recent data indicate that chloride levels vary from about 190 to 335 mg/1. Records of water-quality data at the site indicate that chloride levels in the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer, at least beneath the Salem Station portion of the site, have risen since the time of construction of Wells PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 from about 50 mg/1 in the beginning to peaks on the order of 200 to about 500 mg/1 in the production wells and up to 870 mg/1 at Well OW-G. This rise in chlorides is believed to be caused by leakage into the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer from the overlying Vincentown Formation, which presently contains about 1800 to 4300 mg/1 chloride.

In the Upper Raritan aquifer, average chloride levels in PW-5 have risen since the time of its construction from about 25 mg/1 to the current level of nearly 50 mg/1. No discernible upward trends in chloride are evidenced in the Upper Raritan wells on the north side of the site--in Wells HC-1, HC-2 and OW-I, where chlorides have never exceeded 27 mg/1 and are generally below 15 mg/1. Mean transmissivity values for the water-bearing units beneath the site were computed to be: 5,000-11,000 gpd/ft for the Vincentown, 4,900-8,700 gpd/ft for the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah, 9,600-27,000 gpd/ft for the Upper Raritan, and 670-4,000 gpd/ft for the Middle Raritan aquifer. Groundwater withdrawals from the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer at the site have been declining from 1978 to 1986. Pumpage from the Upper Raritan aquifer has remained fairly constant, with a slight increase from 1982 to the present. Physical inspection and the down-hole TV survey indicated that from a visual point of view most wells appear to be in good condition.

Also, past and recent drawdown data indicate that specific capacities of the production wells have remained essentially the same since the time of well construction.

A minor decline in specific capacity has apparently occurred at PW-1 and PW-5, but the data indicate that the current specific capacity is still greater than 90 percent of what it was when each well was initially tested. Because of the relatively small decline in specific capacity, no well redevelopment or well treatment is recommended for PW-1 and PW-5 at this time. However, specific capacities should be monitored regularly so that an annual assessment can be made regarding the advisability of treating production wells of concern

• Page 24 of 36

.. ' '

• Recent water-level, water-quality and pumping-test data indicate that three observation wells (OW-A, ow-c and OW-H) may serve as conduits for cross-contamination.

There is a concern that contamination of the Upper Raritan aquifer or the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer with brackish water from an upper unit(s) may be occurring in this fashion. Water-level data and chloride levels found in Observation Wells OW-A and OW-H indicate that both of these wells probably tap an upper, more brackish, aquifer, in addition to the Upper Raritan aquifer which they were intended to monitor. With respect to Well ow-c, although the measured water levels are consistent with those for other Mt. Laurel-Wenonah wells, the well's chloride levels and the computed transmissivity are out of the range demonstrated for the aquifer at the site. Numerical modeling of ground-water flow and chloride transport among seven layers (from the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer at the top, down to the Middle Raritan aquifer) was performed using the Princeton Transport Code. Predictive simulations showed that by continuing the present level of pumping in all aquifers for 20 years in the future, piezometric levels in the aquifers would not change perceptibly.

However, over the 20-year period, small increases in chloride levels .would occur in.the Upper Raritan aquifer, and the increasing trend in chloride levels in the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer would continue at a significant level. By increasing pumpage in the Upper Raritan aquifer from the present level of about 0.7 mgd to about 1.1 mgd which would continue 'for the next 20 years, the predicted chloride content at Well PW-5 rose from the current level of 46 mg/1 to 68 mg/1 by the end of the simulated period. The leading edge of the salt-water/fresh-water interface in the Middle Raritan aquifer, represented by the 250 mg/1 chloride contour appears to be located beneath the site. The comparable interfaces in the Upper Raritan aquifer and the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer are believed to be situated downdip (southeast) of the site, but data are not available to indicate just how far downdip they are. The relatively high chloride levels in the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer at the site are believed to derive from leakage from the overlying Vincentown Formation which contains brackish water. Eight water-supply alternatives were identified and evaluated with the aim of providing water to replace that currently being withdrawn from the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah aquifer. The assumption was that because of the rising levels of chloride in the Mt. Laurel-Wenonah, this water will soon be unsuitable for use for service-water requirements, and will have to be replaced.

Page 25 of 36 / ..,

., *

• Of the eight water-supply alternatives, four were concluded to be feasible:

construction of two new wells; construction of fresh-water pipelines; municipal water from the City of Salem; and, desalination of Delaware Bay water. Feasibility-level cost estimates were prepared for each feasible alternative.

The results of the feasibility analysis indicated that the water-supply alternative with the lowest total present-worth cost ($1.6 million) was the alternative involving construction of a Magothy production well and construction of a new Upper Raritan well. The two alternatives with the next higher costs were a pipeline carrying municipal water from the City of Salem and a pipeline carrying water from Stow Creek. The advantages and drawbacks to each of the three lower-cost alternatives are provided.

Several alternatives for ground-water management have been identified by the study and are feasible.

Negative impacts of these alternatives to ground-water are minimal. Based on studies conducted to date, with proper groundwater extraction management practices and planning, license extension to 40 years will have no significant negative impact to ground-water hydrology.

As stated earlier, groundwater extraction models used by Dames and Moore for this study were based on a projected 20 years of extraction at the current rate. Additional studies at the end of the 20 year period will have to be conducted to develop a feasible, low impact groundwater management plan. 2.4 WATER QUALITY The effect on surface water quality resulting from the operation of Salem Generating Station is limited to increased evaporation of Delaware River water, heated cooling water discharge and controlled, NJPDES monitored release of effluents to the Delaware River. NJPDES monitored effluent release impacts are addressed in Section 2.5, Chemical Waste and Sanitary Waste". Extending the operating life of Salem Generating Station to 40 years will not alter the station's heated water discharge, cooling system evaporative loss, dissolved oxygen depletion capacity or wastewater treatment effluent discharge.

The FES conclusion that effects of temperature on the shoreline communities, recirculation of heated water, and the aforementioned water quality parameters will be minimal are valid, and should remain so for a 40 year operating lifetime.

Operating license extension to 40 years should not increase the rate of groundwater extraction or accidental chemical spillage nor reduce the Delaware River's current ability to dilute spills to concentrations that are innocuous and undetectable as concluded in the FES . Page 26 of 36 I J

• 2.5 CHEMICAL WASTE AND SANITARY WASTE The release of chemical and sanitary waste into surface waters is controlled through the facility's NJPDES permit (NJ0005622) which is administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). On February 10, 1989, PSE&G representatives met with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection water Resource Division Officials in Trenton, New Jersey. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Salem Generating Station NJPDES permit No. NJ0005622 for which an adjudicatory hearing and major modification had been requested.

