ML101440290

Salem, Units 1 & 2 and Hope Creek, Unit 1 - Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Dated 04/16/2010 Related to the Environmental Review, License Renewal Application, Water/Groundwater, Report 11050-360-MD, Alternative Intake Tec

ML101440290
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/29/2010
From:	Public Service Enterprise Group, Sargent & Lundy
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LR-N10-0152, NJ0005622 11050-360-MD
Download: ML101440290 (544)

Text

0 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS EVALUATION

& BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE FOR MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION Salem Generating Station Units 1 & 2 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Non-Safety Related Project Number 11050-360 Report Number 11050-360-MD Sargent,&

Luniy", PREPARED BY: SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC.SALEM PERMIT APPLICATION NJPDES PERMIT NO.NJ0005622 DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. P U R P O S E/O BJE C T IV E ....................................................................................

1 II. D E S IG N IN P U T S ..................................................................................................

3 III. CRITERIA FO R IM PLEM ENTATION

..............................................................

4 IV .TEC H N ICA L EVA LUATIO N ...............................................................................

5 V .D E S IG N O V E R V IEW ........................................................................................

6 VI. EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS ......................

8 VII. EVALUATION OF NEW CONDENSERS

........................................................

11 VIII. EVALUATION OF CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE & PUMPS ...........

12 IX. EVALUATION OF MAKEUP WATER & BLOWDOWN SYSTEMS ..................

13 X. EVALUATION OF CIRCULATING WATER PIPES & PIPE ROUTING ....... 14 XI. INTERFERENCE RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CLOSED C Y C L E ......................................................................................................... ..1 9 XII. EVALUATION OF UNIT DERATING & ENERGY LOSS ................................

21 XIII. RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLINGT O W E R O P T IO N .......................................................................................... ..2 1 XIV. RELATIVE DISADVANTAGES OF THE MECHANICAL DRAFT CO O LING TO W ER O PTIO N .........................................................................

22 X V .A S S U M P T IO N S ............................................................................................

24 XVI. COST EVALUATION AND O&M ..................................................................

25 XVII. ENVIRONM ENTAL PERM ITTING .................................................................

28 X V III. C O N C LU S IO N S ..........................................................................................

28 R E F E R E N C E LIS T ...................................................................................................

.29 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment No.Title 0 Attachment 1:Attachment 1, Attachment 1, Attachment 1, Attachment 1, Attachment 1, Attachment 1,Attachment 1:

Attachment 1:Attachment 1:

Attachment 1:Attachment 1:

Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Conceptual Design Sketches Figure 1 -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Layout Figure 2 -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower -Circulating Water Pump Structure Conceptual Plan Figure 3 -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower -Conceptual CW P&ID -Unit 1 Figure 4 -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower -Conceptual One-Line Diagram -Unit 1 Figure 5 -Mechanical Draft Tower -Typical Detail for CWIS Tie-In Figure 6 -Mechanical Draft Tower -Cool Water Basin Conceptual Plan Figure 7- Mechanical Draft Tower -Soil Condition

& Pile Depth to Support Foundation Load Figure 8- Mechanical Draft Tower -CW Pipes Embedded in the Turbine Building Slab Figure 9- Mechanical Draft Tower -CW Pipe Area near CWIS Looking North Figure 10 Mechanical Draft Tower -Conceptual Layout CW Pipe and Towers Figure 11 -Mechanical Draft Tower -Model of Plant Showing CW Pipes and Condensate Polishing Building 0 ii SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (CONT)

Attachment No.Title Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachment 9: Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Conceptual Cost Estimate Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Schedule for Installation Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Walkdown Report Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Salem Heat Balance Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Range Estimate Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Salem Hydraulic Analysis Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-Analysis of Permitting Requirements Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-MD Tower Estimated Load List iii SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC I. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) is evaluating several alternative intake technology solutions for the Salem Generating Station (Salem or Station) Circulating Water Intake Structure (CWIS) to reduce fish impingement mortality and entrainment, and to improve debris management.

PSEG presented an evaluation of various fish protection alternatives in Appendix F of their New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit application (Reference C.34) in 1999. Using a closed cycle cooling system was one of the options evaluated in the previous permit applications.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in the Fact Sheet for the 2001 NJPDES Permit identified that the estimated cost of closed-cycle is wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefit to be realized.On July 9, 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)issued its "NPDES Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities" (the Phase II Rules). The Phase II Rules provide NJPDES applicants several options to demonstrate compliance.

Determining the appropriate option or options through which an applicant would demonstrate compliance, as well as the requirements of some of those compliance options, requires an applicant to explore different technologies.

As with the previous permit renewal, PSEG is evaluating closed cycle cooling as part of the Salem NJPDES permit renewal effort.This report presents a conceptual design, a cost estimate, and a schedule estimate for converting the circulating water system (CWS) at Salem Generating Station (Salem or Station) from the current once through system, where cooling water is continuously withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary, to a closed cycle cooling system using Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers. Design parameters for proposed Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers at Salem, including the wet-bulb temperature, dry-bulb temperature and the relative humidity values, are location-dependent and were assumed to be the same as those used for the design of the Hope Creek natural draft cooling tower. The total heat load assumed for this design is defined in the Salem heat balances (References C.24 through 28), and the Salem configuration baseline documentation (Reference C.6).The CWIS flowrate is dependent on the condenser design, the circulating water pumps, and the number and design of the towers that are used.This report concludes that retrofitting Salem for closed cycle cooling would involve substantial new construction, demolition, and re-construction activities that would result in 1 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC replacing, reinforcing, or abandoning all of the existing CWS. Implementation of this retrofit would require extended outages for each unit potentially leading to additional concerns during restart. This project would be unprecedented for a nuclear plant. Based on the results presented in this evaluation, the implementation of the Mechanical Draft Tower alternative would require $814,844,200, and a 66-month schedule to complete.Operational load is estimated to be 432,393,650 kWH per year and maintenance costs are estimated to be $4,371,784 per year. As presented in greater detail in this report, retrofitting cooling towers at Salem would be very difficult, and would impose significant permanent cost penalties, based on reductions in station output.

2 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC I. DESIGN INPUTS A. The heat rejection rate of circulating water flow is 7.636 x 109 BTU/hr at 61.8° F (original CW inlet design temperature) as noted in DE-CB.CW-0028(Z)(Reference C.6), and 7.410 x 10 9 BTU/hr at 900 F as noted in the Alstom condenser proposal (Reference C.18).B. The cold water outlet temperature of the tower shall be 900 F, based upon a design approach of 14' plus the ambient wet-bulb temperature.

The hot water returning to the cooling tower inlet, is estimated to be 1190 F, based on a range of 290. (Reference C.23).C. The ambient wet-bulb temperature is 760 F. The relative humidity is 60 percent.(Reference C.23).D. The cooling towers would be designed to operate in ambient air temperatures ranging from 00 F to 1000 F for the design heat load. (Reference C.23).E. The replacement condenser tube bundles would be designed to fit the three existing condenser boxes in each unit. (Reference C.18).F. Cooling tower drift eliminator efficiency is 0.0005% or better.These Design Inputs are summarized below: Inlet Water Flow 511,020 gpm (Reference C.18)Inlet Water Temperature 1190 F Outlet Water Temperature 900 FAmbient Wet Bulb 760 F Relative Humidity 60%Range 290 F Approach 140 F Drift Loss (% of CW flow) 0.0005%Heat Rejection Rate of CW flow 7.636 x 10 9 BTU/hr.(61.8F orig. design)7.410 x 10 9 BTU/hr (90F design)Ambient Air Temperature Range 00 F to 1000 F 3 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC 1I. CRITERIA FOR IMPLEMENTATION The closed-cycle circulating water cooling alternative using mechanical draft cooling towers shall provide a solution to ensure the following:

1. Create no significant additional challenges to Station operation.

2. Must be technically feasible and have proven operational reliability.

3. Must be constructable for the estimates provided.4. Should be available with required efficiency for operation during extreme winter and summer weather.5. Should be able to maintain and manage cooling tower water quality.6. Construction material should be suitable to assure reliable operation for the life of the plant. No asbestos fill or materials would be allowed.7. Air emission efficiency should be maximized to reduce particulate air emissions, no air pollutants other than particulates shall be emitted from the cooling tower 8. The mechanical draft cooling tower shall be constructed of materials which would not impart any additional pollutants, e.g., CCA pressure-treated lumber is not acceptable.

The following objectives are also desirable in the solution: 1. Can be implemented on-line as much as possible, with minimal outage time required for completing the tie-ins to the existing system.2. Minimize any new operator burdens.3. Minimal plant impact and maximum flexibility for operation and implementation.

4 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION A. Introduction The circulating water system is one of the major systems that are designed early in the plant design phase to allow an optimum layout of the plant structures, based on site conditions.

The bases and configuration of many of the station's major systems and components are interrelated to the design parameters and performance of the circulating water system. Any subsequent changes to these design parameters for the CWS can have a significant impact on the plant's ability to perform as designed.

Even minor changes to the circulating water supply (for example, a small increase in water temperature or a slight reduction of flow) may result in considerable reduction of the plant's rated capacity.

The circulating water pipes and the CWlS require a significant area within the power block layout. Subsequent changes to the routing of the circulating water pipes, and/or installation of new circulating water pipes, needs to be carefully evaluated to identify the space available for installation of these large diameter pipes and the numerous interferences such as buried utilities and electrical duct banks.S B. Background PSEG presented an evaluation of various fish protection alternatives in their NJPDES permit application (Reference C.29, 0.31, and C.32) in 1999. Using a closed cycle cooling system was one of the options evaluated.

The closed cycle cooling option may use either mechanical draft (MD) cooling towers or natural draft cooling towers.Previous reports have been prepared that evaluated the feasibility of retrofitting Salem with closed-cycle cooling using both Mechanical and Natural Draft Cooling Towers. The findings of these evaluations are summarized below: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) evaluated cooling tower alternatives during 1987, 1990 and 1993 (References VIII.C.29 and 30). The purpose of these reports was to evaluate the cost, schedule and technical feasibility of these alternatives at Salem. In these reports SWEC estimated the capital costs, operating

&maintenance costs, and plant performance capacity derating and energy losses involved with closed cycle conversion using mechanical draft towers. SWEC concluded in 1990, and confirmed in 1993, that retrofitting Salem to closed cycle cooling using mechanical draft cooling towers would involve an unprecedented, complicated, wide scale and extensive construction effort. SWEC also determined that closed cycle cooling would reduce current power generation capacity.

The reports identified that, besides the two MD cooling towers and associated piping and pump houses, the retrofit would also require installation of twelve new tube bundle modules for condensers, complex foundation structures for the new towers and piping, and a new major electrical 5

SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC power distribution system. In terms of the magnitude of the major construction activities, the SWEC report identified that the closed cycle conversion would involve demolition and/or abandonment of over 3 miles of the existing 7ft and 1Oft diameter CW piping, installation of over 4 miles of new 7ft diameter reinforced concrete steel lined pipes, installation of more than 10,000 -100ft deep, concrete filled pipe piles, and excavation of over 1/4 million cubic yards of soil.In 1993, Sargent & Lundy (S&L) performed an independent engineering review of the SWEC report for Salem Units 1 &

2 (Reference C.36). S&L's review of the SWEC report provided additional information that evaluated closed cycle cooling water system designs and the associated capital cost estimates, schedules and operating requirements.

Alternate locations for the cooling towers were also investigated by S&L in order to determine the acceptability of the conclusion of the SWEC report, that towers would need to be located far from the turbine building.

S&L's independent assessment concluded that the technical solution and the schedule suggested by SWEC were reasonable and the differences between the S&L and the SWEC estimates were within the accuracy of a conceptual design estimate.0 IV. DESIGN OVERVIEW In a closed-cycle cooling water system using mechanical draft cooling towers, the warm water from the condensers is routed to the cooling tower in large diameter buried concrete pipes. The warm water enters the top of the cooling tower fill and is allowed to trickle down by gravity through the fill. The warm water on the fill transfers heat to the air and water vapor, which the motor driven fans remove out through the top of the cooling tower. Heat is transferred through both evaporation of and radiant heat transfer from the cooling tower water. The cold water is collected at the bottom of the towers and then pumped back to the condenser through large diameter concrete pipes.Due to evaporation during the heat transfer, a portion of the circulating water is lost into the atmosphere.

Water is also lost due to "drift", water particles entrained in the air leaving the cooling tower. Drift is minimized by the inclusion of drift eliminators that remove the water particles and allow, for this design, no more than 0.0005% drift rate.This loss of water increases the concentration of solids in the cooling water. Passing this water through the condensers can cause plating of solids in the condenser tubes and precipitation of solids in the less turbulent areas of the piping and condensers.

Therefore, to balance the concentration of the solids in the cooling water, a portion of this water in the cooling tower is removed from the system as blow down water.6 6 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Additional water is added to the CW system using the make-up water system to replace the water that is lost from the system by blowdown, evaporation and drift.In order to prevent scaling and corrosion, and control biological growth, the water quality of the closed-cycle cooling system water would require periodic verification, and the addition of treatment chemicals with a chemical treatment system.The installation of a closed cycle cooling water system would involve the addition ofnew major piping and structures, and require significant modifications to existing station piping and structures, including the following:

1. The installation of two mechanical draft cooling towers with 24 cells on each tower and the associated cold water basin.2. The installation of 6 pumps per unit and a pump house for pumping the cold water from the cooling towers to the condensers.

3. The installation of twelve new modular condenser tube bundles and the required extensive modifications to the Turbine Building area for access.4. The installation of long runs of large diameter buried concrete pipes for the supply and the return water to and from the cooling towers.5. Extensive construction efforts for the tie-in of the buried supply and discharge lines. The units would each require an extensive shutdown during the tie-in activities.

6. The installation of new makeup, blowdown, and chemical control systems, including de-chlorination.

7. The installation of two new electrical power distribution systems, deriving power from the Salem Switchyard's 500-kV Buses 1 and 2. These would each provide approximately 57 MVA of electric power to the new larger circulating water pumps, cooling tower fans, motor operated valves, and cooling tower ancillary loads, i.e. make-up water, blow-down, and chemical control systems.8. Installation of a large number of piles under the cooling towers, pump houses and the large diameter cooling water pipes.7 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC V. EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS Ideally a cooling tower should be located as close to the condenser as possible to reduce the pumping head required for the circulating water system pumps, and to minimize the length of the large diameter cooling water supply and discharge pipes.However, the large size of the mechanical draft cooling towers dictates that they cannot be located close to the power block unless they are part of the original site layout design. The location of towers at Salem is governed by their proximity to the condensers, the space available for routing new large diameter circulating water pipes to and from the towers, the space available for installation of the towers, and a suitable route to allow for tie-in of the new circulating water pipes to the existing circulating water pipes.Due to the lack of available open land space at the Salem site close to the power block, the tower locations selected are between the two main transmission lines as shown in Attachment 1, Figure 1. The minimum vertical clearance distance required by the National Electrical Safety Code, Table 234-1 from a 500 kV line to a tower is 17.9ft.However, larger clearances from the 500 kV lines have been provided to facilitate construction activities during installation of the cooling towers. Consideration of the space requirements between the cooling towers included the necessary distances to prevent impeding air flow to the adjacent cooling tower. This location for the mechanical draft towers limits the project to two banks of towers, and would affect the condenser design as described in Chapter VII below. The cost estimate and schedule estimate presented in this report are based on the tower locations shown in Attachment 1, Figure 1.Different types of mechanical draft cooling tower construction are available within the industry. The options include using cooling towers made of reinforced concrete, towers made from wood, and towers made from fiberglass.

Towers made from wood may present long term maintenance challenges as well as potential challenges to the fire protection program for a nuclear power plant and were eliminated from consideration.

The towers proposed by GEA Power Cooling, Inc. (GEA) for Salem would be fiberglass towers (Reference C. 19). Towers made from reinforced concrete are approximately twice as expensive as fiberglass towers according to GEA. Fiberglass towers are used for mechanical draft cooling towers throughout the power industry.

Mechanical draft towers are categorized as either forced draft, on which the fans are located in the ambient air stream entering the tower, or induced draft, where a fan, located in theexiting air stream, draws air through the tower. Forced draft towers are characterized by high air entrance velocities and low air exit velocities.

As such, they are extremely susceptible to recirculation (where the outlet air is drawn back into the inlet of the tower)and are considered to have less performance stability than induced draft towers. Forced 8 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC draft fans can also become susceptible to severe icing problems in cold environments.

Most large power plants that use mechanical draft towers use induced draft towers. The design parameters for the Hope Creek cooling tower were used as a basis of the design of the Salem mechanical draft cooling towers since there is significant operating experience with the Hope Creek cooling tower in the geographic location.The design for closed-cycle cooling using a mechanical draft cooling tower would involve installing two banks of induced draft counter flow type mechanical draft towers, one bank for each Salem unit, with 24 cells per bank. Each mechanical draft cooling tower cell consists of an induced draft fan supported above the water distribution system and tower fill. Air enters the cooling tower at the sides, goes through the fill being exposed to the warm water, and exits by fan induction out the top of the tower.The tower fill would be film type consisting of numerous honeycomb type tube bundles installe.d inside the cooling tower to allow the warmrwater to trickle down the surface area of the tubes. Hope Creek also utilizes film type fill using flat sheets. The flat sheet fill could be prone to clogging if the water contains debris. The honeycomb tube bundles are improved film type cellular fill that stretches droplets of water into a thin film.as the water proceeds vertically downward through the cells, thereby maximizing the surface area and permitting to cool the entire droplet more rapidly. Film type fill causes the water to be spread into a thin film over large vertical areas, to promote maximum exposure to the air flow. It provides more effective cooling capacity within the same space then splash fill. Splash fill was used in early cooling tower designs; the earliest fill material was simple wood splash bars. With splash fill, the.exchange area for cooling is provided by water droplets, and heat exchange occurs on the surface of these droplets.

Due to surface tension, these droplets are nearly perfect spheres and therefore this type of fill does not provide maximum possible surface area.Significant improvements in evaporative heat transfer efficiency were realized with the invention of film fills.

The tower fill is installed in a framework inside the cooling tower to allow the warm water to splash down onto the tubes, maximizing contact with the air for evaporation and sensible heat transfer.

A warm water distribution system is installed above the fill to distribute the warm water over the top of the fill. The cooled water is collected in the cold water basin at the base of the tower and returned to the condenser using circulating water pumps (see Attachment 1, Figure 6, for the outline of the cold water basin).The major factors that affect the design and performance of a mechanical draft cooling-tower are the wet-bulb temperature, dry-bulb temperature, the approach temperature, the relative humidity, the heat load, and the rate of flow of the warm water.The wet-bulb temperature, dry-bulb temperature and the relative humidity values are 9

SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC location dependent and were assumed to be the same as those used for the design of the Hope Creek natural draft cooling tower. The total heat load is defined in the Salem heat balances (References C.24 through 28) and the Salem configuration baseline documentation (Reference C.6). The CWS flowrate is dependent on the condenser design and circulating water flowrate, and determines the number of tower cells that are required.The wet-bulb temperature is the lowest temperature at which evaporation can occur for the specific atmospheric conditions.

The approach temperature of a tower is the difference between the temperature of the cold water discharged from the cooling tower and the wet-bulb temperature.

The more efficient a tower is, the closer it "approaches" the wet-bulb temperature.

However, the lower the approach, the bigger the tower would be. Cooling tower vendors would not design for an approach of less than 50 F. Typical good industry practice for tower design uses approach values of 120 F, 140 F, or 160 F.This provides an optimum tower size based on heat load, circulating water flowrate, and wet-bulb temperature.

The Hope Creek cooling tower design used a 140 F approach.This was also considered an appropriate approach value for the design of towers for Salem. If a lower approach were used, the mechanical draft tower would require many more cells. The tower vendor GEA estimated 40 cells per unit for a 100 F approach.A number of cooling tower vendors were investigated and two of them, GEA Power Cooling, Inc. and Marley Cooling Technologies Inc., were contacted with the Salem specific design inputs to provide a tower design and associated pricing information.

The conceptual design and the pricing information from both cooling tower vendors are comparable, and the cost and scheduled developed were based on the equipment available from GEA Power Cooling. Based on the design information provided by GEA, a tower bank of 24 cells of induced draft counter flow mechanical draft towers would be used for each Salem unit.Hot water would be returned to the tower using one 12ft. diameter concrete pipe for each unit. The cold water would be collected in a cold water basin at the base of the tower and channeled to the circulating water pump house.The installation of the large cooling towers and their required clearances to minimize impact on other station equipment, such as the 500 kV switchyard and transmission lines, would require placing the towers approximately 2000ft east of the Turbine Building, between the two 500 kV transmission lines. The composition of the soil in this area would require careful investigation for the foundation structure design. The two top layers, consisting of dredge spoils and mechanically occurring sand, gravel and clay, 10 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC are inadequate for supporting the structural load. The soil layer that can provide adequate support, called Vincentown Formation, is located approximately 70ft below the ground level (see Attachment 1, Figure 7). As a result, 100 ft deep steel pipe piles would be driven through the soil to the load bearing strata to provide adequate support for the towers, pump houses and the circulating pipes. An estimated 4,450 piles, 100ft.deep would be required to support the cooling tower foundations.

VI. EVALUATION OF NEW CONDENSERS The existing condenser in each Salem unit is a single pass, divided waterbox, triple shell condenser with a total design flow per unit of 1.11 million gpm (Reference C.6).Each shell has divided waterboxes, on the inlet and the discharge of the single passtube bundles.

The design temperature for the inlet water from the river is 61.80 F; the discharge temperature is designed to a 140 F increase (Reference C.6).A mechanical draft cooling tower designed to handle the flow rate of the existing CWS would require from 45 to 50 cells per Salem unit. There is insufficient space on site to install towers this large. The use of one (24 cell) mechanical draft tower per unit is feasible to construct, but would reduce the maximum flow available to the condenser to approximately 50% of the current flow. The reduced flow through the existing single pass condenser would not provide sufficient heat transfer for the design heat load. Also, the design pressure of the existing waterbox arrangement is insufficient for the pressure produced by the new circulating water pumps that would be needed to provide water to the condenser and return it to the cooling tower. The existing CW piping andwaterboxes are designed for 20 psig. The new circulating water pumps for the towers would provide approximately 43 psig (100ft Total Developed Head [TDH]) water at the condenser tube inlets.For these reasons, it is necessary that the existing condenser tubesheets and water boxes be replaced with a two pass tubesheet arrangement, and higher pressure rated waterboxes.

This also requires a commensurate upgrade of the pressure rating of the CW piping (see Chapter X below) to allow the use of cooling towers at Salem.Alstom Power Inc., Heat Exchanger Division, can provide the condenser modular tube bundle and waterbox replacements that would work within the physical constraints of the existing condenser shell arrangements. In order to maintain a single pass condenser the tubes would have to be 14 feet longer (7ft longer on each side of the in, shell), and there is inadequate space in the existing turbine buildings top accommodate 11 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 0 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLCthis length increase.

Even with these design conditions, the turbine backpressure would increase to 2.0 in Hg, due to the increase in the inlet water temperature from 61.50 F to 90° F, and would require 50-cell towers per unit. See Attachment 5, Chapter 6.1 and Chapter 6.2 for a discussion on the effects of the condenser and tower on the turbine backpressure and gross megawatt electrical output. To allow use of the existing condenser shell configuration with the cooling towers, a two pass tubesheet is required.The flow rate for the two pass tubesheet design would be 511,020 gpm per unit. The major design factors of the new two pass condenser tube bundles and the water boxes are as follows:1. Six (6) two-pass condenser tubesheet replacement modules per unit with a total of 772,821 sq. ft. of effective condensing surface area. The modules would be completely shop assembled, and shipped to the site for installation in the condenser shells. Shop assembly would reduce the outage time required for installation.

2. The tubing would be 1" outside diameter and the tube material would be titanium B338, Gr 2.3. The waterboxes are designed for 50 psig and hydrostatically tested to a pressure of 65 psig in the shop.4. The turbine back pressure would increase to 4.24 in Hg, which would result in a loss of generation capability (see Attachment 5, Table 6.1 "Reduced CW Flow &New Two (2) Pass Condenser").

The new condenser arrangement' would require extensive modifications to the circulating water piping to allow use of a two pass tube bundle arrangement, as described below in Chapter X.VII. EVALUATION OF CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE &PUMPS Each unit would have its own pump house adjacent to the cooling tower cold water basin for supplying the cooling water to the condensers.

The configuration and location of the pump houses for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are shown in Attachment 1, Figure 1. The layout of the pump house is shown in Attachment 1, Figure 2. Water from the cold water basin is channeled to the pump house through a fixed screen to eliminate any large debris which enters the cold water basin.12 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC A total of six vertical wet pit pumps, larger although similar in design to the existing circulating water pumps, would be installed for each unit to pump the cold water from the cooling tower to the condenser.

This design, with vertical wet pit pumps, is highly efficient and very reliable.

The new CW pumps would require a higher total developed head than the existing pumps due to the additional piping lengths and the two pass condenser.

The new pumps would each be 110,000 gpm pumps with a 100ft total developed head (TDH). This arrangement for the pumps allows for normal operation of 5 out of 6 pumps at maximum heat load, and the possibility to operate fewer pumps in winter months. Attachment 1, Figure 3 details the Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) for the CWS with mechanical draft towers.The pump house structures would have reinforced concrete walls and foundation slab. The roof of the pump house would be made of metal decking supported by structural steel roof framing, with removable panels over the pumps to facilitate their removal.IX. EVALUATION OF MAKEUP WATER & BLOWDOWN SYSTEMS A significant amount of cooling water in a closed cycle cooling system is lost to evaporation and drift in the cooling tower during the heat transfer process. The water lost to evaporation is primarily fresh water. The loss of water from the system increases the concentration of solids in the cooling water. To control the concentration of solids in the circulating water system, a portion of the cooled water is discharged as blowdown from the circulating water system. The new blowdown system would consist of a weir box with a pipe that returns the water to the Delaware River by gravity. The weir box would be installed to discharge the required amount of water from the cold side of the circulating water system to the river. A dechlorination system would be installed in the blowdown system to meet the chlorine residual requirements of the NJPDES Permit.The blowdown line would have to be routed to extend beyond the waters edge, because of the cove. See Attachment 1, Figure 1.It is estimated that approximately 31,000 gpm of water per unit is required to be added to the CW system to make up for evaporation, drift and blowdown.

Approximately 11 to 16 million gallons per day would be lost to evaporation and drift, and the blowdown would be required to maintain the concentration of solids in the cold water basin to an increase of less than 30%. The makeup water would be taken from the Delaware River through the existing CWIS and added to the cooling tower basin. Two new 300 hp make-up water pumps per unit would run to pump the make up water from the CWIS to the cooling tower. Two makeup water pumps per unit would operate 13 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC continuously, with a third pump per unit available as a spare. This would also require operating and maintaining the respective pumps bay existing traveling water screens and associated screen wash pumps for those intake bays. The outlet piping for the makeup pumps would be modified with connections to provide a 3ft diameter pipe that would be routed to the cooling tower for makeup (see Attachment 1, Figure 4).X. EVALUATION OF CIRCULATING WATER PIPES & PIPE ROUTING There are twelve, 7 ft diameter pipes that supply water to the existing condensers in Salem, six pipes per unit. Each waterbox is supplied by one 7 ft diameter pipe at the base of the waterbox.

The circulating water passes through the condenser tube bundles to the outlet waterbox and is returned to the river through the CWS discharge pipes.Because of the cooling tower, the new condenser shells would require two pass tube bundles using approximately half of the cooling water used for the existing CWS system. The new water boxes would be divided waterboxes, with upper and lower chambers.

The inlet nozzle would be on the top chamber, and the outlet nozzle would be on the bottom chamber. These nozzles would both be 5ft diameter.

The existing discharge lines on the west side of the condenser would be abandoned and blanked offso that the Service Water System and other miscellaneous returns would still use the existing CWS discharge lines to the river.Since the flow required for the new condenser is approximately half of the existing flow, six of the twelve existing condenser intake pipes would be used as new condenser intake pipes and the other six would be converted to be new condenser discharge pipes. The two dual waterboxes on each condenser shell would be supplied water from one of the existing 7 ft diameter inlet water pipes, and would discharge water to a converted 7 ft diameter return pipe.

See the P&ID in Attachment 1, Figure 3. Each 7 ft inlet pipe would supply water to both of the waterboxes for that respective condenser shell, and each 7 ft outlet pipe would return water from both of the waterboxes for that respective condenser shell. The 7 ft inlet pipes would divide into two 5 ft diameter pipes to the upper waterbox inlet connections.

Similarly, the waterbox return pipes from the lower waterbox connections would be 5 ft diameter pipes that merge to the 7 ft return pipe. Constructing the division to 5 ft pipes on the inlet and merge of 5 ft pipes for the outlet of the waterboxes is a major problem due to space constraints.

The 7 ft pipes are approximately 10 feet underground, and encased in the turbine building foundation inside the building.

The connections for the 5 ft pipes to the 7 ft pipes would have to beconstructed outside of the turbine building; there is no room for the large 5 ft diameter pipe tee connections and pipe elbows inside the turbine building.

On the Unit 2 side of the plant, the 5 ft tee connections would have to be made east of the existing ,h 14 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Condensate Polisher building.

The 5 ft pipes to and from the waterboxes would then have to be routed over the Condensate Polisher building to get into and out of the turbine building.

The temporary removal of one of the Main Generator Transformers may also be required on each unit to construct this piping. A considerable number of interferences inside the turbine building would have to be modified to allow the routing of the 5 ft pipes to and from the waterboxes.

Attachment 4 of this report is a "Walkdown Report" that describes the interferences that are involved, and provides pictures taken during a plant walkdown.

Chapter XI and Attachment 4 provide a review of interferences related to this work.Similarly, the connections from the existing 7 ft piping to the new 12 ft piping for both inlet and outlet water, would require a major demolition/construction effort. These connections would be constructed approximately near the old gatehouse building.Attachment 1, Figure 1 shows the location of the connections, relative to the existing plant buildings.

Attachment 1, Figure 5 shows the piping detail of the connections for Unit 2; Unit 1 would be similar. It would be necessary for two of the 7 ft pipes on each unit to "loop over" the other pipes, to make these connections.

An additional thrust block may be required to support the pipes at this location.

Because of the in ground layout of the piping and the connections, Unit 2 would need to be the lead unit for conversion to closed cycle, followed by Unit 1. This would allow separate tie in outages instead of a dual unit tie in outage.Four 12 ft diameter steel lined reinforced concrete pipes would be used for the intake and discharge pipes to and from the two cooling towers. They would be routed in a common trench to the cooling towers pump house. The new CW pipes were sized as 12 ft diameter pipes because there is not enough space in the available corridor to the new cooling towers to accommodate twelve -7 ft diameter pipes similar to the existing CW piping arrangement all the way out to the towers. Due to the location of the mechanical draft cooling towers, each section of new 12 ft diameter CW piping is approximately 2500 ft long (see Attachment 1, Figure 1). The pipe supports for the new 12 ft pipes would be constructed similar to the existing CW pipe supports, i.e., common supports for all four 12 ft pipes requiring approximately 1500 pipe piles buried 100 feet deep. The tie-in location for the new 12 ft. diameter pipes to the existing CWS intake pipes would be located such that there is enough clearance to excavate the soil around the points of tie-in and perform the installation.

Attachment 7 is the hydraulic analysis that confirms the size of the CW piping, both new and existing piping where re-used, and confirms the corresponding flow velocities for each of the piping sizes. It also provides a pipeline loss calculation to confirm the new CW pump total developed head requirement.

The normal operating pressure for 15 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 0 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC the existing 7 ft. diameter concrete intake pipes is 12 psig. The original pipe vendor data sheets indicate that the existing piping is designed for a normal internal pressure of 13 to 19 psig and a transient pressure of 28 to 36 psig. The new CWS piping would have a maximum operating pressure of 45 psig. The portion of the existing 7 ft pipes that would be reused, would require reinforcing by the installation of a steel lining to handle the increased pressure of the new CWS. Relining the existing 7 ft piping is a major construction task. New partially fabricated steel pipe with an overlapped, tack welded, axial seam has to be inserted into the existing concrete pipe shell, the tack welds ground down to release the overlap, then welded axially as well as section to section, and grouted in place. This process of relining the concrete pipe would reduce some of the internal pipe diameter (about 6 inches). The hydraulic analysis in Attachment 7 used 7 ft diameter pipe (since this is a conceptual design) to quantify the pipe line losses, the actual design would use the exact pipe ID for analysis.Consideration was given to replacing the 7 ft pipe instead of relining it, however, the existing piping is encased in massive concrete thrust blocks at the 90 degree turns into the turbine building at each unit. Removal of those thrust blocks might extend the tie-in outages, and if not done correctly, render the support piers under the thrust blocks unusable and destabilize other structures.

If that happened it is estimated that it could take another 6 months to install new support piers while the unit is out of service. For this reason, the cost estimate and schedule for this study is based on relining the existing 7 ft pipe where it would be reused.A. Electrical, Control and Instrumentation Support Systems The addition of new closed loop cooling water systems significantly effects the existing electrical distribution systems. Electrical loads for the CWS are essentially doubled, and the use of mechanical draft cooling towers at a different location on Station property requires the use of a physically different electrical power system.Six makeup water pumps would be required, as would six of the existing twelve traveling water screens. Abandoning the CWIS as a source of cooling water results in the removal from service of the twelve 2,000 hp CWPs and six of the eight 150 hp screen wash pumps. Six new makeup water pumps would be used for providing make-up water to the two new mechanical draft cooling towers. Four of these pumps would normally be in operation, two per unit, while the third pump per unit remains available as a back-up. Because make-up water to the new cooling towers would be needed, six sets of traveling screens would also be kept in service, using two per unit in operation, 16 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC while the third screen remains available with it's associated backup makeup water pump.The net reduction in electrical power demand at existing CWIS substations 1SWGR1CWX and 2SWGR2CWX would be approximately 24 MVA. This reduction in power demand from the Station's 13 kV South Bus would enhance the operation of the Station's Vital Bus electrical power system, because the existing CWS distribution systems are powered from the same transformers as the safety related Vital Bus electrical distribution system.However, offsetting the 24 MVA reduction in electrical demand is a large increase of approximately 57 MVA-resulting from the new electrical loads required to support both units' mechanical draft cooling towers. Each cooling tower would have 24 cells, each of which includes a single speed fan powered by a 230 bhp motor. In addition, the adjacent pump house would contain six new 3,500 hp CWPs. The pumps are-larger than the ones they replace at the CWIS because of differences in required discharge pressure (total developed head). Each pump discharge would have a motor operated valve (MOV), and each tower would be equipped with MOVs for make-up water, fill isolation for each individual cell, and by-pass water. Additional electrical power would be required for cooling tower lighting, and electrical equipment and pump room ancillary systems.Along with the addition of two mechanical draft cooling towers is a commensurate modification of the turbine condensers.

Existing condenser discharge MOVs would be replaced by valves and motor operators appropriate to their re-sized piping systems. It is assumed that the new motor operators would be comparably sized to their predecessors.

Therefore the same power supplies would be used to power and control the new MOVs for the condenser discharge piping, with no appreciable change in electrical demand.The existing CW electrical substations have insufficient available capacity to support the new cooling tower loads, thus new electrical distribution systems are required.Indeed, available capacity is in limited supply at the Station's other switchgear, bothnon-safety related Group Buses and safety related Vital Buses. Available capacity on the Unit 1 CW power system bus is approximately 8,400 kVA. With the above mentioned reduction, approximately 12,000 kVA per unit, there would be a total available capacity of 20,400 kVA, still less than the approximately 28,500 kVA required by each tower's cooling fan and water systems. The new CWP requirement for 3500 hp motors indicates a more appropriate motor voltage of 13.2 kV. The cooling towers are 17 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLClocated approximately a half-mile from the CW power system. Potential voltage drop between the towers and the existing CW power systems would require substantiallylarger and more numerous electrical cables in the attempt to offset such voltage drops.In addition, the available capacity at the Station is typically provided by 4.16 kV systems, less desirable for such large CWP motors. In consideration of the lower available system voltages, potential voltage drops, and the lack of sufficient capacity, the use of the existing CWlS power systems is not practicable.

New sources of power would be derived from the Salem Switchyard.

Two alternative sources of power were evaluated; from the 500 kV bus system, or from the two transformers located in the Salem switchyard's 13 kV North Ring Bus. Two transformers, 1 SPT and 2SPT, currently supply power to the Station's non-safety related 4 kV Group Buses. Preliminary load estimates indicate that the loads associated with the new CWPs can cause the 13 kV North Ring Bus loads to exceed their existing 4000 A bus rating. Therefore, this evaluation addresses the addition of new transformers to the 500 kV bus system. Thus, the large load additions required by the new CWPs and the mechanical draft cooling towers would not adversely effect the 13 kV North Bus or the 13 kV South Bus.The new cooling tower power sources would originate with connections made to the outdoor 500 kV Buses 1 and 2. These would be extended via new disconnecting switches, and SF 6 bus ducts, to two new 500 -13.8 kV transformers, 100 MVA each, and to new sections of outdoor air insulated 13.8 kV bus work. See Attachment 1, Figure 4 -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Alternative

-One Line Diagram, for an illustration of the suggested electrical distribution configuration for one unit. From each new section of 13.8 kV bus work, a feeder would be connected from a new 13.8 kV circuit breaker and run to its respective electrical equipment room at its respective mechanical draft cooling tower.The existing 2000 hp CWPs would be removed and replaced with new make-upwater pumps, rated at approximately 300 hp. These new pump motors would operate from the existing 4.16 kV CW substation buses. The same control switches and circuit breakers would be reused to power and control the new make-up water pumps.Electrical protection set points would be revised for proper protection of these smaller motors. Anticipated changes to the CW substations include the potential replacement of current transformers and protective relays. Existing power and control cables may be re-used.18 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC An electrical equipment room would be located adjacent to each cooling tower pump room, housing all required switchgear, transformers, motor control centers (MCCs), panelboards, etc. The 13.8 kV power from the Salem Switchyard would be terminated to new 13.8 kV metal-clad switchgear.

This 13.8 kV Switchgear would contain incoming main breakers, tie breakers, six circuit breakers used for CWP motor starting, and circuit breakers to power lower voltage switchgear and motor control centers. Four separate 480 V switchgear would be used to power the 24 -230 bhp fans, and downstream motor control centers. Five 480 V MCCs would be used to power the CWP MOVs, 24 cell hot water intake MOVs, smaller pumps, cathodic protection systems, miscellaneous loads, and electrical equipment and pump room ancillary systems, such as lighting, ventilation, etc.Control and monitoring of the CWS pumps, MOVs and cooling tower fans, and ancillary systems, such as make-up water, blow-down systems, etc., would be from each unit's main control room, with provisions for local test and control. Monitoring andcontrol of new CWPs, cooling tower cell operation, and tower support systems would be managed by programmable logic controllers (PLCs), installed in each electrical equipment room. While automatic operation can be added in the future, the PLCs would initially operate to pass information and commands between the main control rooms and the switchgear, MCCs and instrumentation.

Fiber optic cables would connect the two PLCs together, and connect each PLC to its respective control room.Touch screen controllers would be used to monitor system status and performance, and for control of all CWPs, cooling tower cell fans, MOVs and miscellaneous support systems. The existing condenser and CWS instrumentation systems would be replicated in the modified circulating water system.XI. INTERFERENCE RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CLOSED CYCLE A. Interference Relocation Activities

1. Existing electrical and instrumentation equipment in the paths of CW piping would have to be removed and temporarily or permanently relocated.

Most relocation would be required on the 1 00ft and 11 Oft elevations of the Turbine Building.

Unit 1 Panels 387, 666, 679, and 731, and Feed Water Analysis Panel 380 are in the paths of new Unit 1 CW piping. Unit 2 Panels 387, 730 and 731, and Feed Water Analysis Panel 380 are in the paths of new Unit 2 CW piping. Relocation of these panels would involve de-terminating existing electrical cabling 19 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC and disconnecting existing instrument tubing, and restoring these connections in newly identified locations, where the panels can be relocated.

While the details of interference relocation would be determined during detailed engineering design, a budget has been included in the cost estimate of this evaluation for such work.2. Installation of new CW piping and re-lining of existing CW piping would potentially require the temporary removal of one main generator step-up transformer at each unit. This would permit excavation around the piping and reduce the possibility of potential damage to transformerfoundations. Such temporary relocation would require the services ofa rigging subcontractor and appropriate lay-down space.3. Mechanical equipment and structural support steel in the vicinity of new CW piping would have to be removed and temporarily or permanently relocated.

The affected equipment for Unit 2 includes the temporary removal and replacement of the Feedwater Heater and Moisture Separator Re-heater Drain Tanks 2A, 2B, and 2C, including associated piping, and the temporary relocation and replacement of 0 the No. 2 Gland Steam Condenser, and associated piping. The affected equipment for permanent relocation includes Vacuum Pumps No. 22, 23, 24, and 25, and associated piping. The affected equipment for Unit 1 is expected to be similar.B. Construction Activities

1. The bulk of the electrical installation activities would take place at twolocations. The new electrical equipment rooms at each cooling tower would have new medium and low voltage switchgear installed, along with the required control and instrumentation support systems. In addition, the 500 kV switchyard would have two main buses extended for the purpose of installing two new 100 MVA transformers to support operation of the new CWPs and cooling towers.2. Additional new electrical construction would be performed on site for the installation of underground ductbanks.

3. The construction activity for the new cooling towers and basins, new pump houses, and new 12ft concrete pipe would be completed with minimal effect on plant operations.

However, tie-in outages for each unit would require that each unit be out of service for 5 months, and would be coordinated with required refueling outages as shown in the Project Schedule in Attachment 3.20 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC XII. EVALUATION OF UNIT DERATING & ENERGY LOSS The existing turbine design was optimized to closely match the existing condenser performance using the temperature rise with a single pass tube bundle utilizing much colder circulating water from the river. Retrofitting a closed cycle cooling system at Salem would result in higher circulating water temperature to the condenser, which increases turbine exhaust pressure (backpressure), and consequently reduces the electrical output of the unit. Additionally, as the ambient wet-bulb temperature increases the unit capability is further degraded.Based on the analysis performed by SWEC in 1993, and the S&L review of that analysis, the analysis performed by SWEC in 1999, and the analysis presented in Attachment 5 of this report, each unit's output would be reduced. There would be additional power required to operate the new circulating water pumps and mechanical draft cooling tower fans, which would reduce the net power output. With the design discussed above, an additional 26,400 kVA would be required to operate the electrical portion of each of the two new CWS and mechanical draft cooling towers (see Attachment 9 for the Estimated Load List). That, and the impact of a two pass condenser on turbine performance, would reduce each unit's output by approximately 6% (reference Attachment 5, Table 6-1). See Attachment 5 Chapter 6.1 and Chapter 6.2 for the Heat Balance Evaluation that delineates the effects on backpressure and gross power reduction.

XIII. RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION 1. Using closed-cycle option would meet the USEPA performance standards.

2. Mechanical draft towers are less expensive to purchase and build than natural draft towers.3. The thermal performance of mechanical draft cooling towers tends towards greater stability, and is affected by fewer psychometric variables.

The fans provide a means for regulating airflow to compensate for changing atmospheric and load conditions.

4. A closed cycle cooling water system does not pose a challenge to navigation on the Delaware River.21 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC XIV. RELATIVE DISADVANTAGES OF THE MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION 1. The conversion of Salem to a closed cycle cooling system would present an unprecedented challenge.

The Station was not designed to be modified in the manner that this project would require. Each portion of this project is a major construction effort: building the towers, replacing the condenser, routing 12,000 ft of 12 ft diameter piping, relining the existing piping are each a major construction project. Many of the equipment interference relocations would be major projects.