Modifications agreed to during the meeting are listed in the current NJPDES permit. Upon NJDEP's acknowledgement of the resolved permit conditions, PSE&G rescinded its hearing request. One item included in the major modification to the NJPDES permit was described in a January 10, 1989 letter from PSE&G to NJDEP stating that the Salem Generating Station sewage treatment plant had been decommissioned.

All effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for discharge station 487A were replaced by the statement "There will be no discharge from this outfall." The current Salem Generating Station NJPDES permit issued on October 15, 1985 expires on November 30, 1990. A timely and complete application for renewal of this permit was submitted in May of 1990, within the required 180 day lead time. Salem Generating station has been routinely meeting the effluent requirements of its NJPDES permit. Since effluent limitations will remain in effect throughout the operating life of the plant, the extension of the operating license to 40 years should should have no effect on effluents from Salem Generating Station. 3.0 POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS

3.1 IMPACT

FROM INCREASED FUEL BURNUP If, in the future, it is determined that it is necessary to increase the discharge fuel burnup (with or without license extension), the impact on the current accident analysis will be evaluated as a separate issue. 3.2 IMPACT FROM EXTENDED OPERATING CYCLES Since there are no plans to extend the length of the fuel cycles, the net effect of the license extension will be to only increase the number of cycles of operation.

With no increase in discharge burnup, fuel assembly resident time in the reactor will not change from the current values. Occasionally, the need arises to Page 27 of 36 i _J

. ' *

• slightly extend the cycle length using power coastdowns.

However, this will occur no more frequently then current practice with the license extension.

Therefore, there is no impact on the current accident analysis.

3.3 IMPACT

FROM EXTENDED OPERATING LICENSE The accident analysis that define the plant design bases are simulated using analytical models in order to assure that the initiating event will not result in radioactive releases that exceed 10 CFR 100 guidelines.

These analysis are not performed on a cycle basis but only when major input parameters are changed (such as plant modifications, fuel design changes, or new analytical methods).

Therefore, unless the operating license extension affects a plant component that is important to the safety analysis, there would be no impacts on the accident analysis defined in the UFSAR or the dose estimates tabulated in the Environmental Report. The impact of the license extension on plant components that provide input to the safety analysis has been reviewed and is described in the Significant Hazards Evaluation contained in our original request for license amendment (NLR-N87142 dated August 3, 1987). 4.0 OTHER IMPACTS 4.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION LABOR FORCE PSE&G is the second largest employer in Salem county. Approximately 18% of the work force reside within the county. Employment growth in the utilities sector has grown 13.5% from 1982 to 1988. Annual population growth during this time was 0.3% (Ref. 7.0). The workforce required to operate SGS has not placed a strain on available housing or public services of the county (i.e., sewer, telephone, electricity).

The majority of employees live outside Salem County, which continues to have the lowest population density of the state, with 189 person per square mile. PSE&G and its employees are active in the local community.

They sponsor and participate in such fund raising activities as the March of Dimes and United Way. PSE&G is also currently active in the fund raising for and development of a new recreation facility in the city of Salem. The license extension will have no adverse social impact on the local community

• Page 28 of 36

..

• 4.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 4.2.1 Direct Benefits The main benefit which Salem Generating Station provides is safe and reliable electric energy. SGS has a combined capacity (net electrical output) of 2200 megawatts.

The operation of SGS provides substantial production cost savings. The SGS is part of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnect (PJM). The PJM operates as if it were a single company. This allows for the most economic operation of all member-owned generating capacity.

In 1982 a production cost analysis estimate was performed for the Hope Creek Generating Station, a 1080 megawatt nuclear plant in southern New Jersey. Based on the operation of the PJM, estimated savings from 1987 to 1991 vary from $250 million to $460 million per year. Savings are due to reduced expenditures for fuel and interchange.

4.2.2 INDIRECT

BENEFITS The operation of SGS generates the following benefits:

State and Local Taxes The major taxes paid by PSE&G to the State of New Jersey and local governments are Gross Receipts and Franchise Taxes, and Real Estate Taxes. Other taxes are paid through various payroll taxes (Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Unemployment Insurance, etc.), sales taxes on purchases of equipment not directly related to production, transmission and distribution of electricity or gas, and motor vehicle taxes. Taxes are not paid to county governments.

Customers do not pay sales taxes on electrical energy purchased.

Gross Receipts and Franchise Taxes The inventories of all public utilities' personal property, such as meters, poles, wires, transformers, conduit, pipes, generating equipment, gas manufacturing equipment, etc., whether on public or private property, are the basis for distribution of New Jersey gross receipts and franchise taxes to the municipalities.

The inventories of these properties are filed with the Public Utility Tax Bureau each year. Gross receipts and franchise taxes fall into three categories:

1. Gross Receipts Tax -Utilities pay a gross receipts tax to the state in lieu of personal property assessments.

This tax is based on the total revenues from the sale of gas and electricity; it is levied at the rate of 7.5 percent. The state then distributes tax revenues to Page 29 of 36

"

• various municipalities according to the proportion of the total value of utility property in a municipality to the total value of utility property in the state, within certain statutory limitations.

The state distributes this tax revenue to all municipalities where equipment is located, not just within the utilities' service areas. 2. Franchise Tax -The franchise tax is a tax paid to the state for the privilege of PSE&G and Atlantic Electric exercising their franchises in the public streets. It is levied at the rate of five percent on taxable gross revenues (74 percent of total electric gross revenues).

The taxable amount of gross revenues for franchise tax purposes is determined yearly by multiplying total gross revenues by the percentage that the miles of lines located on public property bear to the total miles. The state then distributes the franchise tax to various municipalities in the proportion the amount the public value of utility property in a municipality bears to the total public value in the state, within certain statutory limitations.

This tax is paid primarily to municipalities within the utilities service areas, although there are few cases where the utilities use public streets outside the service area, and in those cases franchise taxes are distributed to the municipalities involved.

3. Surtax -The surtax is equal to 12.5 percent of the total gross receipts and franchise tax paid; the surtax is paid to the state for general state use. For the year 1989, PSE&G paid $6.5 million in Gross Receipts and Franchise Taxes to Salem County. Real Estate Taxes Land and buildings, as commonly understood, are subject to property tax. The Township of Lower Alloways Creek has no local or school tax levies. A property tax is collected to pay Lower Alloways Creek's share of county taxes. Revenues to Lower Alloways Creek Township have increased significantly since 1970, due to construction and operation of the Salem Generating Station. These increased revenues have enabled the Township to build a new municipal building, new high school, new sewage treatment plant and new recreational facilities.

In 1989, PSE&G paid $745,805 in real estate taxes to Salem county

• Page 30 of 36

---

. ' I .I

• An increase in the operating life of SGS would provide the continuation of a substantial source of revenue for both state and local tax bases. 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Non-Radiation Sources Salem Generating Station has eight permitted air emission sources. These sources are controlled through "Certificates To Operate" issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and are renewed every five years. The sources are two auxiliary steam boilers for producing heat and process steam and six diesel generators for emergency power (FES Sec. 12-4). The above sources only operate intermittently.

Air quality impacts are minimal and will not be significantly affected by the license extension.

6.0 SHORT

TERM USE AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY Land areas In close proximity to SGS are largely marshland, meadows, and some sparsely forested regions with small farms and scattered residences.

The site occupies 220 acres (15%) of Artificial Island, a man-made spit of land created by the disposal of dredging spoils from the Delaware River during the first half of the century . The production of power at the SGS places no restrictions on access to or use of the Delaware River or surrounding marshlands.

These areas will continue to be used for recreation; i.e. fishing, hunting and trapping.

Post-operational studies investigating the impact of SGS cooling water system on the biological community were conducted from 1978-1983.

Results of these studies (the 316b demonstration) are of the opinion that operation of Salem's cooling water system 11 *** will not cause any adverse environmental impact to aquatic populations in the Delaware estuary" (Ref. 4.0). An increase in plant operation life to 40 years should not have a significant increase in environmental impact, or effects in long-term productivity.

7.0 DECOMMISSIONING

The Salem Final Environmental statement did not include specific plans for decommissioning the twin units. This was consistent with the Commission's regulations in effect in 1973 which contemplated detailed consideration of decommissioning near the end of a reactor's useful life. The regulations have since changed. In accordance with the decommissioning rule of 10 CFR 50.33(k), PSE&G has submitted to the NRC a decommissioning report which provides reasonable assurance that sufficient funds will be Page 31 of 36

• * . available to decommission the facility.

Additionally, PSE&G has completed a preliminary decommissioning cost study for the Salem units. This study was completed in 1988 and is currently being updated to reflect recent changes in cost and schedule.

This study provides cost, schedule, waste generation/disposition and radiation exposure estimates associated with the decommissioning of the Salem nuclear units following the cessation of operation.

The alternatives evaluated were DECON (prompt removal/dismantling), ENTOMB (entombment with delayed dismantling), and SAFSTOR (mothball with delayed dismantling).

The plant retirement dates were taken as 40 years following the date of issuance of the operating license. This time frame was used as input in scheduling analysis.

The study did not determine the incremental impact on decommissioning due to the additional period of operation (from 2008 to 2016 for Salem Unit 1 and from 2008 to 2020 for Salem Unit 2). However, PSE&G anticipates that the extended period of operation will have a negligible incremental environmental and cost impact on decommissioning the Salem units. A reactor's activation product inventory rapidly builds up and reaches equilibrium level, so that after 10 years of operation the inventory approximates 90% of the total expected after 40 years of operation.

As a result, most of the cost for decontamination and decommissioning as well as occupational exposure arises early in a reactor's operating life. Thus, the extended period of operation will not add significantly to the cost and effort to decommission the plants. Moreover, it has been concluded in NUREG-0586, "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities", that decommissioning is not expected to significantly impact the environment.

The NUREG also recommended deletion of the mandatory Environmental Impact Statement requirement for decommissioning of power reactors.

The other key conclusions of this report were:

• Decommissioning at the present time can be performed safely and at reasonable cost.

• Decommissioning of nuclear facilities is not an imminent health or safety problem.

• Decommissioning of a nuclear facility generally has a positive environmental impact. Therefore, PSE&G concludes that the proposed license extension will have a negligible environmental impact in decommissioning the Salem units . Page 32 of 36 1' .* 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES No significant irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources result from station operation.

Some resources, such as uranium, land and water, are consumed or are permanently committed, but quantities are small compared to supplies.

Since the issuance of the FES, the demand for uranium fuel has decreased sharply due to the cancellation or postponement of many nuclear facilities.

Extending the operating license to the design basis 40 years will not require any additional construction or expansion of Salem Generating Station's footprint on the local landscape.

Chemicals used in station operations, as stated in the FES will continue to be only those essential to assure proper functioning of the facility and in amounts that will be insignificant with respect to the natural resources available.

PSE&G concludes that the proposed license extension will not significantly increase levels of resources made irretrievable, or impacts made irreversible due to plant operation.

No land or water resources will be impacted outside of those previously considered in the FES. 9.0 RECREATIONAL IMPACTS Since the FES took took effect, PSE&G has created a small boat launching area at Sunken Ship cove. This is to provide access to both the Delaware River and wetland areas for public use (fishing, hunting, trapping, etc.). Extending the operating life of SGS will not affect the use of the surrounding area for recreational purposes, nor will water or land uses be restricted during the additional operating years. 10.0 PLANT MODIFICATIONS Many plant modifications and design changes have taken place since issuance of the SGS FES. Some of the changes with significant impact to the environment have been listed below. An oxidation type sewage treatment plant was installed, replacing 5 older units serving the entire facility.

This change has resulted in higher treatment efficiencies and more consistent compliance with the existing wastewater treatment permits and a decreased pollutant loading on the Delaware River and the estuary. A number of modifications to the Non Radiological (Non Rad) Liquid Waste Disposal System have been implemented over the past 10 years with the effect of increasing overall capacity, treatment capabilities, unit flexibility, unit efficiency and self neutralization.

Wastewater is currently Page 33 of 36

' *' received from both Salem and Hope Creek Stations, consolidating Artificial Island industrial wastewater treatment.

In addition, increased detention times, additional mixers and better flexibility in neutralization chemical addition have reduced the need for and subsequent loading of neutralization chemicals on the Delaware River. In addition, interlock controls have been added to prevent inadvertent discharges from the plant into non operational circulators.

As a result, discharges have been reduced while overall electrical generation capacity from these facilities has increased.

Targeted chlorination has been installed to limit the amount of chlorine utilized for the control of biofouling in the once through water systems. This has resulted in better control of biofouling, and a lower (generally less than detectable) chlorine discharge to the environment.