Taken together, this would represent an unprecedented change to a nuclear power plant.2. The conversion of Salem Station to a closed cycle cooling water system would require both upgrading the existing condenser and consequently, decreasing the station's electrical output.3. An extended outage would be required for replacing the condenser and tie in of the discharge and the supply lines. The extended outage may require significant restart activities for other plant systems.4. An extended outage increases risk for potential degradation of the plant systems, equipment, and components.

The potential cost of avoiding such degradation or replacing degraded equipment could be significant and has not been quantified in this report.5. An extensive effort is required for the tie-in of the buried supply and discharge lines, 6. Installation of new Condensers would involve extensive related modifications to the Turbine Building area to relocate interferences, some permanently, some temporarily.

7. Long runs of large diameter buried concrete pipes for the supply and the discharge water are required to and from the cooling towers.8. The addition of new makeup, blow-down, and chemical control systems are required.9. Increased electrical power would be required to run the CW pumps, cooling tower fans, and the newly added makeup, blow-down and chemical control systems.10. Extensive interferences such as electrical duct banks, fuel oil pipelines, etc., may hinder installation and tie-in of the buried pipes.11 .The schedule prepared for this project is a 5 1/2 year long construction project with successive extended unit outages to tie-in the towers and new condenser.

22 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC This would present challenges for obtaining and maintaining qualified labor, for the length of time it would take to build a new plant.12. The plume from the mechanical draft towers may present problems related to fogging and icing in certain weather conditions. The particulate air emissions from mechanical draft cooling towers are generally much higher than the emissions from an equivalent natural draft cooling tower (see Attachment 8).13. Mechanical draft towers would produce more noise then natural draft towers.23 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1,2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC XV. ASSUMPTIONS

1. The project schedule presented in Attachment 3 assumes that engineering and permitting begin as soon as the project is authorized, but that no equipment or services are procured and no construction or fabrication occurs until the required permits for the project are received. It also assumes successive tie-in outages concurrent with refueling outages for each unit.2. All estimates assume non-outage work, a 40-hour week and no modifications to the existing intake structure.

3. 2005 Philadelphia PA, union wages.4. Labor productivity reflects nuclear site work.5. Escalation rates used are: Equipment 3.5%, Material 3.5%, Labor 3.5% and Indirects 3.5%.6. Contingencies used are: Equipment 19%, Material 19%, Labor 19%, and Indirects 19%.7. AFUDC Rate is not included.8. Sales/Use Taxes are not included.9. No estimate for relocation of the existing condensate polisher buildings has been included.

It is assumed that the required piping changes would work around these buildings.

10. The existing power supplies to motor operated valves on the condenser discharge piping can and would be reused for the new valves required by the condenser modification.

11. The 500 kV Buses 1 and 2 have adequate additional capacity to support the CWPs, cooling tower fans, and ancillary cooling tower electrical loads.24 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC XVI. COST EVALUATION AND O&M A. Capital Costs The total capital cost for this project is estimated to be $ 814,844,200.

These costs do not include lost generation costs or replacement power costs.1 Description Total Equipment Cc Total Material Cosl Total Labor Cost Total Cost Mechanical Draft Cooling $32,000,000

$9,762,000

$28,628,000

$70,390,000 Towers CW Pumps & Structure

$38,800,000

--- $23,682,000

$62,482,000 Electrical

$3,390,000

$280,000 $1,256,000

$4,926,000 Pumphouse Electrical

$3,270,000

$2,360,000

$6,404,000

$12,034,000 CWIS Area Electrical

$36,000 $431,000 $1,281,000

$1,748,000 Turb. Building Electrical

-- $246,000 $589,000 $835,000 Cooling Tower Electrical

$420,000 $1,800,000

$4,662,000

$6,882,000 CW Piping $24,265,000

$19,304,000

$59,091,000

$102,660,000 Makeup/Blowdown Sys. $4,340,000 499,000 $5,678,000

$10,517,000 Security incl. Fencing $250,000 --- $256,000 $506,000 Condenser Modif. $38,600,000

$2,500,000

$66,695,000

$107,795,000 Chemical Control $4,000,000

$5,233,000

$9,233,000 Environmental Permits $727,200 $727,200 Construction Indirects

$50,863,000

$50,863,000 Total Const. Costs $149,371,000

$37,182,000

$255,045,200

$441,598,200 Indirect Expenses w/o ..... $131,912,000 permitting Contingency

....--- $111,233,000 Escalation

---.... $130,101,000 Grand Total Cost .........-

$814,844,200 1 The cost, schedule and outage times in this report are based on factors that are currently known. Delays due to weather conditions, relocation of unidentified underground utilities that are encountered around the power block, use of less effective methods of excavation due to nearby energized systems, and potential damage to the existing buried pipe during construction work may lead to additional cost and schedule duration.

A prolonged unit outage may require additional start up activities and costs that are not included in the cost and schedule reported herein.25 0 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC 0 B. Operating kWHThe Operating kWH associated with the Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower are estimated to total 432,393,650 kWH per year, as follows: Load Description Quantity hp, kVA, kW Total Hours Days kWH per Year Running ON per Operating Load Day per Year Circulating Water Pumps 10 3500 35000 24 365 306600000 Circ Wtr P MOVs (hp est) 12 100 1200 1 2 2400 Cooling Tower Fans (est bhp) 48 230 11040 24 365 96710400 Cooling Tower Cell Inlet MOV (hp 48 20 960 1 2 1920 est)Cooling Tower Make-Up Water 2 25 50 1 2 100 MOV (hp est)Cooling Tower Fill & By-Pass MOV 2 25 50 1 2 100 (hp est)Make-Up Water Pump (4 of 6 4 300 1200 24 365 10512000 running)Traveling Screen Drive Motors (4 4 15 60 24 365 525600 of 6 running)Screen Wash Pumps (2 running) 2 150 300 24 365 2628000 Screen Wash Strainer and Trash 1 13.5 13.5 12 365 59130 Rake Power Panel -Elec Equip & Pump 2 500 1000 24 365 8760000 Room Lighting & Receptacle Panel 2 150 300 24 365 2628000 Cathodic Protection

-CWIS 2 5 10 24 365 87600 Cathodic Protection

-Towers 8 50 400 24 365 3504000 Heat Trace -CWIS 2 30 60 24 60 86400 Heat Trace -Towers 4 50 200 24 60 288000 TOTAL ANNUAL RUNNING kW and OPERATING kWH 51,844 432,393,650 26 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC C. Maintenance Costs The Maintenance costs associated with the Mechanical estimated to total $4,371,784 per year as follows: Draft Cooling Tower are Maintenance Item Manhours / Year $ / Manhour Cost per Year Tower Fill Repair / ---- 3% of Capital Cost $960,000 Replacement Tower Sludge 1200 manhours Year $65.00

/ manhour $78,000 Removal Chemical Control 200 / Year $75.00 / manhour $15,000 System-Caustic ..---- $700,000-Sodium Hypochlorite

--- $450,000-Ammonium Bisulfate

---

$240,000-Anti Scaling ........ $60,000 Periodic O&M Checks 1800 manhours Year $ 75.00 / Manhour $135,000 Quarterly Oil Changes 400 manhours / Year $75.00 manhour $30,000-Fan Gear Reducers Circulating Water 10 Pumps $121,913 / pump $1,219,130 Pumps*Traveling Screens* 4 Operating

$80,611 /screen $322,443 Screen Wash* 2 Operating

$16,957 / wash system $33,914 Auxiliary Equipment*

$128,297 Total Cost per Year $4,371,784

• Based on ratio from Attachment 6-11 of the Permit Application.

27 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC XVII. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING Attachment 8 of this report provides an analysis of permitting requirements for potential modifications to the CWIS, prepared by AKRF, Inc. Chapter III of the report provides a permitting review for mechanical draft cooling towers. According to this analysis, impacts to air quality from operation of mechanical draft cooling towers would be significant.

Retrofitting of linear mechanical draft cooling towers would produce significant particulate impacts including significant impacts in the New Castle County, Delaware, non-attainment area. Such a retrofit would likely require installation of LAER particulate control technology and securing particulate offsets. The analysis goes on to conclude that this is a significant challenge for the assumed design, and measures to mitigate these impacts, including the use of alternative designs or dispersion models would be required before permitting could proceed. Attachment 8 identifies some of the alternative designs that would be considered and modeled to develop a refined design that would meet particulate air emission requirements.

The permitting is estimated to take 17 months to complete.

The costs are identified in Table 2 of Attachment 8 XVIII. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our evaluation, the implementation of the Mechanical Draft Tower alternative would require $814,844,200 and a 66-month schedule to complete.Maintenance cost would be $4,371,784 per year. Retrofitting cooling towers at Salem would be very difficult, and would impose significant permanent cost penalties based on reductions in station output.Retrofitting Salem for closed cycle cooling would not simply involve adding cooling towers to the existing cooling water system. It would involve substantial new construction, demolition, and re-construction activities that would result in replacing, reinforcing, or abandoning, all of the existing circulating water system. This project would be unprecedented for a nuclear plant and represent almost as much of an effort as building a small new power plant. Further, impacts to air quality resulting from operation of mechanical draft cooling towers would be significant.

It is assumed in this evaluation that design parameters would be optimized in the detailed design development to identify the components or factors that can be modified to meet the particulate air emission requirements.

28 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC REFERENCE LIST A. Calculations:

1. ES-8.003, Revision 1, "500 /13.8 kV Transformer Sizing Calculation".

2. S-C-CW-MDC-1496, Rev. 0 "Heat Balance at 90 F Condenser Water Inlet Temperature".

3. ES-1.002(Q), Revision 1, "13.8 kV, 4.16 kV & LV Buses Short Circuit Calculation".

B. Station Drawings: None C. PSEGNendor Documents

& Design Standards:

1. SD-T800 Salem Circulating Water System Description.

2. S-C-MPOO-MGS-0001-SPS39 Salem Piping Schedule for Condenser Circulating Water.3. RW-151831, Rev. F, Worthington Corp. 84" HiFlo Circulating Pump 4. American National Standard for Pump Intake Design, ANSI/HI 9.8-1998.5. PSEG Nuclear Department Site Plan, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations, Block 26, Lots 4, 4.01, 5, 5.01 Sheet 1 of 3.6. DE-CB.CW-0028(Z), Rev 0; PSEG Nuclear Department Configuration Baseline Documentation for CW System, Salem Generating Station Units 1 & 2.7. Drawing 107855 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outline of Condenser

1. 13 -Salem.29 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC REFERENCE LIST (CONT)8. Drawing 107856 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outline of Condenser

1. 12 -Salem.9. Drawing 107857 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outline of Condenser

1. 11 -Salem.10. Drawing 119282 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outline of Condenser

1. 21 -Salem.11. Drawing 119283 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outline of Condenser

1. 22 -Salem.12. Drawing 119284 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outline of Condenser

1. 23 -Salem.13. Drawing 108562 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Inlet Waterbox Detail -Salem.14. Drawing 109587 Foster Wheeler Corporation -Lower Exhaust Neck Detail Condenser

1. 12 -Salem.15. Drawing 108563 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outlet Waterbox Detail -Salem.16. Drawing 124977 Sheet 1 Foster Wheeler Corporation

-Outlet Waterbox Detail -Salem.17. Detail Specification No.78-6229 Removal & Installation of Surface Condenser Tubes, Rev 2. -Salem Station Unit 1.18. Alstom

Reference:

4209-05-168HT, "Proposal for Condenser Modular Replacement Salem Nuclear Generating Stations Units 1 &2" dated 24 March 2005.19. GEA -Tower Proposal Summary and Scope of Supply No. 1104 dated 23 February 2005.20. GEA- Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Drawing dated 1/21/05.21. Marley Drawing

1. 05-23245 "General Arrangement, Class 800 Natural Draft Tower" dated 4/8/2005, Marley Cooling Technologies.

22. Sulzer Pump Performance Datasheet, 80THS dated 21 March 2005.23. PSEG Specification 10855-M-015, "Technical Specification for Natural Draft Cooling Tower for the Hope Creek Generating Station Units 1 &2" Rev. 5, dated 6/27/90.30 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC REFERENCE LIST (CONT)24. Siemens AG Power Generation, Salem # 1 -New HP & LP Turbine, 100% Load Heat Flow Diagram dated 26.02.2004.

25. Siemens AG Power Generation, Salem # 1 -New HP & LP Turbine, Valves Wide Open (VWO) Heat Flow Diagram dated 26.02.2004.

26. Siemens AG Power Generation, Salem # 1 -New HP & LP Turbine, 75% Load Heat Flow Diagram dated 26.02.2004.

27. Siemens AG Power Generation, Salem # 1 -New HP & LP Turbine, 50% Load Heat Flow Diagram dated 26.02.2004.

28. Siemens AG Power Generation, Salem #

1 -New HP & LP Turbine, 25% Load Heat Flow Diagram dated 26.02.2004.

29.1991 Stone & Webster Cooling Tower Cash Flow and Schedule Estimate dated 5/22/91.30. NJPDES Draft Permit, Permit No. NJ0005622 dated September 16, 1993 Appendix J&K.31. Draft Salem Generating Station, 1993 Cooling Tower Evaluation Salem Units 1&2, Stone & Webster Corporation August 1993.32. 7-93 Stone and Webster Cooling Tower Study

-1990.33. Marley Cooling Tower Fundamentals, Second Edition, Marley Cooling Technologies.

34. PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG 1999). Salem Permit Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, March 4, Appendix F. "Evaluation of Fish Protection Alternatives".

35. Flowserve Budget Proposal Pricing for Makeup Water Pumps, dated 7-28-05.36. Sargent & Lundy (1993). "Technical and Cost Aspects of Closed Cycle Cooling System for Salem Units 1 & 2".31 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO, 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Prepared By: Reviewed By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Amal Seiiuptau Robert Hameetm&n Jra Oelss 'n Ira Owens Date: Dateýt Date: Ia/z'/oo-Date: 32 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 1 -Conceptual Design Sketches I -DE.L,,ý k/,,ý Fý E SALEM CWIS -ALTERNATE INTAKE TECHNOLOGES MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER REPORT 11050-360-MO IMECNNCL DRAFT COOLING TOWER LAYOUT lIVFX XX"SUMEN SHIPS TYP I I -ft P O--, -I- --' I I I -I ---.1. I-WV w w COLD WATER BASIN 125-8 I

• 44SflI.LLJ~.L.........., --EXCAVATION 3 m m 1 -7 iwp ml ,I--Tý17 17- FT7 u w. MU6 Us .5,- .....-: \ .. .....T. ..T, _ ,-M U E E u u U SECTION PILES ITYMI CIRCULATING WATER PUMP STRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL PLAN LPILES TfYPI SECTION SALEM CWIS -ALTERNATE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES MECHANICAL DRAFT REPORT 11050-360-MD CIRCULATING WATER PUMP STRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL PLAN I , , , -I M2, i ATTACHMENT

-1, FIGURE 2 I I I I mlUI

S 0 a-n vvvvnrvciv v00* ~S in Ii US vs.. -vi tO via.. 8 *3 hýLTT. ý.10t -, 3 " " 0 "i*1~ Y1*n~ ~~~ F.u a-i s-i ian va-v atrs gaa ia WVviii 4 *-x.-

• avoaol .s.v.a

• j e ~ vicvsc. Sv.5% L L va-L AsciaL Lo; L i i'ILv CatuvIcCo T.1- Fuss viIL is von.ll 1304.1 *1 llll 301 Qi J'iIvuI, ttivC~it SALEM CIS -ALTERNATE INTAKE TECLHNOLOGXIES CLOSED CItLE MECHANIICAL D]IAFT ,OMIT, TOWERS CONCEPTUAL.

ONE LINE DIAGRAM -UNIT I REPORT 11050-360-HO ATTACHMENT I FIGIIRE 4

$tt I NEW I EXISTING PIPING PIPING-84" DIA.INTAKE PIPE-84" DIA.DISCHARGE PIPE 120" DIA. -INTAKE PIPE 144' DIA.DISCHARGE PIPE 144' DIA.INTAKE PIPE TYPICAL DETAIL FOR CWIS TIE-IN SALEM CIlS -ALTERNATE INTAKES TECHNOLOGIES MECHANICAL ORAFT COOtING TOWER REPORT 110S0-360-mO ATTACHMENT I F I CORE-.5--6 0 4ý) -.-1 COOL WATER BASIN CONCEPTUAL PLAN I V SECTION SALEM CWtS -ALTERNATE AITAKE TE044XDGC MEC)ANAJCL DRAFT REP"T 1105O.38O-l ATTACHMENT -% FCLKT 6 COOL WATER BASWl CONCEPTVAL PLANI i 111 i!i: V.:1 Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 1, Figure 7 Soil Condition

& Pile Depth to Support Foundation Load 0 0 0 0 Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 1, Figure 8 CW Pipes Embedded in Turbine Bldg Slab Looking West Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 1, Figure 9 CW Pipe Area near CWlS Looking North 0 Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 1, Figure 10 Conceptual Layout CW Pipe & Towers 4ZDý' ýU. ýý, I rloz 1-4 ýý41 Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 1, Figure 11 Model of Plant Showing CW Pipes & Condensate Polishing Bldg.0 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 2 -Conceptual Cost Estimate Sargent & Lundy Chicago RUN DATE: 12/02/05 TIME: 07:45:00 AM Price level: 2005 BAS IS of ESTIMATE.PSEG SALEM 1 & 2 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SALEM COOLING TOWER STUDY. -MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS Page: Estimate No: Project No: Prepared by: 1 21750D 11050360 PAG/ /Estimate Date: 31OCT05 PROJECT START: JAN07; FINISH: MAY12 COMMERCIAL OPERATING DATE: MAY12 Scooe THE MODIFICATION CONVERTS THE SALEM UNIT I AND UNIT 2 ONCE THROUGH CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM TO A CLOSED LOOP CIRC. WATER SYSTEM WITH A MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER FOR EACH UNIT.THE' MAKUP WATER SYSTEM INCLUDES 6 NEW PUMPS , ESTIMATE INCLUDES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 12 CW PUMPS.THIS ESTIMATE INCLUDES A DETAILED MATERIAL TAKE-OFF FOR THE NEW CIRC. WATER PIPING BASED ON COOLING TOWER LOCATIONS ESTABLISHED BY S&L AND A DETAILED MATERIAL TAKE-OFF FOR THE CORRESPONDING, ELECTRICAL WORK REQUIRED FOR THE CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM. THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON S&L ESTIMATED LABOR PATES FOR THE REQUIRED CRAFT AND S&L ESTIMATE OF CREWS, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY PER TASK.Technical Basis ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESULTING PROM A SITE VISIT AND FROM MEETINGS WITH THE OWNER IS INCLUDED.Assumptions UNIT I AND 2 CONDENSATE POLISHER REMAINS IN PLACE.Commercial Basis 1. Ecuipment/Material Cost MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER COST BASED ON BUDGETARY VENDOR QUOTE.EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL PRICES ARE AS ESTIMATED BY S&L.2. Labor Wage Rates 2005 PHILADELPHIA PA UNION WAGES.,3. Labor Crews S&L STANDARD CREWS FOR ESTIMATED PIPING AND ELECTRICAL WORK.4. Productivity LABOR UNITS REFLECT NUCLEAR SITE WORK.5. Quantity Sources SEE SCOPE DESCRIPTION, 6. project Schedule PROJECT COMPLETE MAY 2012.7. Indirect Expenses ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND OWNERS EXPENSE INCLUDING PERMITTING ARE PRORATED FROM THE DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST AT 10%, 5% AND 15% RESPECTIVELY.

G. Escalation Rates (See Cost Summary for rates)O INCLUDED 0 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 2-R--age.Lof 3

0 Sargent & Lundy Chicago BASIS of ESTIMATE Page: 2 Estimate No; 21750D Commercial Basis continued 9. Sales/Use Taxes (See Cost Summary for rates)NOT INCLUDED 10. Contingency (See Cost Summary for rates)CONTINGENCY FOR EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, LABOR AND INDIRECTS CALCULATED AT 19%, 19%, 19% AND 19% RESPECTIVELY.

11. AFUDC Rate (See Cost Summary for rates)NONE 12. Accurac Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 2- Page --of'.