Installation of additional automatic monitoring systems in conjunction with this modification allows for monitoring other required parameters on a constant real time basis. Secondary Containment unloading stations have been installed beyond that required by regulatory agencies in order to provide an additional level of assurance that the environmental impact of this facility will be minimized.

The Salem Oil/Water Separators have been modified to increase their oil detention and removal capacity while also increasing their suspended solids removal efficiency.

The Circulating System traveling screens system have undergone several modifications which have increased the percentage of marine life returned to the river and at the same time reduced the mortality amongst those returned.

• Relocation of the Circulating water system influent and effluent temperature monitoring RTD's has resulted in a more measurement of the thermal impact of unit operation on the environment and the local ecosystem.

Close monitoring of this data allows early warning of wear on the circulators and more reliable operational data allowing plant operators to reduce plant capacity when approaching effluent temperature discharge limits. A paving and sodding project has resulted in a decrease in surface run off to the river, increased soil stabilization in the local area and increased facility compliance with its surface water discharge permit. This project has reduced the impact of the facility on the spawning fish population and has added to the cleanliness of the river at this location.

This is evidenced by the fact that the current ambient river water TSS in this area generally has improved during the operational history of the plant. Lack of Page 34 of 36

.. 1 *

• negative impact by the plant is evidenced by the fact that while improving, the ambient water quality pollutant load exceeds the facility discharge limits with which it (the Plant) is in compliance.

Groundwater quality impact has been minimized through the continuing improvement of in-plant water use and recovery as well as the management of groundwater resources through a monitoring program and increasing reliance on non-threatened aquifers for fresh water supply. The installation and operation of a new well in the Middle Raritan aquifer resulted in a reduction of load on the threatened Mt Laurel aquifer. Further reductions and supply alternatives are planned which will virtually eliminate the use of the Mt Laurel. The engineered recovery and treatment of facility blowdown and low conductivity regenerant wastewater has resulted in the reduction of freshwater demand by the operating plant in addition to a reduction in the.volume of wastewater treated and discharged.

Threats to the groundwater quality are being eliminated at this facility due to the removal of existing Underground Storage Tanks used for the storage of petroleum products.

Wherever feasible, these tanks are being removed from service or replaced with directly piped fuels from the main fuel storage tank.

• A project is currently underway to abandon and close eighteen of the remaining monitoring and dewatering wells located at this facility.

This will minimize any cross

• contamination risks posed by their presence in the underlying aquifers.

In addition, monitoring wells will be installed as required to complete a comprehensive groundwater monitoring network for the Island facility.

In addition to the aforementioned modifications, numerous other programs have been instituted with the aim of improved environmental performance, for example:

• Centralized Hazardous Waste Disposal

• Centralized Radioactive Waste Disposal Centralized Industrial Wastewater Treatment Centralized Sanitary Waste Treatment Elimination of all TCPA (Toxic catastrophe Prevention Act) listed chemicals Wetlands restoration project Page 35 of 36 Ongoing alternative biocide research Systematic elimination of PCB's from the facility Integration of plant Chemical Control program with environmental and safety programs Increased organizational focus on environmental management with increased staffing, training and monitoring.

All of the aforementioned plant modification/design changes have had.a positive impact to the environment resulting from increased plant efficiency, decreased chemical/wastewater discharges and increased safety design/spill prevention features.

All changes have been conducted in accordance with approved procedures, current license requirements and Technical Specifications and the current NJPDES permit. The additional operation time resulting from 40 year lifetime extension approval will require additional routine plant modifications and design changes. These changes will be similar to changes already implemented, and, based on past record these changes will not have a significant negative impact on the environment.

C. REFERENCES 1.0 PSE&G, Final Safety Analysis Report for HCGS. 2.0 Dames & Moore, Final Report, Study of Groundwater Conditions and Future Water -Supply Alternatives Salem I Hope Creek Generating Stations -Artificial Island, Salem County, New Jersey PSE&G. July 15, 1988 3.0 Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., 1989 Annual Report -Artificial Island Ecological Studies. Draft Report. February 15, 1990 4.0 PSE&G, Salem Generating Station 316 Cb) Demonstration.

February, 1984 5.0 U.S.A.E.C, Final Environmental statement, HCGS. February, 1974 6.0 U.S.A.E.C, Final Environmental Statement, SGS. April, 1973 7.0 Salem County Department Of Economic Development, Salem County Growth Patterns, 1982-1990.

1990 8.0 Delaware River Basin Commission, Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment, 1988-1989 305(bl Report. March 1990 Page 36 of 36 SCALE 0 2 3 I.... --11111--1 0 ...........

MLES 2 a II ----KILOMETERS CONTOUR ll\ITEAVAL 10 FEET U. 8. OEOLOOICAL SALEM GENERATING STATION OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION SITE VICINITY WITHIN EIGHT KILOMETERS (5 Mi.) Figure 1.1 ..

NEW CASTLE PENCADER .

• LEM CO. E a

• MILlf8 u * * --ll1LOWETEll8 l*ll 111111' ..... ,.,. ... ,_. l'mlllll fa ... *ca.* lfillll .. 111'-1 -*ll*l*llll

..........

1116 * --*-**--COUNTY BOUNDARY _. --SUBCOUNTY BOUNDARY SALEM GENERATING STATION OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION COUNTY AND SUBCOUNTY JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES WITHIN 1.6 KILOMETERS ( 10 MILES)

---

llC Ill IC Ill IC c

• c ... Ill G IUACTOA llUILDlllQ.