Sargent & Lundy Chicago RUN DATE: 12/02/05 TIME: 07:45:00 AM Price level: 2005 ACCT.NO. DESCRIPTION COST

SUMMARY

REPORT PSEG SALEM 1 & 2 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SALEM COOLING TOWER STUDY. -MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS PROJECT START: JAN07; FINISH: MAY12 COMMERCIAL OPERATING DATE: MAY12 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST MATERIAL COST LABOR COST Page: 3 Estimate No: 21750D Project NO: 11050360 Prepared by: PAG/ /Estimate Date: 31OCT05 TOTAL COST 100 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS 200 CIRCULATING WATER PUMPS AND STRUCTURE 230 ELECTRICAL 240 PUMPHOUSE AND COOLING TOWER ELECTRICAL 250 CWIS AREA ELECTRICAL 260 TURB BLDG ELECTRICAL 270 COOLING TOWER ELECTRICAL 300 CIRCULATING WATER 400 MAKEUP & BLOWDOWN SYSTEM 500 SECURITY INCL FENCING 600 TURBINE BUILDING CONDENSER MODIFICATION 700 CHEMICAL CONTROL 850 CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTSTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 32,000,000 9,762,000 28,628,000 38,800,000 3,390,000 3,270, 000 36,000 420,000 24,265,000 4,340,000 250,000 38,600,000 23,682,000 280,000 1,256,000 2,360,000 6,404,000 431,000 1,281,000 246,000 589,000 1,800,000 4,662,000 19,304,000 59,091,000 499,000 5,678,000 2S6,0002,500,000 66,695,000 70,390,000 62,482,000 4,926,000 12,034,000 1,748,000 835,000 6,882,000 102,660,000 10,517, 000 S06, 000 107,795,000 9,233,000 50,863,000 440,871,000 4,000,000 5,233,000 50, 83, 000149,371,000 37,182,000 254,318,000 INDIRECT EXPENSES 132,639,200 ESCALATION 111,233,000 SALES/USE TAX CONTINGENCY 130, 101,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST 814,844,200 AFUDC GRAND TOTAL COST 814,844,200 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS:

ESCALATION RATES: Equipment 3.S00%Material 3.500%Labor 3.500%Indirects 3.500k SALES/USE TAX RATES: Equipment 0.000% Material 0.000%CONTINGENCY RATES: Equipment 19.0% Material 19.0% Labor 19.0% Indirects 19.0%Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment

'2-Page. o f 7. ,

ent & Lundy Chicago RUN DATE: 12/02/05 TIME: 07:45:00 AM Price level: 2005 S U M M A R Y C A S H F L 0 W PSEG SALEM 1 & 2 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SALEM COOLING TOWER STUDY. -MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS PROJECT START: JAN07; FINISH: MAY12 COMMERCIAL OPERATING DATE: MAY12 Page: 4 Estimate No: 21750D Project No: 11050360 Prepared by:'PAG/ /Estimate Date: 31OCT05 Note: All costs are in thousands of dollars Cash flow by Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COST ESCALATION COST A 52772 18903 88589 128092 216910 68244 CONTINGENCY TAXES C A C A C A C A C A C 527 37: 37.107 1074 672 6727 72 71675 59 2055 59 5814 41 3982 41 14723 0 0 0 0 72 24940 72 92212 0 0160264 288356 13069 24041 18883. 42924 19315 28905 34038 62943 0 0 0 0 120973 181038 213185 394223 0 0.0 0 505266 4:9728 92652 s0661 113604 0 0 317299 711522 573510 18581 111233 16497 130101 0 0 103322 814844 0 TOTAL CASH FLOW AFUODC GRAND TOTAL COST 0 0 A 67272 24940 120973 , 181038 317299 103322 C 67272 92212 213185 394223 711522 814844 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 2-Page_ý_of

-__

Sargent & Lundy Chicago RUN DATE: 12/02/05 TIME: 07:45:00 AM Price level: 2005 MA J 0 R A C C 0 U N'T R E P 0 R T PSEG SALEM 1 & 2 CONCEPTUAL COSTk ESTIMATE SALEM COOLING TOWER STUDY. -MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS PROJECT START: JAN07; FINISH: MAY12 COMMERCIAL OPERATING DATE: MAY12 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Page: 5 Estimate No: 21750D ProjeCt No: 11050360 Prepared by: PAG/ ./Estimate Date: 31OCTOS ACCT.NO. DESCRIPTION EQUIPMENT COST MATERIAL COST LABOR COST TOTAL COST 100 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS 100.0 COOLING TOWER 32,000,000 9,762,000 28,628,000 70,390,000 24 CELLS PER UNIT TOTAL 100 32,000,000 9,762,000 28,628,000 70,390,000 200. CIRCULATING WATER PUMPS AND STRUCTURE 200.1 STRUCTURES INCL BLDG 22,000,000 22,641,000 44,641,000 SERVICES 200.2 CIRCULATING WATER PUMPS 16,800,000 1,041,000 17,841,000 TOTAL 200 38,800,000 23,682,000 62,482,000 230.1 ELECTRICAL 3,390,000 280,000 1,256,000 4,926,000 240.1 PUMPHOUSE AND COOLING 3,270,000 2,360,000 6,404,000 12,034.000 TOWER ELECTRICAL 250.1 CWIS AREA ELECTRICAL 36,000 431,000 1,281,000 1,:748,000 260.1 TURB BLDG ELECTRICAL 246,000 589,000 835,000 270.1 COOLING TOWER ELECTRICAL 420,000 1,800,000 4,662,000 6,882,000 300. CIRCULATING WATER 300.0 PIPE SADDLES (INCL. 15,705,000 11,549,000 43,525,000 70,779,000 EXCAVATION

& BACKFILL)300.1 VALVE PITS 8,560,000 3,875,000 12,067,000 24,502,000 300.4 REINFORCEMENT OF EXISTING 1,800,000 2,108,000 3,908,000 PIPE 300.5 COOLING TOWER RISERS AND 2,080,000 1,391,000 3,471,000 DISTRIBUTION TOTAL 300 24,265,000 19,304,000 59,091,000 102,660,000 400 MAKEUP & BLOWDOWN SYSTEM 400.1 DISCONNECT AND REMOVE 250,000 250,000 ELECTRICAL FOR 12 CW PUMPS.400.2 DISCONNECT AND REMOVE 528,000 528,000 PIPING FOR 12 CW PUMPS Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD TowerReport 11050-360-MD Attachment

ýof 2,

• rgent & Lundy Chicago MAJOR A C CO UNT REPORT Page: 6 Estimate No: 21750D TOTAL TOTALEQUIPMENT COST MATERIAL COST.TOTAL LABOR COST ACCT.NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 400.3 REMOVE 12 CW PUMPS 3500HP EA 400.4 INSTALL 6 MUW PUMPS 300HP 400.5 INSTALL PIPING FOR MUW PUMPS 400.6 INSTALL ELECTRICAL FOR 6 MUW PUMPS 400.7 UNDERGROUND PIPING 400.8 MODIFY STRUCTURES FOR MUW PUMPS 1,590,000 78,000 241,000 250,000 250,000 198,000 302,000'3,689,000 211,000 250,000 1/840, 000 276,000 543,000 6,439,000 391,000 2,750,000 180,000 500 600 600.1 600.2.600.3 600.4 600.5 600.6 600.7 600.8 TOTAL 400 SECURITY INCL FENCING TURBINE BUILDING CONDENSER MODIFICATION CONDENSER CONDENSER STRUCTURE MODS LARGE PIPE MODS SMALL PIPE MODS C&I SUPPORTS & PENETRATIONS RIGGING/REINFORCEMENTS REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT 4,340,000 250,000 30,000,000 900,000 2,700,000 700,000 700,000 900,000 2,700,000 499,000 5,678,000 256,000 43,360,000 1,995,000 5,497,000 1,832,000 1,514,000 1,'832,000 2,602,000 2,500,000 8,063,000 10, 517, 000 506,000 73, 360,000 2,895,000 8,197,000 2,532,000 2,214,000 2,732,000 5,302,000 10,563,000 TOTAL 600 38,600,000 2,500,000 66,695,000 107,795,000 700 CHEMICAL CONTROL 700.1 REROUTE RADWASTE TO CW 500,000 1,099,000 1,599,000 DISCHARGE 700.2 REROUTE CW INLET TO 500,000 1,099,000

'1,599,000 DISCHARGE 700.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL SYSTEM 3,000,000 3,035,000 6,035,000 TOTAL 700 4,000,000 5,233,000 9,233,000 850 CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTS 850.1 GENERAL AND 50,863,000 50,863,000 ADMINISTRATIVE TOTAL 850 50,863,000 50,863,000 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 1 1050-360-MD Attachment "Z--

Sargent & Lundy Chicago MAJOR ACCOUNT REPORT Page: 7 Estimate No: 21750D TOTAL TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL LABOR COST TOTAL COST ACCT.NO. DESCRIPTION 900 INDIRECTS 900.1 INDIRECTS TOTAL 900 TOTAL DIRECT & INDIRECT COSTS 132,639,200

.132,639,200 149,371,000 37,182,000 386,957,200 132,639,200 132,639,200 573,510,200 Salem OWlS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment

-Page__o.'f

,3 0 Sargent & Lundy Chicago RUN DATEz 12/02/05 TIME: 07:45:00 A Price level: 2005 Note: Extended costs WORK ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE 100 100.01 100.02 100.021 100.0211 100.02111 100.02112'002113.0212 100.02121 100.02122 100.02123 100.02124 100.02125 100..02126 E S T I M A T E W O R K S H E E T PSEG SALEM 1 &. 2 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SALEM COOLING TOWER STUDY. -'MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS PROJECT START: JAN07; FINISH: MAY12 COMMERCIAL OPERATING DATE: MAY12 are rounded up to next thousand dollars MATERIAL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL MNHR DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST RATE MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS COOLING TOWER 2 EA 16000000 32,000,000 115000 24 CELLS PER UNIT COOLING TOWER BASIN PILE CAP SUBSTRUCTURE EARTHWORK ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION 17600 CY 0.075ADDITIONAL BACKFILL 17600 CY 0 075LABOR * *WAGE LABOR£ MHRS RATE COST TOTAL COST Page: 8 Estimate No: 21750D Project No: 11050360 Prepared by: FAG/ /Estimate Date: 31OCT05 230000 86.72 19,946,000 51,946,000 MECH 1320 74.45 EXFD 1320 74 45 EXFD NOT REQUIRED 98,000 98,000 DISPOSAL CONCRETE STRUCTURE CONCRETE REINFORCING FORMWORK MISCELLANEOUS EMBEDDED STEEL WATERSTOPS BEARING PILES SUB TOTAL 100.02 SUB TOTAL 100.0 TOTAL 100 98,000 98,000 1,224,000 2, 869;000 276,000.12500 CY 900 TN 17380 SF 87.75 810.00 2.03 1,097,000 729,000 35,000 0.150 1875 67.76 127,000 COND 25.000 22500 95.11 2,140,000 REIN 0.150 2607 92.38 241,000 FORM NOT REQUIRED 2890 EA 2733.75 7,901,000 9,762,000 32,000,000 9,762,00032,000,000 9,762,000 NOT REQUIRED 20.000 57800 103.42 5,978,000 13,879,000 PILE87,422 8,692,000 18,444,000 31.7,422 28,628,000 70,390,000 317,422 28,628,000.

70,390,000 Salem cWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment

---

Page Sargent & Lundy E S T I M A T.E W 0 R K S H E ChicaooNote: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars*

• MATERIAL ***WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST 200 CIRCULATING WATER PUMPS AND STRUCTURE 200.1 STRUCTURES INCL BLDG 2 EA 11000000 22,000,000 SERVICES 200.2 CIRCULATING WATER PUMPS 12 EA 1400000 16,800,000 TOTAL 200 38,800,000 Page: 9 Estimate No: 21750D L ** LABOR * *MNHR WAGE LABOR RATE M1IHRS RATE COST TOTAL COST 150000300000 75.47 22,641,000 44,641,000 CONP 1000.P00 12000 86.72 1,041,000 17,841,000 MEC14 312,000 23,682,000 62,482,000 0 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report I 1050-360-MD Attachment Z'

ent & Lundy E S T I M A T E W O R K S H E Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars*** MATERIAL ***WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST 230.1 ELECTRICAL 230.10 MAIN FEEDERS 230.101 --- 60/75/100 MVA -500KVxlSKV 2 EA 950000 1,900,000 FE-ELECT OA/FA/FA UAT FOR COOLING TOWERS 230.102 --- 500KV AND 15KV SWITCHYARD 1 LT 370000 370,000 FE-ELECT EQUIPMENT 230.103 --- SWITCHYARD BUSSESS 500KV 1 LT 920000 920,:000 FE-ELECT AND 15KV 230.104 --- PROTECTION AND RELAY 1 LT 200000 200,000 FE-ELECT PANELS 230.105 --- BALANCE OF PLANT WIRING, I LT 200.000 200,000 FE-ELECT CONDUITS, GROUNDING, LIGHTING 230.106 --- STRUCTURES AND 1 LT 80000 80.,000 FE-ELECT FOUNDATIONS 230.107 --- TESTING 1 LT FE-ELECT SUB TOTAL 230.10 3,390,000 280,000 SUB TOTAL 230.1 3,390,000 280,000 TOTAL 230 3,390,000 280,000 Page: 10 Estimate No: 21750D L LABOR * *MNHR WAGE LABOR RATE MNHRS RATE COST TOTAL COST 1100.000 2200 1800.000 1800 4400.000 4400 250.000 250 2200.000 2200 83.90 EHEC 83.90 EHEC 83.90 EHEC 83.90 EHEC 96.92 WIRE 111.96 STST 96.92 WIRE 185,000. 2,085,000 153, 000 369,000 21,000 213,000 123,000 194,000 1,256,000 1,256,000 1,256,000 521,000 1,289,000 221,000 413,000 203,000 194,000 4,926,000 4,926,000 4,926,000 4 1100.000 1100 2000.'000ý 2000 13,950 13,950 13,950 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment Z-Page_4_Qof Z3 Sargent & Lundy Chicago E S T I M A T E W O R K S H E E T Page: 11 Estimate No: 21750D Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars ACCOUNT NO.240.10 240.101 240. 102 240.103 240.105?40.106 A40.107!40.108 WORK PACKAGE DESCRIPTION PUMPHOUSE AND COOLING TOWER ELECTRICAL

--- MV AND LV DISTRIBUTION FE-ELECT EQUIPMENT--- DC DISRIBUTION EQPT FE-ELECT--- WIRING FE-ELECT--- WIRING CONTAINERS FE-ELECT--- MISC INCLUDING FE-ELECT COMMUNICATIONS, CATHODIC PROT., HEAT TRACING--- LIGHTING I/D, O/D, FE-ELECT RECEPT--- TESTING FE-ELECT SUB TOTAL 240.10 SUB TOTAL 240.1 TOTAL 240.*

• MATERIAL

• .*MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL QTY UM RATE COST COST* L A B O R MNHR WAGE RATE MNHRS RATE LABOR COST TOTAL COST I LT 1 LT 1 LT 1 LT 1 LT 3150000 3,150,000 120000 120,000 710000 900000 650000 116.00 250.000 16800 36200 11600 250 16800 36200 710, 000 900, 000 650,000 9200.000 9200 83.90 EHEC 83 .90 EHEC 96.92 WIRE 76.05 ECND 76.05 ECND 76.05 ECND 9.6.92 WIRE 973, 000 21,000 1,628, 000 2,753,000 700,000 38,000 291,000 6,404,000 6,404,000 6,404,000 4,123,000 141,000 2,338,000 3,653,000 1,350,000 138,000 291,000 12,034,000 12,034, 1 LT 100000100,000 500.000 500 I LT 3,270,000 3,270,000 3,270,000 2,360,000 2,360,000 2,360,000 3000.000 3000 77, 550 77, 550'77, 550 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment O rgent & Lundy E S T I M A T E W 0 R K S H E Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars**

• MATERIAL WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST 250.10 CWIS AREA ELECTRICAL 250.101 --- MV AND LV DISTRIBUTION 1 LT 36000 3.6,000 FE-ELECT EQUIPMENT 250.102 --- DC DISRIBUTION EQPT 1 LT FE-ELECT 250.103 --- WIRING 1 LT 65000 65,000 FE-ELECT 250.105 --- WIRING CONTAINERS 1 LT 264000 264,,000 FE-ELECT 250.106 --- MISC INCLUDING 1 LT 102000 102,000 FE-ELECT COMMUNICATIONS, CATHODIC PROT., HEAT TRACING 250.107 --- LIGHTING I/D, O/D, 1.LT FE-ELECT RECEPT 250.108 --- TESTING I LT FE-ELECT ,.T Page; 12 Estimate No: 21750D L LABOR *.**MNHR WAGE LABOR RATE INONRS RATE COST TOTAL COST 300.000 300 2600.000 12000 170.000 2600 12000 170 83.90 EHEC EHEC 96.92 WIRE 76.05 ECND 76.05 ECND ECND 96.92 WIRE 25,000 61,000 252,000 913,000 13,000 78,000 1,281,000 1,281,000.1,281,000 317,000 1,177,000 115,000 78,000 1,748,000 1,748,000 1,748, 000 800.000 800 SUB TOTAL 250.10 SUB TOTAL 250.1 TOTAL 250 36,000 36,000 36,000 431,000 431,000 431,,000 15,.87015 870 15 , 870 Salem CWIS Alternate intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment Sargent &Lundy E S T I M A T E W O R K S H E E T Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars* *

• MATERIAL A L*WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL MNNR ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST RATE 260.10 TURB BLDG ELECTRICAL 260.101 --- MV AND LV DISTRIBUTION 1 LTFE- ELECT EQUIPMENT 260.102 --- DC DISRIBUTION EQPT I LT FE-ELECT 260.103 --- WIRING 1. LT 33000 33,000 650.000 FE-ELECT 260.105 --- WIRING CONTAINERS 1 LT 77000 77,000 3350.000 FE-ELECT 260.106 -.- MISC INCLUDING 1 LT 100000 100,000 160.000 FE-ELECT COMMUNICATIONS, CATHODIC PROT., HEAT TRACING 260.107 --- DEMO / RELOCATION 1 LT 36000 36,000 2500S.000 Page: 13 Estimate No: 21750D LABOR 0 *R WAGE LABOR MN1ORS RATE COST TOTAL COST 250 650 3350 160 2500 500 7,410 7,410 7, 410 EHEC 83.90 EnEC 96.92 WIRE 76.05 ECND 76.05 ECNZD 76.05 ECND 96.92 WIRE 21,000 63,000 255,000 12,000 190,000 48,000 589,000 589,000 569,c000 21,00096, 000 332,,000 112,000 226,000 48,000 835,000 835,000 835,000*260.108 FE-ELECT FE-ELECT 500.006 TESTING SUB TOTAL 260.10 SUB TOTAL 260.1 TOTAL 260 I LT 246,000 246,000 246,000 Salem CW IS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment -t-Page. lof "L tegnt & Lundy Chicago ESTIMATE WORK S H E E T Page: 14 Estimate No: 21750D Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars*.*

• MATERIAL ** ** * .LABOR WORK ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTIONMATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL QTY UM RATE COST COST WAGE LABOR RATE COST TOTAL COST RATE MNVHRS 270.10 270.101 270.102 270.103 270.105 270.106 270.107 270.108 COOLING TOWER ELECTRICAL

--- MV AND LV DISTRIBUTION FE-ELECT EQUIPMENT--- DC DISRIBUTION EQPT FE-ELECT--- WIRING FE-ELECT.... WIRING CONTAINERS FE-ELECT--- MISC INCLUDING FE-ELECT COMMUNICATIONS, CATHODIC PROT., HEAT TRACING--- LIGHTING I/D, O/D, FE-ELECT RECEPT--- TESTING FE-ELECT SUB TOTAL 270.10.SUB TOTAL 270.1 TOTAL 270 1 LT I LT 1 LT I LT 1 LT 300000 120000 430000 640000 640000'300,000 120,000 430,000 640,000 640,000 1000.000 250.000 20.000 22000 9000.000 1000 0 250 20000 22000 9000 900 2000 55,150 55,150 55,150 83.90 EHEC 83.90 EHEC 96.92 WIRE 76.05 ECND 76.05 ECND 76.05 ECND 96.92 WIRE 84,000 21,000 1,938,000 1,673,000 684,000 68,000 194,000 4,662,000 4,662,000 4.,662,000 384,000 141,000 2,368,000 2,313,000 1,324, OC 158,00t 194,00(6,882,001 6,882,00, 6,882,00 1 LT 90000 I LT 90,000 900.000 2000.000 420,000 1,800,000 420,000 1,800,000 420,000 1,800,000 Salem MWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment Z-PageIof

s. re nt r is ~ fly ry r., a n rr ft jr n ,n In Sarg Note ACCO 300.300.300.300.!300.300.ent & Lundy 0 4 L V ti 4 M v- v n A 0 X r, z I- Page: 15 Chicago Estimate No: 21750D Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars MATERIAL *** LABOR WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL.

MNHR WAGE LABOR TOTAL UNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST RATE MNHRS RATE COST COST CIRCULATING WATER 01 PIPE SADDLES (INCL.EXCAVATION

& BACKFILL)011 EXCAVATION 363000 CY 4.73 1,717,000 0.129 46827 151.74 7,106,000 8,823,000 ETWK 012 BACKFILL 240000 CY 4.73 1,135,000 0.129 30960 151.74 4,698,000 5,833,000 ETWK 013 GRANNULAR MATERIAL 22000 CY 11.48 253,000 0.313 6886 151.74 1,045,000 1,298,000 (BETWEEN PILE CAPS) ETWK 014 SADDLES 10140 CY 3.38 34.000 9.200 93288 67 76 06 21 0O0 6 35 0l00 I COND 300.015 BEARING PILES 1560 EA 1350.00 2,106,000 10.080 15725 103.42 1,626,000 3,732,000 PILE 30.0.027 KICK BLOCK CONCRETE 900 CY 337.50 304,000 9.777 8799 67.76 596,000 900,000 COND SUB TOTAL 300.01 5,549,000 202,485 21,392,000 26,941,000 300.02 CIVIL WORK INTERFERENCES 1 LT 9720000 9,720,000 9,720,000 300.03 CONCRETE PIPE 300.031 REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 12000 LF 500.00 6,000,000 12.000144000 87.83 12,648,000 18,648,1 YDPP 300.032 BENDS AND REDUCERS 60 EA 46.000 2760 87.83 242,000 242,000 YDPP SUB TOTAL 300.03 .6,000,000 146,760 12,890,000 18,890,000 300.04 PIPE ROUTING 1 LT 4000000 4,000,000.

90000 90000 87.83 7,905,000 11,905,000 INTERFERENCES YDPP 300.05 MOD'S TO EXISTING YARD 1 LT 350000 350,000 8500.000 8500 87.83 747,000 1,097,000 PIPING YDPP 300.06 CIRC. WATER VALVES 1 LT 1500000 1,500,000 5000.000 5000 87.83 439,000 1,939,000 12 5FT BUTTF VS,7 4F.T YDPP BUTTF VS, 6 3FT CHECK VS, 1 12FT BUTTF VA.300.07 REMOVE OLD GUARDHOUSE INCLUDED IN 300.02 300.08 SITE CONSTRUCTION I LT 135,000 1000.000 1000 151.74 152,000 287,000 DRAINAGE ETWK 300,09 MASTER PLAN AFI ONLYSUB TOTAL 300.0 15,705,000 11,549,000 453,745 43,525,000 70,779,000 300.10 VALVE PITS INCL. IN AFI 300.109 OFFSITE SOIL DISPOSAL 2 LT 3,375,000 23000 23000 151.74 3,490,000 6,865,000 ETWK Salem CW IS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 7--Page 4Ito nt & Lundy ChicagoNote: Extended costs WORK ESTIMATE WORK SHE E T are rounded up to next thousand dollars..* MATE R.I AL L **Page: 16 Estimate No: 21750D LABOR ..*MNHR WAGE LABOR TOTAL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST RATE MNO4RS RATE COST .COST SUB TOTAL 300.10 3,375,000 23,000 3,490,,000 6,865,000 300.11 LIFT STATIONS 1 LT 1000000 1,000,000 3000.000 3000 86.72 260,000 1,260,000 MECH 300.12 ROAD REPAIRS 1 LT 500000 500,000 12000 12000 83.17 998,000 1,498,000 PBIT 300.13 DEWATERING I LT 7,560,000 100000100000 73.19 7,319,000 14,879,000 CARP 300.14 AFFECTS OF'DEWATERING AFI ONLY SUB TOTAL 300.1 8,560,000 3,875,000 138, 000 12,067,000 24,502,000 300.4 REINFORCEMENT OF EXISTING PIPE 300.41 REINFORCEMENT BY 6000 LF 300.00 1,800,000 4.000 24000 87.83 2,108,000 3,908,000 SPECIALTY CONTRACTOR YDPP SUB TOTAL 300.4 1,800,000 24, 000 2,108,000 3,908,000 300.52 COOLING TOWER RISERS AND 4000 LF 160.00 640,000 3.000 12'000 87.83 1,054,000 1,694,000 DISTRIBUTION YDPP 3 COOLING TOWER VALVES 48 EA 30000 1,440,000 80.000 3840 87.83 337,000 1,777,000 YDPP SUB TOTAL 300.5 2,080,000 15, 840 1,391,000 3,471,000 TOTAL 300 24,265,000 19,304,000 631, 585 59,091,000 102,660,000 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment "7

Sargent & Lundy Chicago Note: Extended costs WORK ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE 400 400.1 400.11 400.12 400.2 400.21 400.22 400.3 400.31 ESTIMATE WORK S HEE T s are rounded up to next thousand dollars* *

• MATERIAL L MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST MAKEUP & SLOWDOWN SYSTEM DISCONNECT AND REMOVE ELECTRICAL FOR 12 CW PUMPS DISCONECT AND REMOVE 12 EA 120 WIRING FOR 12 CW PUMPS DISCONECT AND REMOVE 12 EA 120 CONDUITS FOR 12 CW PUMPS SUB TOTAL 400.1 DISCONNECT AND REMOVE PIPING FOR 12 CW PUMPS DISCONECT AND REMOVE 12 EA 240 PIPING FOR 12 CW PUMPS DISCONECT AND REMOVE 12 EA 240 SUPPORTS FOR 12 CW PUMPS SUB TOTAL 400.2 REMOVE 12 CW PUMPS 3500HP EA REMOVE 12 CW PUMPS AND 12 EA 240.MOTORS SUB TOTAL 400.3 INSTALL 6 MUW PUMPS 300HP INSTALL 6MUW PUMPS AND 6 EA 265000 1,590,000 480.MOTORS SUB TOTAL '400.4 1,590,000 INSTALL PIPING FOR MUW PUMPS INSTALL PIPING SUPPORTS 24 EA 250.00 6,000 40.INSTALL PIPING 240 LF 300.00 72,000 4.TESTING PIPING 6 LT 40.SUB TOTAL 400.5 78, 000 INSTALL ELECTRICAL FOR 6 MUW PUMPS INSTALL CONTROL AND 6 LT 30000 180,000 120.: INSTRUMENTATION Page: 17 Estimate No: 21750D L LABOR * **MNHR WAGE LABOR RATE MNXRS RATE COST.000 1440 96.92 140,000 140,000 WIRE.000 1440 76.05 110,000 110,000 ECND 2, 880 250,000 250,000.000 2880 91.62 264,000 264,000 SPNG.000 2880 91.62 264,000 264,000 SPNG 5, 760 528,000 528,000 TOTAL COST 000 2880 86.72 MECH 250,000 250,0@400.4 400.41 400.5 400 .51 400.52 100.53 2, 880 250, 000 250,000 000 2880 86.72 250,000 1,840,000 MECH 2, 880 250,000 1,840,000 000 960 91.62 88,000 94,000 SPNG 000 960 91.62 88,000 160,000 SPNG 000 240 91.62 22,000 22,000 SPNG 2, 160 198,000 276,000;00.6 100.60 000 -720 89.06 INEL 64;000 244,000 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11 050360-MD Attachment

'Z-Page.{off

-__

gent & Lundy E S T I M A T E W O R K S H E E T Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars.*** MATERIAL ** *Page: 18 Estimate No: 21750D* LABOR WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL MNHR WAGE LABOR TOTAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST RATE NIX4HRS RATE COST COST 400.61 INSTALL CONDUITS FOR 6 1200 LF 20.00 24,000 1.200 1440 76.05 110,000 134,000 MUW PUMPS ECND 400.62 INSTALL WIRING FOR 6 MUW 1200 LF 30.00 36,000 0.800 960 96.92 93,000 129.000 PUMPS WIRE 400.63 GROUNDING 6 LT 200.00 1,000 20.000 120 96.92 12,000 13,000 WIRE 400.64 TESTING 6 LT 40.000 240 96.92 23,000 23,000 WIRE SUB TOTAL 400.6 241,000 3 .480 302,000 543,000 400.7 UNDERGROUND PIPING 400.71 PIPE SADDLES, INCL CIVIL I LT 500000 500,000 6000.000 6 000 87.83 527,000 1,027,000 WORK YDPP 400.72 PIPING 1 LT 1500000 1,500,000 18000 1.8000 87.83 1,581,000 3,081,000 YDPP 400.-73 MODS TO XSTG 1 LT 750000 750,000 18000 18 000 87.83 1,581,000 2,331,000 PIPING/INTERFERENCES YDPP 100.74 FOULING CONTROL PROGRAM SUB TOTAL 400.7 2,750,000 42, 000 3,689,000 6,439,000 100.8 MODIFY STRUCTURES FOR MUW PUMPS 100.81 FABR AND INSTALL MUW PUMP i2 EA 10000 120,000 120.000 1440 97.80 141,000 261,000 SUPPORT STEEL GALL.00.82 FABR AND INSTALL MUW PUMP 12 EA 5000.00 60,000 60.000 720 97.80 70,000 130,000 GRATING GALL SUB TOTAL 400.8 180,000 2, 160 211,000 391,000 TOTAL 400 4,340,000 499,000 64, 200 5,.678,000 10,517;000 Salem CWVIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachmen P@9 Sargent & Lundy E S T Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next WORK ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION 500 SECURITY INCL FENCING IMATE WORKSHEET Page: 19 Estimate No: 21750D thousand dollars..* MATERIAL * *A*MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL QTY UM RATE COST COST 1 LT 250000 250,000* * .LABOR MNHR WAGE RATE MVEHRS RATE 4500.000 4500 56.95 LAND LABOR COST 256,000 TOTAL COST 506,000Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment Z-PageJIof 7-?_

.ent & Lundy ChicagoNote: Extended costs WORK ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE 600 600.1 600..2 600.3 600.4 600.S 600.6 600.7 600.8 0o. 84;00.85 00.86 00.87 E.S T.IMATE WORK SHEE are rounded up to next thousand dollars*** MATERIAL ***MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST TURBINE BUILDING CONDENSER MODIFICATION CONDENSER 1 LT 30000000 30,000,000 CONDENSER STRUCTURE MODS 1 LT 900000 900,000 LARGE PIPE MODS 1 LT 2700000 2,700,000 SMALL PIPE MODS I LT 700000 700,000 C&I 1 LT 700000 700,000 T Page: 20 Estimate No: 217500*** LABOR ** *MNHR WAGE LABOR RATE RATE COST TOTAL COST SUPPORTS & PENETRATIONS RIGGING/REINFORCEMENTS REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT PIPE RACK FOR CW PIPE PIPE RACK FOUNDATIONS TEMP REMOVAL ANR REINSTLN OF EQPT INLC. 6 FW4 , MOIST SEP AND PIPING, 2 GL STM COND AND PIPIN RELOCATION OF EQPT INCL.6 VAC PUS AND PIPING, 6 CONTROL PNLS AND WIRING CONDENSER INSTALLATION OF STEEL PLATFORMS FOR RELOCATED EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES AROUND CONDENSER RELOCATION OF PIPING, NVAC, ELECTRICAL FOR NEW CIRC WATER LINES SUB TOTAL 600.8 TOTAL 600 I LT 900000 I LT 900,000 2,700,000 50000050 0000 23000 23000 60000 6 0000 20000 2 0000 17000 17000 20000 20000 30000 30000 80.000 9600 160.000 160 24000 24 000 86.72 43,360,000 MECH 86.72 1,995,000 MECH 91.62 S,497,000 SPNG 91.62 1,832,000 SPNG 89.06 1,514,000 INEL 91.62. 1,832,000 SPNG 86.72 2,602,000 MECH 73,360,000 2,895;000 8,197,000 2,532,000 2,214,000 2,732,000 5,302,000 1,315,000 22,000 2,331,000 2,928,000 2,46,7,000 120 TN 1 LT 1 LT 2000.00 10000 250000 240,000 10.,000 250,000 111.96 STST 75.47 CONP 86.72 MECH.1,.075,000 12.000 2,081,000.I LT 500000 I LT 1000000 1 LT 500000 500,000 28000 28 000 1,000,000 15000 15 000 86.72 2,428,000 MECH 97.80 GALL 1,467,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 76, 760 8,063,000 10,563,000 38,600,000 2,500,000 746, -760 66,695,000 107,795,000 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower FReport 11 050-360-MD Attachment_.'-Page2lO f___

Sargent & Lundy E S T I M A T E W'O R K S H E E Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars*** MATERIAL **L WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST 700 CHEMICAL CONTROL 700.1 REROUTE PADWASTE TO CW 1 LT 500000 500,000 DISCHARGE 700.2 REROUTE CW INLET TO I LT 500000 500,000 DISCHARGE 700.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL SYSTEM 1 LT 3000000 3,000,000 TOTAL 700 4,000,000 Page: 21 Estimate No: 21750D* .LABOR * **MNHR WAGE LABOR RATE MNNHRS RATE COST TOTAL COST 12000 12000 91.62 1,099,000 1,599,000 SPNG 12000 12000 91.62 1,099,000 1,599,000 SPNG 35000 35000 86.72 3,035,000 6,035,000 MECH 59,000 5,233,000 9,233,000 0 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MDAttachment "-Page 0-f of Z_3 Sent& Lundy ES TIMA TE Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars WORK MATI ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM R2 WORKSHEET Page: 22 Estimate No: 21750D* MATERIAL ...E.RIAL -EQUIPMENT MATERIAL WTE COST COST* *

• LýAB OR MNHR WAGE RATE Mn~fRS RATE LABOR COST TOTAL COST 850 CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTS 850.11 GENERAL AND 1 LT 30,517,000 30,517,000 ADMINISTRATIVE 850..12 PROFIT .LT 20,346,000 20,346,000 SUB TOTAL 850.1 50,863,000 50,863,000 TOTAL 850 50.863,000 50,863,000 Salem CWlS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment

_--Page 2',2f_ Z3 Sargent & Lundy E S T I M A T E W O R K S H E E T Chicago Note: Extended costs are rounded up to next thousand dollars MATERIAL ** *WORK MATERIAL EQUIPMENT MATERIAL Page: 23 Estimate No: 21750D* *

• LABOR MNHR WAGE LABOR TOTAL ACCOUNT NO. PACKAGE DESCRIPTION QTY UM RATE COST COST RATE MNHRS RATE COST COST 900 INDIRECTS 900.1 INDIRECTS 1 LT 9001-11 ENGINEERING I LT 44,087,000 44,087,000 900.12 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT I LT 22,044,000 22,044,000

.900.13 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING I LT 727,200 727,200 AND STUDIES 900.14 OWNERS EXPENSES 1 LT 65,781,000 65,781,000 INCLUDES PROJECT ADMIN, PERMITS, ETC SUB TOTAL 900.1 132,639,200 132,639,200 TOTAL 900 132,639,200 132,639,200 TOTAL DIRECT & INDIRECT COSTS 149,371,000 37,182,000 2,305,397 386,957,200 573,510,200 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment_Z-_ageIof__-2 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 3 -Schedule for Installation I ~ 'i~~o~~y ~ i~ ~, >. ~ 0BL~,.>U~i-L7-<~ SB~2W9 .______________________tAi y P- IIMIII,. -S10N0A-iPM .M.-JI- IAw':4L11A L.4I1III0-010 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED 0042 START UNIT_2COýDENSER OAGE 0 0-043 TEST & START-UP UNIT S CONDENSER MOOS a! 0 04 RETURN TO SERVICE UNIT 2 CONDENSER MOOS TO OPS olSTART UNIT I CONDENSER OUTAGE 0-S_ S ISSUE PERMIT 0! 0 0U TEST a START-UP UNIT I CONDENSER MOOS 0i 0-SO IRETURN TO SERVICE UNIT 1 CONDENSER MODS TO.OPS 0 0 AUTHIOIZATION TO PROCEED START ENGINEERING:

UNIT i OUTAGiE SOS?

tISSUE PERMIT UNIT 2OUTAG E -200:1 U./Z NIT I DIXAGE-2008 I~s2 --~~I 1-a>SOllS1S' i !A IUTI A S 10F Ri I i v , .i ! I0 t START UNIT 2 CONDENSEROUTAGEASTART UP UNIT 2CONDENSER MODS RMTRN TO SERVICE UNITS2 CONDENSER MOOS TO GPO.i START UNIT 1 CONDENSER OUTAGE A 157 IEST& ART-UPUNIT 1 CONDENSER MODS, 1 .i RETURN TO SERVICE UNfT I CONDENSER MOOS TOp OPS4! i i ...0-000 ýSTAIT ENGNERING 0-020 mUNIT 2 OUTAGE -2008 321. 0-T UNIT I OUTAGE.- 200. 3 0-030 iUNITS OUTLAGE -2000 (RoE Iolemeecft 0~ S N-LNE ELOINTMEENCES 3991-...... ........ ....

...........

0-030 !UNIT 1 OUTAGE -2010 (ReV EnIterfene-s 25U0-- .............

.. ..... .................

........ ..............

2 U0G- 2 1.0-036 UNIT 1 ON-LINE IELD INTEFERENCES4

_0-040 UNITS OUTAGE. 2011 (Co~dnso utaeI015)14S-0AR j UNIT IOUAGE. 2012 (Cond.nse, Outage)14 0-0606 UNIT2OUTAGE-2013 320 0-0 a UIT OUTAGE 2014 32 0000UIT OUTAG 2014

[:29 0 HRMO IF -101-025 >CAFRA PERMIT SUSMISSION AND APPROVAL 1"-0I0 FDS L PERIT SUBMISSION. AND APPOVAL 100ICOM1PLETE ENVIRONMENTL I~MPATTTMN 200 0, 0.... 0r 04 o OUTSDIDE PENCE CONRC -PC 11EAJAADI16 2-050 1SWITCHYARD CONTRACT -OEI00 VL WR6ý-72 EFLEC SWITCHYARD STUDIES AND DESIGN 0- a LE2C SY EQUIP -SPEC/ 010/ EVAIJ AWARD 0-230 ELECTRICA ST XFMAS

-FABSI DELIVER E ..........................

........ 'D...... .. .. ......

..........

.......0-3 ELECRICA ST STEEL- lAB?75 DELIVER S6-237 BUS DROPS6-240 TEST ELECTRICAL SY EQUIP289 210 210 0 0 0 0 0 0! I !i , i .......Li UNIT IbUTAGE -201 0Relnlereren Sl-~ ~ ~ ~ UI I OUTAGE----------

171 I .I .-~~~ UN IT I OUTAGE-OlO (ol 01240...... .... .. .. .I -UN>I 1 OUTAG 51....... ..... .-CAF PERMITSUBMISSION AND APPROVAL I...... .... .PD PERMIT SUBMISSION ANDIAPPROVAL-COMPLETE IMPACT STATMENT IA S C/ BI VA AWARD.........OUTSIDE FENCE CONTRACT

-SPECI BID EVAL/

AWARD! L iSWITCHYARD CONTF9AC & ESE D/ EVA AWARD

J ELECISWITCHYAFRDSTUOISA DISIGN'!:..

+/-- ELEC SY EQUIP -SP BIDEVAL/ AWARD ,;__--___________________________

ELECTR CALSTrLMRS-FABSDELIVERL. ......E ECTR IC A L BY STEEL 4 aA B E U ER ELETRI~l BYOTHR QUIPPAIDEVRI'ERIORM ALL;SY IMPFIOVEMENTS

&BU BUS DROPS" I I.. TES T ICAL SY EQUIP.... .........SY ST E AND DESIGN , "~LIEC COL IP SPECI 10/ EVALI AWRD VEN RRAWINS ELECTRICALE EUIPMENT P AB) DEUIVER I- PERFORIMELECTRICAOLINSTALLAý'Ot0 i TEST ELETRICAL sYSTi OPTIMIZATION STUOYfpLOTI)SOIL BONING PLAN .COOLING AWOARD ELECTR~i ICALi XWRSoILB TOILBORINGSRN y = i as;T -- O WEIG R -SPLC/ 50/1EVA/I ItAO OCOOLING TOWER -VENCOR ENGINEERINI UNITSO N-L INTR E O PEERNCS.UNIT 1 ON.LINE R NTEPERENE UyrITOUTAGE, 2011 -1.ndeoos.aooll UNITOUTAGE

-201- I:!-f!~ ~. ...... .. -.....7 -JEEChImmSSTM sf -s s' .--. -.o6-190 ELEC SYS STUDIES AND DESIGN 6-i95IELEC EQUIP -SF000' VL WR 6-200 JVENDOR DRAWINGS 6-205 ELECTRICAL ECUIPMENT -

P40? DELIVER 6-215 T ES T I S YS.TEEM.S-7[0.Go 3 5....... .....r)ROP IS I m0-4-00 !OPTIMIZATION STUDY/ PLOT/ SOIL BORING PLAN 4-050AWARD SOIL BORING CONTRACT/SOIL BORINGS 4-100 ]COOLING TOWER -SPEC/ BID/ ETAL/

AWARD 4-IS COLINGTOWR -VENDOR ENGINEERING 1001.0-~ ~I I.........................

--I E.G BeSALEM CWSIS ALTERNATE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES MECHANICAL COOLING TOWER REPORT 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 3 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... .__________________