ULEM *TA-DELAWARE*

RIVER

• PROPERTY Of UNITED HAJ1f8 OI' MIEIUCA * " .. :! 0 0 0 * * " .. :! ! . ... .. * .. PROPERTY Of HATE OF NEW ......V 8 * * --PEET SALEM GENERATING STATION .. OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION .. .,;-SITE AREA METERa Figure 1.3

• J J '

• 1. Clrculeting Weter lnteke

2. Service Weter lnteke Structure

3. 500 lcv Swi tchyerd 4. Cllemic:ll Tenks S. Statton Service Trensformert (el end Mein Transformert

8. Administration Feil ity 7. Turbine Building B. Auxiliery Building 9. Rector Conteinrnent1 1 O. Guerd Hou .. SALEM GENERATING STATION OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION STATION LAYOUT Figure 1.4

\'*. '* *, *., DELA\.WAR£

.,_ *,_ IJ A Y **,. *

• UllLI IY PROl't:RIY LINE/EXCLUSIDN ARU

• UllLllY PROl't:RIY

-llAJOll HllilftlAY

• 1£ARBY SE llLENEHIS POPI.\ All ON 11960 ! lllli D I. BAY VIEW llt:ALH. DE 2. PORI PEllN. DE 2'6 ). IWICOCK'S BIUDLt.. NJ '21 RESllHllAL AGlllCULIURAL AND VACANI WILDLIFE AREAS AUGUSlll£ CREEK WILDLIFE AREA 5. REEDY ISl.AHU WILDLIFE "REFUGE 6. APPOOUINIMINK WILDLIFE AREA 1. llAD HllllSE CREEK WILDLIFE llAHAGENENI AREA WEILAND SOURCE: PUlll..IC SERVICE ELECIRIC I GAS. CO ** JUNE 1982. 1980 CENSUS Of POl'ULAllDN I HOUSING. llARCH 1981. NEW CASILE COUHIY PLAliHIHli BOARD. 11£ RED LION PLANNING DISIRICI PLAN, 1985.

1971. NEW CASILE COUNIY PLANHIHli BOARD. lit:

QDESSA-IOWNSEND PLANH!Nb DISIAIC! PLAll. SEPl[llfl[N 197'. U.S. DEPI. Of AGRICULIURE.

SOUIH JERSO RESOURCE COllSENVAI IUN I OEVELOl'llt:NI AJ!{A PLAH. APRIL 1919. SALEM COUNIY COllPRflt:NSl\'E PLAN IOWNSEllD PLANH!Hli DISIAICI PLAN. 197'. 0 MILE8 1 0 I .........-

,....., lllLOMITE118 SALEM GENERA TING STATION OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION EXISTING LAND USE 1982 WITHIN 8 KILOMETERS (5 Mt) figuro 2.1

• j ': i*. D AGRICULIUllE llOOlllAHD AND IWISll RESID£1111AL D INllOSIRIAL UJILITY PROPERTY SOIJRC£S, SALE" COIJNIY COllPREtfNSIYE PLAN f ' MILl8 I !I I '*il"'"'SiMe lllLOMITl118 "IDlllEIOldC

-OIUSA -JOOJjS.[NO PLANlllHG OISIRICI PUii. 191' SALEM GENERA TING STATION OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION PROJECTED LAND USE WITHIN 8 KILOMETERS (5 M1) Figure 2.2 *.

• 0 AGRICULTURE AHO RURAL llfSIDt:NllAL

[!!] P'SIDlNllAL

[!] INOUSIRIAL-UTA.ITV PROPERTY SOUllUSo SALEN COUHIY COllPRfHENSIVl Pl.All 19115 e lllLl!e Lr-L...-i lllLOlll!Tl!lle

-ODESSA -IOWllSOIO PLANNING DISIRICI PLAN. 197; *. SALEM GENERATING STATION OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION EXISTING ZONING WITHIN 8 KILOMETERS (5 Mi) Figure 3.1

.*

• OEl.AWARE N \ -. \ '<m *.* . . . * . fA";!.'J . c-ir . ., *"' .. ' '

• I eosprey Nesc Locations

..oiamondback Terrapin Beach Locacions SALEM GENERA TING STATION OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION LOCATIONS OF DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN STUDY BEACHES AND OSPREY NESTS, 1989 Figure 4.1 TOP CONSUMERS SECONDARY CONSUMERS PRIMARY CONSUMERS FOOD BASE *

• TOP CONSUMERS SECONDARY CONSUMERS PRIMARY CONSUMERS I:,::o: :::::r ----.:*:;=:::;:;}:.

FOOD BASE I**-h I OCEAN I IManhe*I """'" 91 OPEN WATER IPELAGICI SALEM GENERA TING STATION OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION CONCEPTUAL ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAM FOR THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Figure 5.1

.. I *CANNONSVILLE (MODIFY) \ (MODIFY) 'WALLENPAUPACK

-*FRANCIS E. 'WALTER"'"\. (MODI FY) TREXLER *EVANS BURG ------..J

---\..,.,,, CE

.. -NEWARK _____ ..., EDGAR HOOPES NEW CASTLE LISTON POINT

• PROPOSED FACILITIES IN COHPREHENSIVE PLAN OF DRBC. PEPACTOH NEVERSINK SYSTEM ISLAND ,a---HOPATCONG

• HACKETTSTOWN

• MER!:tlLL CREEK ::------NOCKAMIXON

.,....,,, __ GREEN LANE CAPE MAY NORTH BRANCH UNION LAKE SALEM GENERATING STTAJON OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION LOCATIONS OF MAJOR IMPOUNDMENTS IN THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN Figure 6.1

'. 5.0 ----TIDE CURRENT 1'ABLES, USCGS, PEA PATCH ISLAND (Near navigation channel) t:,. ALL MEASURED 250FT OFF SALEM 4.5 INTAKE LOCATION -_.:.... -HRS MODEL <1> 4.0 3.5 ! I&. > 2.5 t: § w > 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 ______ } U. S. WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION<1> -* -ICTHYOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES c 1 > (\. : \ I .. \ . . \ ' ' t:,. \ \ EBB TIDE (OCEANWARD) t:,. ' , , I . , . ' . \ t:,. l\ , .........

/ v \ ' FLOOD TIDE (UPSTREAM)*

I

• 2 8 10 PROTOTYPE TIME, HOURS ' l 12 SALEM GENERA TING STATION OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION

<1> 30.5 METERS (100FT) OFF SALEM INTAKE LOCATION DELAWARE RIVER FLOW VELOCITY Figure 6.2

.. MOTi: ... : .... .-*::.'

::.}f**::::

... :* ..... AM : IUYIR MILi . . : .. NEW . . . . . JERSEY . . USGS GAGING STATK>N (RM 134'.S) . . N AfLANTIC:

OCEAN SALEM GENERATING STATION OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION SALEM GENERATING STATION REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Figure 6.3 Sl.Ullnary of nestiR), depredation, arrl hatdliRJ data for diaJOOl'lJback.

terrapin in SWlken s.tiip Cove Beach, New Jersey in 1989. Period of No. NESIS ens Nan-Depredated Depreciated

{Hatdllims}

Cllser:yation Visits Hay 20-JWl. 2 1 JWl. 3-JWl. 16 1 JWl. 17-JWl. 30 2 Jul. 1-Jul. 14 3 . Jul. 15-Jul

• 22 2 Jul. 29-Auj. 11 1 Au]. 12-Juq. 25 3 Juq. 26-Sep. 8 1 Sep. 9-Sep. 22 1 Sep. 23-oct. 6 1 Oct. 7-oct. 20 1 Oct. 21-Nov. 3 1 Nov. 4-Nov. 20 1 'lbtal 19 SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION TABLE 1.1 Partial 'lbtal Non-Oepredataj Depredataj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'l\lrtles in Area 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *. 'l\lrt.le Tracks a.rvec1 "1lt lllt.dllim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual swmary data an ohserved nestirg, nest depredation, anl hatdlliD]S of diaioon:iback terrapin ohserved at a beadl north of.SWlken Ship Cove, NJ, 1975-1989.