........._____________________

______.Dale I.......n ._.......a Pd--ovoo q-- .-0 0 0 4-110 FOUNDATION DESIGN 4-115 DCWATERICO61LIGTOWE9AREAS20-' ............................... ......' [ o..4. IiROUEPILES 7!50-+ i+

~~~..... ............ ... ..................

.... --? 4-125 DRIVE PILES -UNIT 2_ I -Ii-.4-i3 INSTLLFNDO!BASIN -UNT 1201 0-...................... ....... ... ..4135 INSTALLATION OF UNIT 2 SHELL & FILL 283 0 4-140 DRIVE PILES- UNIT I. .......E 4-145 iNDTALLOFND BASIN-UNIT 1 1201 0 410ISALATION Or UNIT 1 SHELL AND FILL 53-4-15S TEST UNIT 2 COOLwaING~

TOER URN OVER TO OHS 4-10 TEST UNIT 1 COOLING TOWER & TURN OVER TO OrHS -20 0 7-210 -iRC WATER PUMPS -DETERMINE POWER. .2-..7-1 CiR WATER PUMPS -SPEdI BID/ EL-VAUSARD 0 0VENDOR OEGS 125 ,-'-7 .............

7-225 !FOUNDATION DESIGN. ...0 5 0....------

_ ------ ..-. ._............_..............

.---- .- .7-230 !SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN 1 105 0 7-22 ICIRC WATER PUMPS FAB/ DELIVER30 5 7-240 TDRIVE PILES. UNT 22 7-245 :CONSTRUCT SUBSTRUCTURE -UNITS2 120m 0 7-S ONTUTSUPERSTRUCTUEREW WEEC EQUIPR M-UNIT 1205 7-255 ýSET PUMPS. PIPING. ELECTRICAL

-UNIT 2 100 50 7-260 !DRIVE PILES -UNIT I S~7-265 ICONSTAIICT SUBSTRUCTURE -UNIT 1 120 0 7-270 COSRC UESRCUE0/LCEUPR-UII120--0 7-275 :SET PUMPS. PIPING, ELECTRICAL-UNIT I I 1001 0 7.-200 TS&SAT-UP UNITS2 CIRC WATER PUM P HOUSES 1oj 7-200 :TEST & START-UP UNIT 1 CIRC WATER PUMP HOUSES 1 1510 2,; .K.:~m.1 PI4 " -¸ : Es:l; 7 Z :V LL.M A 1 ,I ILLLLA-1,"L I NI EL4IMA QI J$~ ý- 5 4 -j I 4 -- 01t -A. .... IFOUNHAIIONDESIUN

---

I-1 HDEWATE COQUNII TOWER ARLAS.I. ;

• 1 + ]PTI PROCURE PILES , .I Iit -..ZI ..DRIVE PILES- UNIT'S2 I " I INSTALL FNDlBASIN -UNIT RI I5L ID ~ ~tINSTALLAkTION OF UNITS SHELL SFILLI I I,,,~

NSTAL END(BASIN UNI til.-I.. .. .NSTALLATONOPUNITN SHELL AND ILL; iTEST UNIT 2 COOLING &TURN VER TO OPSE. LIN7 I DO'-( T W Ell : :-C1R WATERPUMPS-DETERMINE POWER REQUIREMENTS

, I CIRC WATER PUMPS SPED1 BOl EVAUAWARO SFOUNDATI NDESIGN I' I_ SUPE E DESIGN : "C W' R PUMPS FAB/ DELVER I .~T SRI6PLE UNITS...hu.. .fL i-L.CONSTRUCr SUBSTRUCTURE UNITS CONSTRUCT SUPERSTRUCTURE w/ELEC EQUIP RM LNIT2 STPMS PýIPING, SLOCIRIAL-UNIT DRIVE PILES UITI ,, "~pqCONSTRUCT UPERSTRUCTIREW/ELEC EQUIP RM-IUNIT I* SETPUMPS OWING ELECfR CAL+ UNIT i--TEiST STAT UP 1 60 UNITS2 CIRC WATER PUMP HOUSESj SI ,TEST &START-UP UNIT I CIRCWATI 71J UNITS'IJ1 CIAC WATERMPIPE DESIGN -IRC WATER PIPING1 SP1EC!BID!EVAU AAWARD:T -4.A D..ELVER UNITS 2/1 CInC WA TE P ING DEW-AT 1ER IJN ITS W 1 diRCI " HP. Al 05 _____1__PE+ ' .. .... I -v----- XAVATE/BACKFIL TUNITE 21 p' .-"'"-' 2 INS1 1ALL NEW UNITZ CIRC WATER PIP'Si L _ -"Z INSTALL NEWIUNIT 1 CIRcWATE PIPIi.....E.T.TURNOVERTOOHS UNIT2CWATER PPE ES UHVER TOOS UNIT IJCONDENSERMOD -EVALUATIONS&

LANNING i .C 8ONDENSERMOD IENDOR SEC/Bi BID EVAL!'AWARD.J CONDENSER MOD 1 VENDOR ENGINEERING I I ...............

I........" ..C. DENSER MOD FAB /DEL -UNIT2 ICONDENSER TUBES SPEq SIT3 EVAIJ AWARDL-:_ " C ND ENSER TUBES -FA RI -ATE U IT --C, ..DRELOCATE UNT 1EFERENCdS-`

---

-I9,PEN UNIT I RMOVE INSTALL'NEW UNIT2 CONDENSER TUBE SHEETS TUBES'I 0610PLITTEUNITS CODENSER WWATER BONE 7 50' ' '3 C1 F : T ý... ... --.... .. ..... ..-... ...i 7 --J : 'Y ....... -.... .. .. .ERI PluMP HOUSES: I P T RENCHS j NO-CIRCWATER PIPES "_j ... .......V.-

-...... .... ... .....1 -;- -

... ..ISUMR UI TS CONDNSE I 1 I QDS P ' T IEIH LNNE UNIT S_ HI:J S CPLT TI INS<NEW CIRCULA1INtSWA1E~PIP~

~.5-155 UNITS 211 CIRC WATER PIPE DESIGN 5-100 .CIR WATER PIPING -SPEC! BID! EVAI AWARD 5-00HSEIVE UIS 2/1 ORG WTR PIPING 5-170 DEWATER UNITS 211 10WATER PIE AREAS-17 EXCAVATEI BACKILL TRENCH....--- --- ....i ..................

5-1ISTAL NEW .PIPING 4-T0 JINSTALL NEW UNIT 1 CIRC WATER -PIPING 8-100~~~~~~

TS TRORTOOSUIT CIRC WATER PIPE 5 .-195 JTESTS TURNOVER TO OPS~ UIT CIRO WATER PIPE SE 13C 13C 56C WEC i0 0 0 0.3-050 3-M00 3-07T)2750.... 000E--3-0--... 3-100-...CONDENSER MOD -EVALUATION S PLANNING 80 0 CONDIENSER MOD VENDOR SPEC! BiD! EVAL! AWARD go 0 ONESRMOD -VENDOR ENýGINEERING010 CONDENSER MOD -FAB I DEL -UNIT 211 45000

..........-...

CONDENSER TUBES- SPEC! BID! EVAL!AWARE) 0- i -CiONDENSER TUBES -FABRICATE

-UNIT 5/1 275 0 RELOCATiEi UNITS2 INERFEFiENCES 3 22 0

SUMMARY

U ODENSER MOOS .10 0 DPEN UNITSiCNDNR 5 0 REMOV TUBES S TUBE SHEETS 2S 0 INSAL NEWUNITS2 CONDEiNSE.1 SEES TB 00 COMPLETE UNITS CONDENSER WýATER BOES go 0 IRE UNIT2PIPESCOMAPLET TIE-INS -CPro ~ Ba'SALEM CWlS ALTERNATE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES MECHANICALCOOLING TOWER REPORT 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 3.............

S- 2 51 d R3iE 1---- -- -------..

--- --- -__ -_............

__--C!RICIIS4fAPHrOW4

............

M W ked Appmay................ ..I -. ___SPrim-avera Systems Inc.

31 10 JTEST REUR TOSERVICE UNIT 2 CONDENSER 4i o 3-145 I RELOCATE N IT1INTCNPErRENCES 29 0 3-147

SUMMARY

. UNIT 1 CONDENSER MOOS 140'3-150 OPE UNIT 1 CONDENSER 5 3-155 1l1OVE UNIT 1 ODNE TUBES & TUBE SHEETS 3 3-160 jINSTAUL NEW UNIT 1 CONDENSER TUBE SHEETS & TUBE 5m B 3-1NS COMPLETE UNIT 1 CONDENSER WATER BOXES N o 3-17 LS INC UNIT I PIPE & COMPLETE TIE-INS 120 5 3-175 TEST iRETURNTO SERV1CEUNrT 1 CONDENSER 25 B'TEST & RETURN TO SERICE UNIT 2CONDENSERCE-t 3 RELOVCATE UNIT I;INERFERENCES'

SUMMARY

.UNIT I.CONDENSER M6 TU ..OPEN UNITtCONDENSER REMOVEUNIT I CONDENSER TU TUBE SHEETS IN'STALLNEW UNIT 1 CONDEiNSER TUBE SHEETS A TUBESiCý-PLETE U-NfI CIN_

CONDENSERWATER BOXES A...-. .-.I"LINEUNIT 1 PIPES.

6OMLETIE TIE4T, NSTEST RETURNTO:SERVICE UNI 1 ONESESN 3 d ....... ........ ...... ...... ..... .... ..

_____ _._ _ _,_ea__"__, SALEM CWILS ALTERNATE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES D.510 SCEate...

iS CeB ARePr0O_MECHANICAL ...._._._......._.....

COOLING TOWER REPORT 11050-355-MD

.......ATTACHMENT 3 0 Primavera Systems. Inc.0 0 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 4 -Walkdown Report Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 PSEG Nuclear Salem Nuclear Generating Station Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports. Walkdown held 04/26/05.Those Present: E. Keating (PSEG)D. Blount (S&L)R. Hameetman (S&L)A. Sengupta (S&L)1. Purpose: 0 The purpose of this walkdown was to identify possible interferences and determine the feasibility and/or difficulty for installation of the following items for the closed cycle alternative for circulating water intake:* Condenser tube bundle replacement" Verify access path for the new tube bundles* Identify interferences for the proposed circulating water piping changes on the east side of the condenser* Verify the approximate locations and layout of the proposed mechanical and natural draft towers on site.2. Condenser Tube Bundle Replacement

& Access Path: The west side of the condenser is the area of the plant designated for tube removal space as shown in the general arrangement drawings.

The area is relatively clean and it was determined that only minor interferences have to be temporarily removed to transport the tube bundles and the outlet waterboxes.

The west wall of the turbine building has removable siding at the waterboxlocations (Photo

2) that will be removed to provide access for the 12' x 18' x 45'long new condenser tube bundles. It was also observed that there is enough space in the yard area outside the turbine building west wall (Photo 4) to Page 1 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 maneuver the tube bundle assembly.

It was determined during the walkdown that removal of the existing tube bundles and installation of the new tube bundles can be accomplished.

Photos 1 through 4 show the removal path for the tube bundles, the interferences on the west side of the condenser and the outside yard area west of the building.The main steam pipes and the pipe support structure, other than the two diagonal braces, will not interfere with the removal and replacement of the tube bundles. The two braces will be temporarily removed, and replaced after the condenser work is completed.

3. East Side Condenser Waterbox Walkdown: The inlet waterboxes on the eastside of the condenser will require replacement to convert to the new two-pass condenser that is necessary for the cooling tower addition.

The circulating water piping in the inlet side will also require significant modification to accommodate the inlet and discharge pipe configuration for a two-pass condenser.

The cold water is supplied to the existing waterbox via. 7 ft diameter concrete pipes, that are buried. The buried concrete pipe penetrates the concrete floor at the turbine building base slab as a riser that is attached to the bottom of the condenser water box using an expansion joint (see Photo # 5). The space around the existing concrete inlet pipe is limited, for any reconfiguration of thesepipes that will be required.

The walkdown identified numerous interferences, some of which may be very difficult to relocate (see Photos 6 through 8). The walkdown also determined that due to limited space on the inlet side of the existing condenser and the numerous large and small diameter pipes, pumps, and electrical panels that fill the area, condenser upgrade will be very difficult.

The existing large diameter condensate pipes (Photo 6) may require relocation to accommodate the new CW inlet piping.

The inlet side was not configured for the type of changes required. The condenser was designed to remove the tube bundles from the discharge (west) side. The attached Photos 6 through 8 identify the interferences on the east side of the condenser.

Subsequent to the walkdown, a review of the walkdown photos and the plant general arrangement drawings for unit 2 determined that the FW MSR reheater drain tanks No. 2A, 2B, and 2C (and associated piping) and the No. 2 Gland Steam Condenser (and associated piping) will have to be temporarily relocated to install the new CW inlet and return piping. This review also identified that theVacuum Pump Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 25 (and associated piping) as well as electrical panel Nos. 730, 380, and 385 will have to be permanently relocated, to install the new CW inlet and return piping. The equipment requiring relocation for unit 1 is expected to be similar.Page 2 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 4. East Wall -Outside Turbine Buildingq:

The area outside the turbine building wall directly east of the condenser waterboxes was observed for obstructions to circulating water piping modifications.

The Unit 2 Condensate Polishing Building is directly over the circulating water piping (Photo 9). The Condensate Polishing Building has pipes and a concrete subbasement under the floor slab that were determined to require significant demolition and reinstallation activity, if the building were to be relocated.

Therefore, the new inlet piping for Unit 2 condenser will be modified east of the condensate polishing building, routed over the condensate polishing building, and through the outside concrete panel wall of the Turbine Building.

See Photos 9 through 11.5. Outside Area near the Old Guardhouse:

The outside area near the old guardhouse (outside the southwest corner of the turbine building) was observed. This location will be where the circulating water main piping runs from the towers will connect with the existing circulating water piping. Interference's exist with the Unit 1 Condensate Polishing building and potentially with the "B" building (offices) and the buildings may have to be partially demolished.

6 Tower Locations east of the Plant Switchyard:

The outside area east of the switchyard, selected for the tower locations was observed.

The area is clear, with few obstructions or interferences.

The towers have been located with consideration for an allowance for clearance during construction.

However, if later review during actual design determines that additional clearance is needed for construction, towers can be moved further east from the location shown in the Figure 1 in Attachment

1. An alternate location, shown in Figure 2, Attachment 1, was walked to determine its acceptability.

It appears there may be enough space to locate the towers per Figure 2, which would considerably reduce the length of new supply and discharge piping to the condenser.

However, due to limited space, acceptability of this option can only be verified during design phase, after the final tower sizes, and required construction clearances are confirmed.

Photo12 shows the proposed tower locations between the transmission lines.Page 3 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 Prepared By: Reviewed By: A. Sengupta R. HameetmanAttachment -

Photos 1 through 12 Copies: All Attendees J. Gelston P. Garza Page 4 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 Walkdown Pictures Page 5 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report CW Discharge Pipes on West Side of Waterbox Attachment 4, Photo # 1 Page 6 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Removal Path for Condenser Parts Attachment 4, Photo_2 Page 7 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Interference in Removal Path for Condenser Parts Attachment 4, Photo_3 Page 8 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Interference in Removal Path for Condenser Parts Attachment 4, Photo_4 Page 9 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 0 Concrete Pipe Penetrating Floor Slab Expansion Joint Condenser Inlet Pipe Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Attachment 4, Photo_5 Page 10 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Typical Interference on East Side of Condenser Attachment 4, Photo_6 Page 11 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report El 100' Interferences Requiring Removal Attachment 4, Photo_7 Page 12 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report El 100' Interferences Requiring Removal Attachment 4, Photo_8 Page 13 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MDAttachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report El 100' East Side of Turbine Building Attachment 4, Photo_9 Page 14 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Attachment 4, Photo_ 10 Page 15 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11050-360-ND/MD Unit 1 Condensate Polishing Bldg Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Attachment 4, Photol 1 Page 16 of 17 Salem Alternate Intakes Technologies Walkdown Report for the Natural Draft Tower and Mechanical Draft Tower Reports 11 050-360-ND/MD Attachment 4Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report Proposed Tower Locations Attachment 4, Photo 12 Page 17 of 17 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 5 -Salem MD Tower Heat Balance Evaluation ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWlS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final- November 17, 2005 ATTACHMENT 5 SALEM -HEAT BALANCE EVALUATION Heat Balance Evaluation with Various CW Temperatures, New Cooling Tower Option, and New Two (2)

Pass Condenser Option Prepared:..Date /17 - 'Pawel Kut -Sargent & LundyLLC Date I' /7 /v-Sarigeet (3upta -_ Sargent & LundyLLC Reviewed: Page 1 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this attachment is to document the anticipated Gross Plant Output and Condenser Backpressure as a function of Circulating Water (CW) inlet temperature with the existing plant configuration, new Cooling Tower (CT) option (reduced CW flow), and new Two (2) Pass Condenser option along with new Cooling Tower option. Additionally, the anticipated average yearly Gross Plant Output is evaluated for each option based on the 1999 and 2000 average monthly River Intake and Wet Bulb Temperatures.

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Heat Balance Cases The previously developed PEPSETM Heat Balance model (PEPSETM Set 30 "100% Load, Summer, SGBD to Condenser')

-[Ref 5.1] is utilized to prepare the following three sets of parametric runs ýwith various CW inlet temperatures:

All runs are prepared at 100% Load with Steam Generator Blowdown (SGBD) to the Condenser* First set of five runs utilizes the existing plant configuration with CW temperature ranging from 32 to 95 0 F with current CW flow as documented in PEPSETM Model [Ref. 5.1]. Note, per Paragraph 3.2 Page 2of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 that the CW inlet temperature is 90°F; the model was run at 95 0 F to bound all expected conditions.

• Second set of five runs reduces the CW flow to 511,020 gpm (the reduced flow is for the new Cooling Tower option based on the design flow for the new Condenser

[Ref. 5.2]) with CW temperature rangingfrom 32 to 95°F.* Third set of five runs utilizes the new Two (2) Pass Condenser option along with the reduced CW flow of 511,020 gpm (new Cooling Tower option) and with CW temperature ranging from 32 to:95 0 F.Table 2-1 below summarizes all PEPSE runs performed in this Attachment.

Table 2-1: Case Descriptions New Two (2)Case PEPSETM Description CW Inlet New CT pass Set Temp option Condenser option IA 30 100% Load, 95°F, Current CW Flow 95°F 1B 31 100% Load, 70'F, Current CW Flow 70°F 1C 32 100% Load, 61PF, Current CW Flow 61°F ID 33 100% Load, 50°F, Current CW Flow 50°F 1E 34 100% Load, 32°F, Current CW Flow 321F 2A 35 100% Load, 95°F, Reduced CW Flow 95'F Yes 2B 36 100% Load, 70'F, Reduced CW Flow 70'F Yes 2C 37 100% Load, 61°F, ReducedCW Flow 616F Yes 2D 38 100% Load, 50°F, Reduced CW Flow 50°F Yes 2E 39 100% Load, 32°F, Reduced CW Flow 32°F Yes 3A 40 100% Load, 95°F, Reduced CW Flow, New Condenser 95'F Yes Yes 3B 41 100% Load, 70'F, Reduced CW Flow, New Condenser 70'F Yes Yes 3C 42 100% Load, 61'F, Reduced CW Flow, New Condenser 61°F Yes Yes 3D 43 100% Load, 50°F, Reduced CW Flow, New Condenser 50°F Yes Yes 3E 44 100% Load, 32'F, Reduced CW Flow, New Condenser 32°F Yes Yes Page 3 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 2.2 PEPSETM Software Heat balance models are created using PEPSETM, developed by Scientech, Inc. [Ref. 4.3]. PEPSETM is a computer code which simulates the secondary plant by modular representation of the plant's component.hardware in the steady state.

It evaluates the thermal performance of individual components and of the entire plant power train, by performingsteady-state heat balances on fluid systems. PEPSETM has been validated under Sargent & Lundy's (S&L) quality assurance program, and is executed under S&L Program No. 03.7.551-6.6. The computer runs were made on the S&L PC No. PC9001.3. INPUTS 3.1 PEPSETM Heat Balance Model and Diagram Calculation

[Ref. 5.1]Sgbd.mdl 685KB 8/19/04 SgbdDiagram.mdl 178KB 10/6/04 from Heat Balance 8:56 AM 3:33 PM 3.2 New Condenser Design Information as obtained from data sheet fRef.5.2].Condenser Guaranteed Backpressure:

3.85 inches HgA at Duty of Tube Material: Tube Outside diameter: Tube BWG: 7,410.5 x 106 Btu/hr.B338, Gr. 2 Titanium 1 inch 25 Page 4 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD 0 ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 Number of Tubes: 65,904 Effective Tube length: 537.5 inches Tube Cleanliness:

90%CW Flow: 511,020 gpm CW Inlet Temperature:

90°F Number of Water Passes: 2 3.3 CW River Intake Temperature (OF) presented below is obtained as a monthly average based on an average of two years (1999 & 2000) per Reference 5.4.Table 3-1: CW River Intake Temperature (OF)JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 38.6 39.3 45.6 54.8 65.8 75.7 81.5 80.8 74.6 63.9 53.9 43.1 3.4 Wet Bulb Temperature (OF) presented below is obtained as a monthly average based on an average of two years (1999 & 2000) per Reference 5.5.Table 3-2: Wet Bulb Temperature (OF)JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC32.6 35.0 38.7 46.3 58.5 66.1 69.5 68.6 62.8 52.3 43.1 31.9 3.5 The original design CW inlet temperature is 61;8 0 F per Reference 5.2,.4. ASSUMPTIONS 4.1 The Cooling Tower approach temperature is assumed to be 14 0 F based on a typical cooling tower design (see Section V,D of the main report).Page 5 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 4.2 For the purpose of estimating the average yearly gross power generation for various options analyzed, the plant is assumed 100% operational for 365 days in a year.5. REFERENCES

5.1 Calculation

S-1-GB-MDC-2032, Rev. IRO, "PEPSE Model for Salem Generating Station 1 -Steam Generator Blowdown Modification".(Note: This Calculation was prepared and reviewed by Sargent & Lundy LLC, however it has not yet been validated by PSEG. For the purposes of this conceptual design and estimate this PSEG validation is not required as stated in PSEG email [Ref. 5.6].5.2 New Alstom Condenser Data Sheet and Table A, 24 March 2005, Ref: 4209-05-168HT, (presented in Section 8 of this Attachment).

5.3 PEPSETM

Version 66.2 and associated Users Manual and Reference Manual (S&L Program No. 03.7.551-6.6).

Controlled File Path:\\SNL1 B\SYS3\OPS$\PEP55166\.

5.4 E-mail transmitting River Inlet Temp, e-mail dated 5 May, 2005, from E.Keating (PSEG) to R. Hameetman (Sargent & Lundy),

Subject:

Intake Temperatures, (presented in Section 8 of this Attachment).