I II III Hatdtlinjs (Actual or Tracks) fm§ 'lbtal Chierved in::luded in Year Cl visits) Non-I§. 1§, rartial Noo-()ep.

()ep. Turtles Tracks CbllR) III 1975 (19) 1 44 0 3 191 6 53 25 1976 (32) 8 0 0 57 0 7 112 79 1977 (39) 3 0 0 25 0 15 195 195 (15)*

(42) 2 3 0 20 16 12 71 33 1979 (27) 10 4 0 97 28 0 92 16 1980 (32) 6 3 0 52 13 3 129 84 1981 (40) 3 1 0 17 4 0 39 8 1982 (42) 6 0 0 62 0 0 38 6 1983 (18) 2 0 0 14 0 0 4 0 1984 (17) 2 1 0 19 90 0 40 34 1985 (17) 3 0 0 22 0 0 22 7 1986 (16) 1 0 0 10 0 0 153 28 1987 (19) 2 (1) 1 0 19 (8) 0 (J) 0 88 34 1988 (21) 5 2 0 64 6 2 230 25 1989 (19) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ( ) Nunber in parenthesis denote nests or eqgs partially or totally depredated tran previous recorded nests airl as a result are not added to the cunulative totals SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION 1

• llaW1li1¥JS ol.>serv£:s.J in nests upon observation TABLE 1.2

• SUntnary of nesti.rg, depredation, ani hat:dli.n:"j data for dianr:nlback terrapin in Liston fbint Beadl, Delaware in 1989. Period of No. NESTS Nan-Depredated ct"lservatiQ!)

Visits May 20-Jun. 2 1 JWl. 3-JWl. 16 1 Jun. 17-JWl. 30 2 Jul. 1-Jul. 14 3 Jul. 15-Jul. 28 2 Jul. 29-Al.g. 11 1 Al.g. 12-Au]. 25 3 Al.g. 26-Sep. 8 1 Sep. 9-Sep. 22 1 Sep. 23--0ct. 6 1 Oct. 7--0ct. 20 1 Oct. 21-Nov. 3 1 Nov. 4-Nov. 20 1 'lbtal 19 SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION TABLE 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BiGS Depredat.ed (l@tdll ims) Partial 'lbtal Non-Dennrlated Depn!dated 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 No Data 0 No lBta 0 146 0 926 0 67 0 523 0 30 0 145 0 35 0 163 0 4 0 15 0 7 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 1,807 'l\Jrtles in Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'l\.lrtle

'l'radal Melt I &t411im 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 7 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 26

• Year 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

• Amual S\.Ulll\acy data on dlserved nestin:J, nest depredation, an:i hatchl.in]s of diaioordback terrapin al:6erved at a beadl north of List.an lbint, IE, 1975-1989.

I II III Hatchl ir¥]S (Actual or 'rlQcks) ff!l2 Total Cilse!:ved included in U visits) Non-Pep, Pep, Partial Non-Pep. [lep. Turtles Tracks CblY!fl Ul_ (21) 6 498 0 52 2,443 34 189 146 (32) 15 393 0 170 3,425 30 470 215 (42) 25 259 ff 237 4,192 44 1,544 212 (32)* (46) 61 444 0 616 3,455 111 1,093 54 (40) 45 267 0 483 2,276 43 618 12 (33) 19 429 0 122 3,405 45 712 49 (40) 18 337 0 132 2,656 29 514 15 (41) 28 344 0 220 2,830 20 514 57 (18) 18 238 0 111 1,776 10 132 72 (17) 12 285 0 99 2,193 47 156 0 (17) 5 411 2 71 (10) 3,229 (9) 1 400 1 (16) 6 465 (4) 3 (1) 89 (1) 3,577 (45) 2 454 13 (19) 3 328 0 36 2,782 0 164 24 (21) 1 400 2 21 5,351 3 466 26 (19) 0 290 0 0 1,807 0 26 26 ( ) Nunber in parenthesis denote nests or eggs partially or totally depredated fran previous recorded nests ar¥l as a result are not added to the cun1.1lative totals " 11.dtc.hl iJlfJS observed in upon olJservat ion SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION TABLE 1.4

' ' .. ,

• SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION OSPREY NESTING ACTIVITY, 1989 TABLE 2.1 . sumery ot ompr:wy rwstin; activity near Artificial IslMXi in 1989. NUd:>E'S in:ilc:ate yan:J N-Nest pi: w 1t, may hava Deen active or o:::rwt::ructad as oolSekMpinq rwrts; AwActi ve nest, ec;p:;s observed or adults cq::parC to c. incubatinq ap am deten::Unq nest. 5alem 'l'OW9Z' # l2/ l 9/3 4/3 4/2 4/l 3/2 Hepa era.Jc-New FJ:w:lail:

TclWm" #6/l 4/l 3/4 3/3 Salem-oeans 2: Tcwer #4/l 3/4 2/3 Salem-New Freedan 3: Tower #5/3 5/2 5/l 2/3 Rac:x:oon Ditch/stew creek: tad Cedar Tree Platfom #2 Total Nests 4 Active Nests SUccessfUl. (i.e., yoJrq fledged) nests fledqlin;s Fledqlin;s/active nest SUCCessful./active nest Activitv5 2 2 N 2 2 N l N 2 l 2 N 2 N A N 2 N l 2 20 13 12 21 l.62 0.92 1 Fomerly referred to as New Freedan:North.

2 New transmission

line, in 1984. 3 Fo:c:cerly reterred to as N8w Freadan:Scuth. with ltllltiple nests ccuntad only once. cc:unted on 5/19/89 assumed to fled;e, except for Salem-Dean Tower 2/3 an:l Stew creek platfom which had nestl.in;s on 8/l0/89 ,

• TABLE 7.3-1 KNOWN OIET COMPONENTS OF SELECTED TARGET SPECIES fui .!!!!!!ll!!!.