5.5 E-mail transmitting Average Wet Bulb Temp, e-mail dated 16 May, 2005, from R. Hameetman (Sargent & Lundy) to P. Kut (Sargent & Lundy),

Subject:

Cooling Tower Temperatures, (presented in Section 8 of this Attachment).

Page 6 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWlS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION.-

REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -. Final -November 17, 2005 5.6 E-mail documenting acceptability of usage of the PEPSE Model from Reference 5.1 , e-mail dated 11 August, 2005 from E. Keating (PSEG) to R. Hameetman (Sargent & Lundy),

Subject:

PEPSE Model, (presented.

in Section 8 of this Attachment).

6. RESULTS 6.1 Heat Balance Results Results of the heat balance analyses are presented in Table 6-1 below.Heat Balance Diagrams are presented in Section 7.Table 6-1: Heat Balance Results CW Reduced CW Flow (511,020 Reduced CW Flow (511,020 Inlet Current Design (Case 1). gpm, Cooling Tower Option, gpm) and New Two (2) pass Temp Case 2) Condenser (Case 3)Gross Output Condenser Gross Output Condenser Gross Output Condenser Backpressure Backpressure Backpressure (Mwe) (inches HgA) (Mwe) (inches HgA) (Mwe) (inches HgA)951F 1163.2 3.59 1103.4 5.89 1131.7 4.72 90°F 1178.11 3:232 1122.1' 5.322 1149.7' 4.242 70'F 1217.2 1.78 1180 3.03 1201.6 2.346.1.8'F 1224.8' 1.432 1196.81 2.492 1214.6' 1.872 61'F 1225.3 1.4 1198.5 244 1216.1 1.82 50°F 1230.1 1.05 1213.9 1.91 1225.9 1.36 32°F 1229.2 0.69 1225.9 1.36 1230.4 0.86 1. Values obtained using equations from curve fits in Figures 6-1 through 6-3.2. Values obtained using linear interpolation.

The results of this analysis show that the effects of conversion to a closed cycle cooling system, will ,produce a significant loss of gross MWe output.The first case titled "Current Design" (Case 1), shows the effect of increasing the temperature of the condenser inlet cooling water. The condenser backpressure increases from 1.43 in Hga at the original design inlet water temperature of 61.8°F, to 3.23 in Hga at the new design inlet Page 7 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 temperature of 90 0 F. This results in a loss of gross generation of 46.7 MWe, from 1224.8 MWe down to 1178.1 MWe or -4% of the existinggeneration, just due to the change in water temperature for closed cycle cooling.The second case titled "Reduced CW Flow " (Case 2), shows the effect of installing a cooling tower, which requires reducing the flow by approximately half to 511,020 gpm. At 90°F the backpressure will 5.32 in Hga. This results in a loss of gross generation of 102.7 MWe from the current design, from 1224.8 MWe down to 1122.1 MWe, or -8% of the existing generation.

The final case titled "Reduced CW Flow and New Condenser" (Case 3), shows the effect of converting to a cooling tower and changing out thecondenser tubes.

Some efficiency is gained by a more efficient arrangement of the condenser tubes, and better tube material thatprovides a better heat transfer rate. The CW flowrate is 51:1,020 gpm for this case. The increased efficiency of the new condenser provides some improvement in gross generation vs. Case 2. Table 6-1 shows that the condenser backpressure is 4.24 in Hga. This results in a lost generation of 75.1 MWe from the current design, from 1224.8 MWe down to 1149.7 MWe, or -6 %.Page 8 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 The PEPSETM results as given in Table 6-1 are then. utilized by Excel to develop functions of Gross Output vs. CW Temperature for each set of cases as shown in Figures 6-1 through 6-3. These equations can be later used to predict the Gross: Output at any CW temperature between 32 and 95 0 F for the three sets of runs presented in this Attachment.

Figure 6-1, Current Design (Case 1)0.0 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170.1160 1150-Y -0,000245X 3 + O.019029x2

-0 6260917x + 1226.093682-

______________

=L 0. _______ _________ _____1_

0 20 40 60 CW Temp (°F)80 100 Figure 6-2, Reduced CW Flow (Case 2)1240-1220 --1200 -1180 '1160 0 ( 1140 -y = -0.000052x 3 -0.019369X 2 + 1.197213x

+ 1209:109580 1120 --- = 0.999989 1100 1080 1 -----0 20 40 60 80 100 CW Temp (*F)Page 9of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17,2005 Figure 6-3, Reduced CW Flow and New Condenser (Case 3)1240 1220o S1200-,-S1180 0 m 116 -- = -0.002510x2

+ 0.751294x

+ 1213,904354-R = 0.999965 0 1140 1120 020 40 60 8010 100 CW Temp (IF)6.2 Gross Plant Output Prediction The anticipated average yearly Gross Plant Output is presented in Tables 6-1 through 6-3 for each option based on the 1999 and 2000 average monthly River Intake and Wet Bulb Temperatures and 100% load plant operation for 365 days a year.Table 6-1: Average Yearly Generation for Current Design River Average Gross Number of Average Mont. Average Pwer Days per Monthly Temp Power Month Generation

=F MW MW-hours Jan 38.6 1230.3 31 915,331 Feb 39.3 i230.4, 28 826,801 Mar 45.6 1230.5 31 915,517 Apr 54.8 1228.6 30 884,607 May 65.8 1221.5 31 908,808 Jun 75.7 1209.1 30 870,557Jul 81.5 1198.6 31 891,755 Aug 80.8 1200.0 31 892,803 Sep 74.6 1210.8 30 871,786 Oct 63.9 1223.2 31 910,058 Nov 53.9 1228.9 30 884,843 Dec 43.1 1230.6 31 915,552 Total 10,688,419 Page 10 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR cWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final- November 17, 2005 Table 6-2: Averag e Yearly Generation for New Cooling Tower Month Average WB Average CW Average Gross Number of Average Temp CT Approach Inlet Temp Power Days per Monthly Month Generation

'F 'F F MW MW-hours Jan 32.6 14 46.6 1217.6 31 905,877 Feb 35 14 49 1215.2 28 816,581 Mar 38.7 14 52.7 1210.8 31 900,834 Apr 46.3 14 60.3 1199.5 30 863,620 May 58.5 14 72.5 1174.3 31 873,667 Jun 66.1 14 80.1 1154.0 30 830,888 Jul 69.5 14 83.5 1143.8 31 850,956 Aug 68.6 14 82.6 1146.5 31 853,029 Sep 62.8 14 76.8 1163.3 30 837,545 Oct 52.3 14 66.3 1188.2 31 884,013 Nov 43.1 14 57.1 1204.6 30 867,340 Dec 31.9 14 45.9 1218.2 31 906,360 Total 10,390,711 Table 6-3: Average Yearly Generation for New Cooling Tower and New Two (2)Pass Condenser Average WB Average CW Average Gross Number of Average Month Temp CT Approach Inlet Temp Power Days per Monthly Month Generation

'F 0 F -F MW MW-hours Jan 32.6 14 46.6 1228.0 31 913,618 Feb 35.0 14 49 1226.7 28 824,336 Mar 38.7 14 52.7 1224. 1 31 910,755 Apr 46:3 14 60.3 1216.5 .30 875,905 May 58.5 14 72.5 1196.9 31 890,475 Jun 66.1 14 80.1 1179.3 30 849,131 Jul 69.5 14 83.5 1170.1 31 870,527 Aug 68.6 14 82.6 1172.6. 31 872,423 Sep 62.8 14 76.8 1187.5 30 854,995Oct 52.3 14 66.3 1208.1 31 898,821 Nov 43.1 14 57.1 1220.1 30 878,498 Dec 31.9 14 45.9 1228.3 31 913,859 Total 10,553,342 0 Page 11 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWISMECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. I 1050-360-MOATTACHMENT 5 -Fjna

-Noember 17, 2005 7. HEAT BALANCE DIAGRAMS Case 1A -100% Load, 95F, Current CW flow.SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1163.2MW NTHR 1097B'kWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 12 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWISMECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -

REPORT NO. 11 050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 Case 1B -100% Load, 70 0 F, Current CW flow SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 12172 MW NTHR 9745B/kWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 13 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWlSMECHANICAL DRAFTCOOLtNG TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17.2005 Case 1C -100% Load, 61°F, Current CW flow SALEM UNIT I GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1225.3 MW NTHR 9681 B/kWh[, Z. THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 14 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 1 1050360-SMD ATTACHMENT 5 -Anal -November 17, 20M5 Case 1D -100% Load, 50 0 F, Current CW flow SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1230.1 MW NTHR 9643B/kWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 15 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWtS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION

-REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -Novembe 17, 2005 Case 1 E -100% Load, 32°F, Current CW flow SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1229.2 MW NTHR THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 16 Of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION

-REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT S -Fimnl -Novenber 17, 2005 Case 2A -100% Load, 95 0 F, Reduced CW flow S r-Page 17of 31* S SALEM UNIT I GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 11034 MW NTHR 10750B/kWhI THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT S ALTERNATIVE INTME TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWoS MECHANICAL DRFTf COOLING TOWER OPTION

-REPORT NO. 11050-3W00MO ATTACHMENT 5 -FPinl -Novber I?, 2005 Case 2B -100% Load, 700F, Reduced CW flow-SALEM UNIT I GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1180.0 MW NTHR THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT e !Page 18 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENTS

-F*sf -November 17,2005 Case 2C -100% Load, 61°F, Reduced CW flow-I~ -Page 19 of 31* 0 SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1198.5 MW NTHR 9897B/kWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT L ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOUNG TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 Case 2D -100% Load, 50 0 F, Reduced CW flow SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1213.9 MW NTHR 9771B/kWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 20 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR OWlS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 1105O-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -FiaW -November 17. 2005 Case 2E -100% Load, 32°F, Reduced CW flow Page 21 of 31 0 SALEM UNIT I GENERATING STATION'OTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1225.9 MW NTHR 9676BfkWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWISMECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION

-REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -F'nal -November 17.2005 Case 3A -100% Load, 95 0 F, Reduced CW flow, New Condenser SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1131.7 MW NTNR NPUT 476BWhTHERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 22 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION- REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT S -Fial -November 17. 2005 Case 3B -100% Load, 70 0 F, Reduced CW flow, New Condenser0 0~SSALEM UNIT 1 G:NERAITNG STATIONTOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1201.6 MW 20. .Page 23 of 31* *. *mm ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REP.ORT 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Fbal -November 17, 2005 Case 3C -100% Load, 61OF, Reduced CW flow, New Condenser SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION4 ITOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1216.1 MW NTHR 9754B/kWh IF T' T THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 24 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-D860MO ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -Noob, 17. 2005 Case 3D -100M/ Load, 501F, Reduced CW flow, New Condenser r-, Jl ro. ... -' .... -0MM , I IbI I " rl 4- -- -00050 -.SALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1225.9 WN o.000-0'.oO" , INTHR 96760AWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT Page 25 of 31 0 0

FOR CWVS , MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION- REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENTS -Final -November 17, 2005 Case 3E -100% Load, 32 0 F, Reduced CW flow, New CondenserSALEM UNIT 1 GENERATING STATION TOTAL GENERATOR OUTPUT 1230.4 MW NTHR 66lw MWh THERMAL POWER INPUT 3476.7 MWT! i Page 26 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION

-REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 8. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Sargent & Lundy / Salem Units 1 & 2 24 Marcb 2005 Our Ref: 4209-05-168HT ALSTOIM CONDENSER DATA SHEET Location of manufacturing site Easton, PA, USA Guarantee Conditions at Heat Balance as Indicated:

Guaranteed Condenser Pressure, in. HgA 3.85 Guaranteed Dissolved Oxygen in Condensate, cc/I 0.005 or less at design conditions per HEICirculating water velocity in tubes, ft/sec 6.87 Inlet water temperature, *F 90.0 Tube Technical Data Tube Cleanliness 90%Clean Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, Btu/hr-sq ft-F 704.2 In Service Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, Btu/hr-sq fi-F 633.8 Condenser Surface Area, sq. ft. 772,821 Duty (net heat rejected to circulating water) Btu/hr X 106 7,410.5 Circulating water qtuantity, gpm 511,020 Temperature Rise, F 29.0 'F Method of Fixing Tubes to Tube Sheet Roller Expanded & Seal Welded Tubes Material B338, Gr. 2 Titanium OD, inches 1.0 BWG (Average Wall) main part of bundle 25 BWG (Average Wall) impingement 22 Number of tubes per circuit and total for condenser (Main + Imp.) 10,984 /65,904 Number of modules/shell 2Overall tube length, ft.-in. 45'- 0" Effective tube length, fl-in. 44'- 91/2"Furnished by ALSTOM Power Number of tube support plates 12 Main / 13"IntermediateThickness, inches 5/8" Main / 1/2/" Intermediate Material A285 Grade C, Carbon Steel Support plate spacing, in. (MID /.END) LaterTubesheet Material Titanium-Clad Total Thickness, inches 1.25 Method of Attachment to Shell Welded Method of Attachment to New Waterboxes Bolted Dimensions of: Tubesheets, Hx W 11'-6" W x 18'-6" H Weight of: Modules (as installed), lbs. Later Shipping Components, lbs.

Later Heaviest piece to erect, lbs.

J Tube Bundle @0 Page 27 of 31

.ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR -CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLINGTOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 Sargent & Lundy I Salem Units I & 2 24 March 2005 Our Ref: 4209-05-168HT TABLE A

SUMMARY

OF POTENTIAL DESIGN CASES (Page 1 of l)ALSTOM Codne etDt BUh 0)7,636.0

!7,410.5 Back Pressure ("HgA) 1.50 3.85 Tube Diameter (inch) 1.0 1.0 Main Tube Gauge (BWG) 22 25 Tube Material AL-6XN Titanium Tube Count 68,226 65;904 Tube Effective Length 44'-9/" 44'-9Y" Cleanliness Factor (%) 77.5 90.0 Surface Area (ft 2) 800,000 772,821 Cooling Water Flow (GPM) 1,110,000 511,020 Initial Temperature Difference

('F) 29.8 34.0 Temperature Rise (0 F) 13.76 29.0 Number of Water Passes 1 2 Velocity of Water in Tubes (ft/sec) 7.46 6.87 Cooling Water Head Loss (ft. of H 2 0) 12.8 19.4 NOTE: All performance data shown above is based uponthe latest editionof the HEI (9 th Edition).Modular replacement performance based on inlet circulating water temperature of 90'F and conditions as shown on Siemens 100% LoadHBD # 10587-S312-WM000-1, Page 28 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005"Keating, Edward J."<Edward.Keating@pse g.com>05/05/05 08:05 AM" To: "Bob Hameetman

\(E-mailt)"<robert.a.hameetman@sargenUundy.com>

cc: Subject Intake Temperatures Bob, Attached is a spreadsheet if the intake temperatures at Salem for 1999 through 2004. Let me know if you need more information on the river temperatures.

Take care, Ed<<Salem Intake Temp 99-04.XLS>>

Ed Keating Phone -856-878-6927 Fax -856-878-1206 130 Money Island Road Salem, NJ 08079 S Salem Intake Temp 99-04.X Page 29 of 31 0 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005 ROBERT A HAMEETMAN*

05116/05 08:33 AM To: PAWEL KUTISargentlundy@Sargentlundy cc: Subject Cooling Tower Temperatures Pawel: The average wet bulb temperatures for the Salem site location were placed on the S&L ftp site by Ed Keating of PSEG for use in the effects on the Salem Natural Draft Tower Backpressure and-Gross MWe review. The location of the files is: ftp:l/slftpl ,sargenluridy.com/pub/anyone/Salem/Altematelntakes.

The 3 files are: AlMetData84-90forSalemAnalysis.xls AlMetData9l-97forSalemAnalysis.xts AlMetData98-O0forSalemiAnalysis.xls Bob-- Forwarded by ROBERT A HAMEETMAN/Sargentlundy on 05/16105 08:31 AMKeatlng, Edward J." To: "Bob Hameetman VE-mai\)r<Edward.Keating@pse qoberLa.hameetman@sargentlundy.com>

g.com> cc: 05116/05 06:20 AM

Subject:

Cooling Tower Temperatures Bob, I have placed the wet and dry bulb temperatures on the FTP site for use in the cooling tower calculations.

Ed Ed Keating Phone -856-878-6927 Fax -856-878-1206 130 Money Island Road Salem,.NJ 08079 0 Page 30 of 31 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER. OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD ATTACHMENT 5 -Final -November 17, 2005"Keatlng, Edward <Edward.KeatingJr@pseg.c om>08/11/05 11:38 AM To 'Bob Hameetman k(E-maif,}'

<robert.a.hameetman@sargentlundy.com>

cc bcc Subject PEPSE Model History: ri This message has been forwarded.

Hi Bob, S&L performed PEPSE analyses to determine gross power output and backpressure effects of installing cooling towers. The PEPSE analyses were performed in accordance with calculationS-1-GB--MDC-2032, Rev.01R0, using PEPSE Version 66.2 and the controlled plant data file provided bySalem Station.

This model and methodology has been validated by S&L's quality assurance program and is the same as that performed for PSEG Nuclear for other purposes when evaluation the Salem Station.I understand that the PSEG Nuclear protocol includes an additional Station validation step. For the purposes of these conceptual designs and estimates, the PSEG Nuclear validation step is not required.The-quality assurance and best professional judgment of S&L are adequate to ensure the data is representative of the information required.If you have any questions please contact me.Thanks, Ed Ed Keating Phone -856-878-6927 Fax -856-878-1206 130 Money Island Road Salem, NJ 08079 S Page 31 of 31 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWlS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 6 -Range Estimate REP/PC (Ver 4.0) -MGMT REPORT 1 RANGE ESTIMATE : 11-10-.05 DATA : SALEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING MODEL : BASIC MODEL (SUMMATION)

NUM ELEMENT UNIT TARGET PROB+ LOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MECH DRAFT COOLING TOWERS COOL TWR AND CW PUMP BOP CIR WATER PUMPS CW PIPING AND ELECT BOP CW PIPING BOP AND COND BOP CONDENSER CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTS TOTAL EXPENSE (INPUT TO REP/PC)LT LT LT LT LT LT LT 51946 81740 16800 56922 152600 30000 50863 440871 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49349 69479 15960 48384 129710 28500 43234 HIGH 59738 106262 19320 73999 244160 39000 73751 384615 616230 (THEORETICALS)

+ PROBABILITY THAT ACTUAL VALUE WILL BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN TARGET 3alem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD tta chment_/_

Page ( of_7_

REP/PC (Ver 4.0) -MGMTREPORT 2 GRAPHICAL OVERRUN PROFILE 11-10-05 DATA : SALEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING MODEL : BASIC MODEL (SUMMATION) 560-540-,520- .5,00- *480*480- ..** ..B 0 T T 0 M L I N E X 1,000 460-4400-420-400---------------------------------------------------

I-TARGET Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD AttachmentJ-Page

2. of_7 380.05 io 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99.95 OVERRUN PROBABILITY (PERCENT)

REP/PC (Ver 4.0) -MGMT REPORT 3 GRAPHICAL PRIORITY PROFILE : 11-10-05 DATA : SALEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING MODEL : BASIC MODEL (SUMMATION)

TOTAL PROB OF EXPENSE OVERRUN NET EFFECT OF FROZEN ELEMENTS 440871 73 PCT 0=.0 PCT NUM ELEMENT UNIT CORRECT PROTECT 5 2 7 4 6 1 3 CW PIPING BOP AND COND BOP COOL TWR AND CW PUMP BOP CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTS CW PIPING AND ELECT BOP CONDENSER MECH DRAFT COOLING TOWERS CIR WATER PUMPS NET EFFECT OF FROZEN ELEMENTS LT LT LT LT LT LT LT----------- ---I .... ++--- ++Salem CWlS Alternate Intakes MD TowerReport 11050-360-MD Page 0

.REP/PC (Ver 4.0) -MGMT REPORT 4 CONTINGENCY PROFILE DATA : SALEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING MODEL : BASIC MODEL (SUMMATION)

TO BE THIS CONFIDENT OF ADD THIS CONTINGENCY NOT HAVING COST OVERRUN ABSOLUTE RELATIVE 100 PCT 175359 39.8 PCT 99.95 " 121210 27.5 " 95 83401 18.9 " 90 65915 15.0 " 85 54943 12.5 " 80 " 46457 10.5 " 75 37160 8.4 " 70 29876 6.8 " 65 25512 5.8 " 60 20864 4.7 " 55 17113 3.9 50 13170 3.0 " 45 10414 2.4 " 40 8214 1.9 " 35 4560 1.0 " 30. 1946 .4 " 25 -1131 -.3 " 20 -4661 -1.1 " 15 -8544 -1.9 " 10 "-11534 -2 .6E" 5 -16586 -3.8 " 0.05 -45621 -10.3 " 0 -56256 -12.8 ": 11-10-05 (ABOVE RESULTS DERIVED FROM 1000 SIMULATIONS)

Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11 050-360-MD Attachment__&_Page L/ of-Z REP/PC (Ver 4.0) -MGMT REPORT 5 CONTINGENCY ALLOCATION

11-10-05 DATA : SALEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING MODEL : BASIC MODEL (SUMMATION)