Neomxeia American Blueback Bay Atlantic Striped White Weak F22d Ile!! 111!1!* AllMiun1 fuwife Shad

!!!£h2y_y Croake[ Ji.I!!!!.

_ Baae !ll£h Fish A..phibian. (emp. tadpolem) fiah Jl J Anchovy -other *-11 adulu A Fiab juVl!niha JA JA Blueback bening Alewife A Othew:: fow::age apeciea A A fiah law::vae Jl Jl LJA l'hh egg* Jl Jl JA l.JA Hacroinvertebw::ate*

Cuyfiah Cnngoo Jl J _ Law::ge *olluaka Cw::uataceana Jl J Jl x J JA lnaect larvae Jl JA Jl l.JA Neomyaia A ll A It A It J J LJA JA JA Decapod lanae A ll x LJA A..phipoda Jl L A It JA x JA JA JA JA JA Ga*uua *PP* A A It x A Jl LJA JA JA laopoda JA A A A ll J l.JA Hhodinea JA A A Jl Jl Polychaete vo1:*11 jA JA ll Jl A Jl J Jl x JI Annelid wow::** JA JA Jl Jl A Jl JA JA Hic1:oinve1:teb1:tae*

JA JA LJA It Aufwucha JA JA Hicrozouplankton JA JA LJA lnvqw::tebrate law::vae JA JA L LJA JI Saall molluah JA JA LJA JA JA S111111l inmect larvae JA .JA Jl L Jl LJA Chdocera JA JA It L Jl 1.JA Jl LJ Copepoda JA JA Jl L A Jl LJA Jl J Jl LJ LJ JI Nauplii JA JA It Jl LJA L l.J NClllltodea JA JA It J Jl LJA JI Jl J lot if en JA JA Jl x LJA Jl J. Invertebrate

_egg a JA JA LJA JA Algae It J( LJA JA Phytoplankton JA JA JI Jl LJA Pew::iphyton JA JA betritua JA JA LJA Jl JI JA JI Carnivore JA JA JA JA SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION KNOWN DIET COMPONENTS TABLE 3.1 -------

CanHb.lhitc OppPrtunht ic 0.nivore G1111111111ru*

11pp, JA JA JA TABLE 7.J-1 (Page 2 of 2) Neomy*h A!Jericapa JA JA JA Alewife American Sb ad A LJA Blueback Herring Note: L

• larvae; J

• juvenile; A

• adult; *

• Lifeatage not *lated. llay Anchovy LJA LJA Atlantic Striped White Weak Crpaker Spot __ !H .. Perch fhh ][ JA LJA LJA l.J LJA LJA LJ

• I ) . ' . ' * ,

• SGS OPERA TING LICENSE EXTENSION TABLE 4.1 DRAINAGE AREAS AND GAUGED RIVER FLOWS OF STREAMS TRIBUTARY TO DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY(a) Drainage Area Average Discharge River or Stream km2 .2 m 3/sec 3 3 . 2 3 2 mi ft /sec m /min/km ft /sec/m Delaware at 17 I )60 6,780 332.8 11,750 1.14 Crosswicks Creek 217 84 3.9 136 1.20 Neshaminy 544 210 8.2 291 0.83 Rancocas, North Branch 287 111 4. 9 173 0. 96 Schuylkill at Philadelphia 4, 903 1,893 83.9 2, 962 0.95 Chester Creek 158 61 2.5 87 0.83 Brandywine Creek 813 314 13.8 486 0.87 White Clay Creek 228 88 3.4 119 0.91 Maurice River 293 113 4.8 169 1.02 Total gauged 25,003 9 ,654 458.2 16,173 1.08 Ungauged area 11,067 4,273 202.9 7,179(b) 1.08 Total drainage 36,070 13 '927 661.1 23 ,352 1.08 (a) Drainage areas greater than 130 k:m.2 (50 mi 2) (b) Ungauged area mu3tiplied 2 by 1.10 a average mj/min/km2 (1.68 average ft /sec/mi), Source: Ketchum 1953, with 1980 data updated from USGS 198la,b

• 1. 73 1.82 1.26 1.46 1.44 1.27 1.32 1.36 1.56 1.64 ( 1.64) ( 1.64)

. .. ' . ' * *

• NLR-N90159 .ATTACHMENT 2 PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK SCREENING CRITERIA AS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION

---

'*

• I * . ' A. QUESTION/ISSUE "One issue of concern is meeting the Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) screening criteria at the expiration of the proposed license extension.

The PTS Rule (10 CFR 50.61) establishes screening criteria for the reference temperature for PTS events (RT-PTS).

The staff has reviewed your January 20, 1986 submittal (required by 10 CFR 50.61) entitled "Fracture Toughness Requirements For Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events" (C. McNeill to s. Varga). Consequently, we request confirmation of the data concerning the reported RT-PTS values based on 32 effective full power years (EFPY) of operation; especially, Salem Unit 1 material #B2402-1, since the 267°F value is approaching the 270°F screening criteria.

It should be noted that the instrument uncertainties that were removed from the heat-up and cool-down curves analysis (LCR 88-14) and subsequent Amendment 108 and 86 to DPR-70 and DPR-75 may alter the analysis performed for your response to the PTS rule." B. RESPONSE The attached tables contain current estimates for vessel fluence and vessel age for Salem Units 1 and 2 respectively.

Since the date for the End-of-Vessel-Life (8/15/2031 by current estimates, 9/1/2028 by future NRC ruling) is later than both the current (9/25/2008) and proposed (8/13/2016) dates for the End-of-Operating License, the PTS screening criteria will not be reached during the currently planned operation of the plant. Since calculation of RT-PTS required the use of "best estimate" fluence values, and margin parameters in this calculation already accounted for uncertainty in the fluence calculation, it was unnecessary to add additional uncertainties; subsequently, these measurement uncertainties were not included in the PTS analysis submitted on January 20, 1986. A discussion of the factors with a potential to introduce calculational uncertainties is included in section 4.9 of the PTS report (NFU-060)

• Page 1 of 3

---

---( * *:! l * * . ' ... 1. 2. 3. 4. TABLE 1 SALEM UNIT 1 REACTOR VESSEL FLUENCE REPORT FOR PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK MARCH 1990 (Limiting Plate B2402-1) ORIGINAL CURRENT FUTURE REPORT ESTIMATES NRC RULING CURRENT VESSEL STATUS Date 1/23/1986 3/31/1990 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 0.3900 0.4648 Vessel Age (EFPY) 4.67 7.65 FSAR PLANT DESIGN END-OF-LIFE Date 1/23/2018 4/30/2018 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 1.91 1.52 Vessel Age (EFPY) 32 32 END OF OPERATING LICENSE (No extension)

Date 9/25/2008 9/25/2008 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2 ) 1.48 1.15 Vessel Age (EFPY) 85% Avail 4.67 7.65 END OF VESSEL LIFE (When screening criteria is met) Date, 85% Avail 1/1/2020 8/15/2031 9/1/2028 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 2.00 2.00 1.96 Vessel Age (EFPY). 33.6 43.0 40.5 Page 2 of 3

\ . ' * * . ) < I 1. 2. 3. 4. TABLE 2 SALEM UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSEL FLUENCE REPORT FOR PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK MARCH 1990 (Limiting WELDS 2-442B/C)

ORIGINAL REPORT CURRENT FUTURE ESTIMATES NRC RULING CURRENT VESSEL STATUS Date 1/23/1986 3/31/1990 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 0.13 0.20 Vessel Age (EFPY) 2.25 5.00 FSAR PLANT DESIGN END-OF-LIFE Date 1/23/2018 1/10/2022 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 1.46 1.11 Vessel Age (EFPY) 32 32 END OF OPERATING LICENSE (No extension)

Date 9/25/2008 9/25/2008 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 1.20 0.74 Vessel Age (EFPY) 85% Avail 21.9 21. 0 END OF VESSEL LIFE (When screening criteria is met) Date 4/15/2169 8/28/2232 3/9/2086 Fluence (xE19 n/cm 2) 7.10 7.10 2.93 Vessel Age (EFPY) 158.0 211. 0 86.5 Page 3 of 3

' ft ) ' '

• NLR-N90159 ATTACHMENT 3 CRITERIA FOR SHIPMENT OF FUEL AND WASTE AS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED OPERATING LICENSE EXTENSION

' ' ,. ' ' )' '4 *.

• A. QUESTION/ISSUE "In addition, all licensees requesting a license extension to 40 years from the issuance of the operating license, whether they are currently shipping spent fuel offsite or not, should address and commit to compliance with the criteria of 10 CFR 51.52 using Table S-4 as guidance.

We request that you address the conditions of 10 CFR 51.52 that are applicable to Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2.11 B. RESPONSE 1. FUEL AND HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Presently, both Salem Units 1 and 2 are operating on an 18 month cycle containing a maximum of 4.0 weight percent Uranium-235 enrichment to obtain an average discharge burnup of about 40,000 MWD/MTU. Moreover, [plans are* underway to employ higher energy cycles in the future by increasing the fuel enrichment up to 4.4 weight percent U-235 to optimize the fuel economy, and to a lesser extent, mitigate the spent fuel storage concern. Sufficient onsite storage capacity currently exists at Salem Units 1 and 2 to permit continued plant operation until 1996 and 2000 respectively, without the loss of an operational full core reserve. Operation of the units beyond these dates would require installation of additional onsite storage capacity.

Plans are underway to expand onsite storage capacity to ensure the availability of adequate capacity at all times for life of plant storage if necessary, including plant life extension.

With respect to the environmental effects*of transporting spent fuel and high level waste, PSE&G has neither shipped any spent fuel offsite in the past nor*has any plans to make such shipments in the future. In the environmental report submitted to the U. s. Atomic Energy Commission on June 30, 1970 and the subsequent amendments to it, PSE&G had indicated that spent fuel would be shipped to the Allied Gulf Nuclear Services reprocessing plant located in Barnwell, South Carolina and solid radioactive waste to West Valley burial site in New York. Reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel has since been banned by federal law, thus precluding the need for such offsite shipments.

PSE&G will continue to store spent fuel onsite until the Department of Energy (DOE) comes to the site to pickup, under the terms of the contract signed between DOE and PSE&G for disposal of spent fuel and high level waste. Under this contract, it is the responsibility of the DOE to accept title to the fuel and ship it offsite to a repository or a monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility.

Therefore, DOE will have to comply with all applicable federal and state laws to transport spent fuel, being the shipper of record. PSE&G has also not performed any intrasite shipments of spent fuel. Since the Salem and Hope Creek units are located on the same site within one security fence, intrasite shipments if made in the future will also have no environmental impact because spent fuel will not leave the site. Page 1 of 2

1 ;

... ** .. '* -<*** Additionally, although PSE&G has no plans to ship spent fuel or high level radioactive waste offsite, all applicable federal, state, local laws and ordinances will be met in the event any such spent fuel shipments are made. Conditions in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.52 will be met. Although the environmental impacts summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 are based on a burnup level of 33,000 MWD/MTU and 4 weight percent U-235, it also bounds the corresponding impacts for burnup levels up to 60,000 MWD/MTU and 5 weight percent U-235 enrichment which are the anticipated future range of operation for Salem fuel cycles. This has been concluded by the NRC staff and documented in the Federal Register 53 FR 6040 dated February 29, 1988 and 53 FR 30355 dated August 11, 1988. Therefore, no new analysis of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor including values for the environmental impact under normal conditions of transport and for the environmental risk from accidents in transport is necessary.

With respect to the unirradiated fuel shipments to the reactor, the conditions in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 51.52 are currently being met. PSE&G will comply with all applicable federal, state, local laws and ordinances for all such future shipments.

2. LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE The generation and control of low level radioactive waste is adequately addressed through the following means, and will continue to be done so in the future: AP-29, "Radioactive Waste and Material Control -addresses the generation and control of radioactive waste at Salem Generating Station (SA-AP.ZZ-029 does the same for Hope Creek Generating Station).

Through these procedures, PSE&G commits to actively controlling and eliminating unnecessary radwaste.

Under this control, the rate of radwaste generation is not expected to increase in the future. NA-AP.ZZ-0007(0), "ALARA Program" -commits PSE&G to controlling exposure rates to the minimum practical.

This includes not only reviews of current operation and maintenance procedures, but also engineering practices in design changes. RP-906, "Shipment of Radioactive Waste For Burial" -governs the shipping of radioactive waste. PSE&G has committed, in this procedure, to "meet all requirements for shipment of radioactive waste for disposal at a burial site". In summary, PSE&G does, and will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.52 through the administrative controls discussed above and the commitments made therein. Page 2 of 2