TARGET ESTIMATE 440871 CONFIDENCE OF NO OVERRUN 27 PCT REQUIRED CONFIDENCE 90 PCT NEEDS THIS CONTINGENCY 65915 TARGET WITH CONTINGENCY 506786 ALLOCATION OF CONTINGENCY PCT ADD THIS UNIT NUM ELEMENT RANK 5 2 7 4 6 1 3 CW PIPING BOP AND COND BOP COOL TWR AND CW PUMP BOP CONSTRUCTION INDIRECTS CW PIPING AND ELECT BOP CONDENSER MECH DRAFT COOLING TOWERS CIR WATER PUMPS TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57.3 9.8 13.3 7.7 6.3 4.2 1.4 100.0 37769.70 6459.81 8766.93 5075.07 4152.83 2768.55 922. 85'LT LT LT LT LT LT LT UNALLOCATED DUE TO ROUNDING (BOTTOM LINE UNITS) -.75 SaJem CWIS Alternate intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment-_L, Page 5 of -7 REP/PC (Ver 4.0) -MGMT REPORT 6 PRICE LOCALIZER 11-10-05 DATA SALEM MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING MODEL BASIC MODEL (SUMMATION)

---

MINIMUM PROFIT FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE-------

10 30 50 70 90 99.95 100 PRICE PCT PCT PCT PCT PCT PCT PCT REQUIRED 246893 233413 222189 205483 169444 114149 60.000 676230 240893 227413 216189 199483 163444 108149 54000 670230 234893 221413 210189 193483 157444 102149 48000 664230 228893 215413 204189 187483 151444 96149 42000 658230 222893 209413 198189 :181483 145444 90149 36000 652230 216893 203413 192189 175483 139444 84149 30000 646230 210893 197413 186189 169483 13.3444 78149 24000 640230 2,04893 191413 180189 1634,83 127444 72149 18000 634230 198893 185413 174189 157483 12144,4 66149 12000 628230.192893 179413 168189 151483 115444 60149 6000 622230.186893 173413 162189 145483 109444 54149 0 616230 132744 119264 108040 91334 55295 0 -54149 562081 77449 63969 52745 36039 0 -55295 -109444 506786 41410 27930 16706 0 -36039 -91334 -145483 470747 24704 11224 0 -16706 -52745 -108040 -162189 454041 13480 0 -11224 -27930 -63969 -119264 -173413 442.817 0 -13480 -24704 -41410 -77449 -132744 -186893 429337 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 6Page.Lofi7 Range Estimating Program for Personal Computers

-REP/PC (Ver 4.0)* Copyright (C) Decision Sciences Corporation, unpublished

• DECISION SCIENCES CORP.Box 28848 St. Louis, MO 63123 U.S.A.Telephone:

314/739-2662 Facsimile:

314/536-1001 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD AttachmentL,_Page[

.of 7 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 7 -Salem MD Tower Hydraulic Evaluation ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS AMECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER OPTION -REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD 0 ATTACHMENT 7 Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachrment_

PageIof/.ATTACHMENT 7 SALEM -HYDRAULIC EVALUATION Hydraulic Evaluation for the New Cooling Tower Option, and New Two (2) Pass Condenser Option rik Prepared: Reviewed: G rciiarelo-Sargent & LundyLLc Robert Hameetmrn-Sargent & Lundy Date g-1 0 Date Salem CWIS-Alternate Technologies Calculation:

Salem CW-2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050- Rev 0 360-MD 11050-360 Attachment 7Table of Contents Page No.Cover Sheet Table of Contents ......................................................................................................

1 1.0 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................

22 .0 D e s ig n In p uts ...........................................

I ..................................................

....... 3 3.0 Assumptions

..................................................................................................

3 4.0 Methodology and Acceptance Criteria ............................................................

3 5.0 Calculations and Analysis .............................................................................

4 6.0 Results .......................................................................................................

4 7.0 References

....................................................................................................

48 .0 A tta ch m e nts .........................................................................................................

Attachment A: Fathom Hydraulic Model Nodal Diagram .................................

(1 page)Attachment B: Piping Take-Offs

........................................................................

(2 pages)Attachment C: FathomTM Output-Summary Table ..... ................

(5 pages)Attachment D: GEA Cooling Tower Proposal Summary and Scope of Supply. (3 pages)1 of 5 Salem CWIS-Alternate TechnologiesMechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 7 Calculation:

Salem CW-2 Rev 0 11050-360 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this calculation is to perform a basic hydraulic analysis of aconceptual design of a circulating water (CW) system with a mechanical draft cooling tower. The CW system is for the Salem Generating Station. The calculation will approximate CW pump and pipe sizing so that a budgetary estimate for the system can be performed.

2.0 DESIGN

INPUT 2.1 The nominal circulating water flow to the condenser is 511,020 gpm from reference 7.1.2.2 The absolute roughness (E) of concrete pipe is .003 feet per A-23 of reference 7.4 2.3 The length of large bore 12 ft DIA concrete pipe for the Unit 2 cooling tower with added length for design margin is approximately 5100 feet from Attachment 1, Figure 1 of reference 7.3.2.4 The length of the 84" steel-lined pipe from the concrete supply pipe to each section of the condenser with added length for design margin is approximately 1400 feet from Attachment 1, Figure 1 of reference 7.3.2.5 The absolute roughness (s) of commercial steel pipe is .00015 feet perA-23 of reference 7.4 2.6 The condenser head loss from reference 7.2 is: Head Loss (feet)Flow Rate (feet/sec)

Connection Size 19.4 6.9 72 inch 20.6 9.9 60 inch 2.7 The design pressure of the condenser is 50 psig with a hydrostatic test pressure of 65 psig from reference 2.1.2.8 Friction loss and K values for pipes, valves and fittings are taken from internal programming in reference 7.5.2 of 5 Salem CWIS-Alternate Technologies Calculation: Salem CW-2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050- Rev 0 360-MD 11050-360 Attachment 7 2.9 The elevation difference between the circulating water headers and cooling tower spray is approximately 35 feet. Thirty-five feet is the approximate elevation difference between the CW header and cooling tower spray. The value is reasonable and an exact value is not required for conceptual design.

The GEA proposal (Attachment D gives a distribution header height of 23 feet. The supply pipe will be buried about 10 feet for a total height difference of about 33 feet, or about 35 feet 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 The length of 60" DIA steel-lined pipe to and from each section of the condenser is approximately 200 feet based on engineering judgement.

Technical Justification:

This number is reasonable and is based on 50 feet of pipe to and from each waterbox.

An exact value is not critical to the output of the calculation.

3.2 The pressure provided to the spray nozzles of the cooling tower shall assumed to be 10 psig.Technical Justification:

The type of cooling tower spray has not been chosen for this conceptual design.

The spray nozzles could be gravity fed or pressure fed. 10 psig was chosen as a conservative value.4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4.1 AFT Fathom Model and Computer Program A hydraulic model was developed using reference

7.3 Attachment

1 Figures 1 and 4. The hydraulic model was created using AFT FathomTM Version 6.0 developed by Applied Flow Technology.FathomTM is a graphical computer platform for modeling incompressible flow in pipe networks. The program performs steady state and transient flow analysis of thermal- hydraulic systems and is validated for use at Sargent & Lundy. For this calculation, FathomTM was run on S&L PC No. ZL 1099 under the Windows XP operating system. t, 3 of 5 Salem CWIS-Alternate Technologies Calculation: Salem CW-2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050- Rev 0 360-MD 11050-360 Attachment 7 4.2 The output of the AFT Fathom calculation is described in Attachment C.4.3 Flow velocities in all pipes downstream of the CW pumps shall be between 8 and 14 feet/second per reference 7.6.4.4 Pressure at the condenser shall not exceed the design pressure of 50 psig as stated in design input 2.7.4.5 The flow and nodal diagram is shown in Attachment A.5.0 CALCULATIONS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 The output tables of the Fathom computer run is in Attachment C. All pipe velocities downstream of the CW pumps are between 8 and 14 fps.5.2 Attachment C lists the inlet pressure to the condensers as 55.80 psia or 41.10 psig. This pressure value is less than the design pressure as stated in design input 2.7 5.3 Each of the 5 operational pumps develops 38.75 psid or 89.83 feet TDH.6.0 RESULTS The flow velocity in the 12ft DIA concrete is 10.067 ft/sec. The flow velocity in the 84-inch DIA steel lined pipe is 9.855 ft/sec. The flow velocity in the 60-inch DIA steel pipe is 9.633 ft/sec. Each of the above listed flow velocities meets the requirements of reference 7.6 and thus the pipe sizes in the model are correct.The sizing of each CW pump for this conceptual design is 511,020 / 5 =102,204 gpm with a developed head of approximately 90 feet TDH.

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 ALSTOM

Power Heat Exchange Information Package to Sargent &Lundy for Replacement Titanium Condenser Tube Modules and Accessories Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2 4 of 5 Salem CWIS-Alternate Technologies Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 7 Calculation:

Salem CW-2 Rev 0 11050-360 7.2 Email: phil.finellioahpower.alstom.com to robert.a.hameetman@sargentlundv.com dated 5/3/05 7.3 Salem CWlS-Alternate Intake Technologies Natural Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD.

7.4 Crane

Technical Paper No. 410, Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe, Twentieth Printing, 1981 7.5 AFT FathomTM , Version 6.0, Computer Software for Modeling Incompressible Flow in Pipe Networks (S&L Program No. 03.7.721-6.0)7.6 Sargent & Lundy Mechanical Engineering Standard (MES) 2.11 5 of 5 Salem CWIS-Alternate Technologies Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 7 Calculation:

Salem CW-2 Rev 0 11050-360 Attachment A FathomTM Hydraulic Model Nodal Diagram 0 6 J34 J37 P23P33 S P J5 5 P34 P28 12 Ft Dia Concrete PIpW (2550 leet) J23 12 Paris1e 30 -Sleet pipe 35' EL: ~1P35J3P2 jJa2 i P32P3 2 12Parallel 30 l lPipe 35'EL J32Z J38 12 _1 ".tP31 Pe, J6 P6l P26, Supply to Condenser Return from Condenser P4 Z SP e IdPO 7 P27 Sectlons I 1 2 Pis "84".ee1 Un.d Pipo (700 It)J4 JI m Pi P1 J=14P 5 o pe ra to , + ,e + i ' + -1 P1 Pomps In Paralll e l Steel pipe 5 Parallel 8 Rl tDA Pipes t Condenser P13 Cooling -5 Parallel it O(A Pipes Chmei Valves Butt erfly VaIves PIStee PS"eP" TonerBasin J0 *Sei pe TPIO 13B So0 Steel Pipe Condenser p12 b1 m H J13~JNO 01 :*(:-Lfl 0 (0n ATTACHMENT B PIPING TAKEOFFS Calculation:

Salem CW-2 Rev 0 Project Number 11050-360 Pipe 1" 4 5 6 8 19 10 11 _12 13 25 16 17 18 19 23 Pipe Inside I Elevation Inlet Diameter (feet)Junctions Pipe Elevation Outlet (feet) Length (feet) j (Up, Down) Material_-E-v io __u -t-(e t -. ..8 ft 5 ft ___ 0 12ff 0 12ff ____- .12ff 0 52ft__ 0 12ff 07.. 1,.- ft .. .1 ..7ft 0 5ft. .5ft 0 5 ft 0 5ff -_____........_

5 ft 0 5 ft 0 12ff 0 12fft 0 12 ft 0 i____ 0 12ft 1 0 7f 0 0 9f I--- 0-7 ft 0 0 30Oin 35 30 in 0~30 in 35 in.. .. .. .. ..3 5.. ..........i..... .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0__0 0 0 0 Q 0 0_0 35 35 35 35 S1 j 1, 2 Steel 10 -2,3 __Steel 625 3,4 Concrete 625 L 4,5 Concrete 625 5,6 Concrete 675 .6, 8 VConcrete 690 8,9 Steel Lined___ 10 9,10 SteelLined 201 10,11 I Steel 20 11,12 1 Steel 20 12,13 Steel 20 13,14 Steel--20 }14, 151 Steel 25 10, 16 -Steel 25 16, 17 -Steel 25 17, 18 Steel 625 18,15 d Steel 625 -i-19, 21 1_Concrete 625 .g"_, 22 L Concrete_625 22, 23 1 Concrete 675 23, 39 1 Concrete-1 26,9 Concrete 1 8,27 -Concrete--700 15,19 Steel Lined 12 f 39, 37. Concrete 648 3,34 Concrete 12 39,38 Concrete.648 38, 32 Concrete 35 32, 35 Steel 35 34, 36 Steel 20 35,33 Steel 7436,30 Steel 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35*. Five parall pip Five parallel pi 0 C es for 5 pumps pes- check valves and butterfly valves 1 S 0 ATTACHMENT B PIPING TAKE-OFFS Elevation Inlet Jct Name Loss Factor (K) (feet) Pipes (+.= In, -_-Out).C-o-oingfTow-er Bas in sin 20 --1 5 Operation CW P inPairallel 0 0 1- .. .. .. 1,-2 ...3 --_---Branch 0..- -. 0 0 2- -3 6 ___Bend _ 0.18 1 0 4,-5 Bend __ _ _ 1 0.18 0 _ _ _ _ _ _

_.... 8 .....! --Tee orW y-e- -- Fathom Std --0" O 6-,-26,-8

-6 Bend __ __ 0.168 4_ 0 j __8--5,_ 0__ Tee or Wye __ __ -a ___ Io ____td_0___, __8 ._ 113BC__ Cndenser _ 14F1924 d0 ..,-12 13 Bend _ 0.168 -0 12,-13Be_-- n d- 0.168 0 13,-14 15 17 18 219 22 26 27 Tee or Wye Fathom Std Bend 0 168 13A Condenser

_ 14.1924 Bend 0.168 Tee or Wye I____ Fathom Std Bend _ 0.18 Bend 0.18 Bend 0.18 0 0 0 14,18,-27 15,-16 16,-17 17,-18 Calculation:

Salem CW-2 Rev 0 Project Number 11050-360O= 3 o-n o , CD 3-- .CD:: 0 0 0 T0_Return from Condenser Sections 11 & 12 0-19,25,27 19,-21 21,-22.22,-23-25 26 35 31,-82 34 30 33 34 35 36 39-Supply to Condenser Sections 11 & 12 Assigned Pressure Branch Assigned Pressure Branch Branch Branch Bend Bend Tee or Wye 0 0 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 0.168 0.168 Fathom Std 0 29,-33 35 32,-34 35. 33,-35 0 I 28,-29 0 L 30,-31-30,-28,23

,2 AFT Fathom 6.0 Output (1 of 5) 5119/2005 Sargent & Lundy LLC AFT Fathom Model General Title: AFT Fathom Model Analysis run on: 5/19/2005 4:09:54 PM Application version: AFT Fathom Version 6.0 (2004.06129)

Input File: D:\0h9029\Salem\Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower.fth Scenario:

Base Scenario/With 650 ft headers Execution Time= 0.09 seconds Total Number Of Head/Pressure Iterations=

66 Total Number Of Flow Iterations=

7 Total Number Of Temperature lterations=

0 Number Of Pipes= 32 Number Of Junctions=

32 Matrix Method= Gaussian Elimination Workspace labels Pressure/Head Tolerance=

0.0001 :relative change Flow Rate Tolerance=

0.0001 relative change Flow Relaxation= (Automatic)

Pressure Relaxation= (Automatic)

Constant Fluid Property Model Fluid Database:

AFT Standard Fluid: Water at ! atm Max Fluid Temperature Data= 212 deg. F Min Fluid Temperature Data= 32 deg. F Temperature=

90 deg. F Density= 62.12054 Ibm/ft3 Viscosity=

1.82692 Ibm/hr-ft n Vapor Pressure=

0.70387 psia Viscosity Model- Newtonian

-CD Atmospheric Pressure=

1 atm Gravitational Acceleration=

1 g )U Turbulent Flow Above Reynolds Number= 4000 >Laminar Flow Below Reynolds Number= 2300:3 Total Inflow= 851,823 gal/min Total Outflow= 851,823 gal/min Maximum Pressure is 61.64 psia at Junction 2 Outlet a Minimum Pressure is 22.89 psia at Junction 1 Outlet 0 CD Pump Summary 0 4 a 0 r AFT Fathom 6.0 Output (2 of 5) 5/19/2005 Sargent & Lundy LLC AFT Fathom Model JlName Vol. Mass OP DH Overall Overall iNumber SFlow ' Flow 1I Efficiency Power of Pumps L 0al/mmn .Abm/sec) (p) feet) (Peren P 2 § j 5pertional CW Pump in Parallel 511,020 7?J2 38.751 89.83L 100.0 11,550 p arallel Reservoir Summary S Name Liq. Liq. Surface I Liquid Liquid Net Net I Height Elevation Pressure Volume Mass Vol. Flow Mass Flow........ -- feepe~l__

fept)Q rn jaýl/m (Ibm/sec_.I_I Cooling Tower Basin N/A 20.001 14.70- N/A I N/Al -511 ,020 -70,728 Pipe Output Table Pipe Vol. Velocity -,Elevati~on Elevation dP Static 1 dH P Flow Rate _fe/e Inlet Outlet Total_ F_aql/min) (fe/e) (feet) (feet) -(psid) fe) A 51,2 4.530~ 1.000 0.00.-0.4296531 0.0040324 2 511,.020L 8.0541 0.000 0.00 0.2421725 0.5613738 3 511,020 10.067.1 0.000 0.00 0.5104661 1.1832981 4 511,020 10.0671. 0.000 0.00 0.5104661 1.1832981 5 511,020 10.0871 0.000n 0.00 0.51046611 1.18329811 6 .L 511,020 10.067 0.000 0.00 0.5513034

_1.27796191 8 1 170,219 9.855 0.000 0.00 0.6275036 1.5497 9 .170,219 9.855 0.000 .0.00 0.0090943 0.0210813]

1 I 88 9.8321 0.000 0.001 0.0257854 0.0597724]

12--483 .9.632 0.000; 0.00~ 0.2123711 0.4922920 13 84,883 9.632 -0.0001 0.001 0.0257854

0.0 5972492

1 1 8483 9.632 0.000 0.00 0.0257863

0.0 5977245

15 _85,336 9.683 0.000 0.00 0.0325659 0.790 16 1 -85,3361 9.6831 0.000 0.00l 0.2211449 0.51 26303I 17 --85,3361 9.6831 0.000 0.001 0.22114491 0.5126303 18 85 338 9.86831 0.000 0.'001 0.03256461 0.0754872, 19 51006007 .0 .001 0.5104661 1.1832981:

21 511,0201 10.0671 o0ool .0 0.51046611 1.18329811 22 j1,2 1067 000 OO00504661

1. 1832981 23 51.1,020' 10.067!~ 0.000 0.0! ,551..3034]

1.2779619 25 '340,801 1 6 7141.0.000 00, .0002045 0.0004741, 80 ~ ~ 0.00 0.00 0.0 00044 P StaticýOut ins~iai Legt Junctions Length I (Up, Down) f,".-- n I K f-fL/D Dyn.Pres:d (psidt 10.137ý6 0.4348, 0.67941-I i i 23.181 10.000o 1,2 0;0000 0.010 01161 0.0126453 61.4 825.000 2,31 0.54001 0.0101591 0.0169324 3.41 0.00001 0.014425 0.7513191 60.01 59.38 58.70 56.95 625.000 625.000 675.000 690.000 4, 5. 0.0000 5, 6 0.0000 6. 8 0.0000 8.91 0.0000 0.0144251 0.7513191 0.6794 0.014425 0.014425 0.009778 0.-009778 0.7513191 0.8114246 0.9638305 0.0139686 0.67941 0.679.41]0.65111 0.65111'--I 56.83 I10.000 9,101 o.000o020.000 10,111 0.0ooo 55.80 20.000 11, 12, 0.3000 46.761 20.000 _- 12,131 0.3000 46.631 20.000 13 141 0.0000 46.50] 20. 000 14,151 0.0000 56.101 25.000 -10, 16, 0.0000...... .i ........0.010365 0.010365 0.010365 o_0.010365 0.010365 0.010361 i 0.0414587 0.0414587 0.0414587 0.0414587 0.0414587.0.051 8073 0.62201 0.62201 0.62201, 0.6286 1 3 C)-0>56.00 55.78: 25.0001 16,171 0.3000 0.0103611 0.05180731 0.6286 16.861 46.63 25.000 17,181 0.3000 0.01036100518073 0.6286 1.53 46.501 25.000 1815 0.0000000361 0.051803 0.62861 W4661 44.15_ 625.0006 i -0.0000 0.0144251 0.75131911 0.6794 140] 43.52] 625.0001 21.22 0.0000 00425q7391I694 13.391 42.881 625.0001 22 23 :0.00001 0.014425:

0.7513191[

06794J t2.76, 42.21-1-675.000o

.23, 39.. 0.0000- 0.014425.

0.8114246!

0.6794!t5.31 1 45.311. .61 0.00-00-1 0.9006122]

0.0006769 030g22-59.05:;59.05-.

-1. 000 -8,27. 0. .. 9'0.082 0.0006769

',0.3022!

AFT Fathom 6.0 Output (3 of 5) 5/19/2005 Sargent & Lundy LLC AFT Fathom Model Pi pe V l .-V elo city ! .E levation j E -evation dP -Static d R P Sta tic -P Stati -Len gth -Junctions K f fL. D I. D yn.Vol. Il Veoiy ....... iofnfJO iDn Flow Rate Inlet Outlet Total In Out tUp, Down) j Pres.alm -i (feet/sec

..(feet) (feet) pSidp5a).jpja

._eet -__ , fi s )27 170,219 9.855 0.0001 0.00 0.6365979 1.4756808 46.051 45.41 700.000 _ 15,19 -0.00-- 0.009778 0.9777990 0.6511 2 _250 _ ; ..0245356 41.63j 41.62 ! 12.000 i39 37 0.0000 0.015339.1 0.02045251' 0.5175 0 9.111 0.000 0.00T 0.0113799 0.02637953,41.58 4.-- 2.700 ." 0.0000 0.0153371 0.0204489 0.5565 281 _ 25.8 1 18781 0.000 __ C.0 _________

_____ _____2 601507 6 00 0 15.4780257 0.8795690 40.50 25:02! 35.000 32,35 0.36001 0.0112 01 .1 68 1 0.718 3 250,871 1 1 9.982 0.000 35.00 15.4518728 0.01858295 40.58 321 5.0008 0.0_6000 1374 0.006 79 0.565 34 260,150 10.351 35.000 35.001 0.3263558 0.7565168 25.021 24.701 20.00 35,33 0.3600 0.011722 0.09617951 0.71839982 35.000! 35.00 0.4798996 5.124428 25.168 24_701 74.000 ---, 0.36000 746 0.3566116

_- 0.6680 Pipe 1Reynolds~

Roughness No.I ____I 4.436E+06 0.00015 2 5.916E+06 0.00015!3 1.479E+07 0.003_5 1 1.479E+07 0.0031 5 1-479E+07

-.'0-;6 1.479E+07 0.003!8 8.444E+061 0.00015.1 9 8.444E+061 0.00015.10 5.895E+06!

o.oooislý-11 5.895E+06 0.00015 12 5.895E+06 0.00015 0 --13 I5,895E+06

0.0 00153Eo

14 5.895E+06 0.00015!15 5.927E +06 0.00015 D ---16 5.927E+06 0.00015!_ 5.927E+06 0.00015! 3 1 18 -5,927E+06, 0.000151 CD 8 19 ______~t~

0.003. C....1I1.419E+07 0.003..o 22__ 1.479E+07 0 I-os 23 1.479E+07 1 __ 0.003 25 9.862E+06

.....- 0 I26 i 9.862E+06i 01 27 ..8.444E+06 0.000151 28 9.680E+06 0.003 0 4 AFT Fathom 6.0 Output (4 of 5) 5/19/2005 Sargent & Lundy LLC AFT Fathom Model S Pipe Reynolds No.29 9.680E+06 30 1.004E+07 31 {1.004E+07 32 3.088E-+C 33. 1 2.978E+06 34 , 0.88E+06 35 1 2.978E+06 Roughness i 0.003-0.0031 0.003 0.00015 0.00015 0.0018 0.0018 All Junction Table Name P Static P Static In Out____ _____ sa si~a iCooling Tower Basin 14.70 22.89 2 -1 5 Operational CW Pumps in Parallel 23.18 61.64 3 1 Branch 61.40 61.15 4 Bend 60.64 60.52 5 Bend 60.01 59.89 6 ___Bend 59.38 59.25 8 _____Tee or Wye 58.85 58.85 9 S end 56.95 56.84 10 Tee orWye 56.85 W6.8 I1 Bend 56.12 56.01 12 138 Condenser

.55.80 46.98 13 1__ Bend --46.76 46.6t 14ý S end 46.63 46.5:.15 Tee or Wye 46.07 46.0 1-6 Bend 56.10 56.01 17 ____ 13A Condenser~

55.78 46.81 18, Bend 46,63 _ 6.9 ...... Tee end_ " 44.81 -44.85 21 1Bendj 44.15[ 44.0 SVol. Flow Rate Thru Jct I (oal/min)Mass Flow Rate Thru Jct Loss Factor (K)Elevation Inlet ffeet)Pipes (+ =In, -= Outfl libm'-an'I i 511,020-_11,020 511,020_I .511.020 i 511.020 70,728 70,728 70,728 0.00001 2b.06 0_ _.0.00001 o.oo 0.0000 0.1800 0.1800 0.00 0.o00o L 2,-3 3-4 4.-6 511.020o 70.728 0.1800 0.00 5-6 N/A N/Al 1 170,2191 23,5591 541 N/A! N/A 11 84,883 _ _ 11,748'61- 84.8831 11,748 31 84,8831 11,748 See Losses ----~n.nn 6..-s See I osses 000 6-26-0.1680 See Losses 0.1680 0.00 0.00 0.00[ 8,-9.10,-11, 14.1924 0.1680 0.00 0.00 11,A12 13,14 0.1680 0.00----------

t--7N/A -N/A'6 85,336 11,811 31 85,336 -i 8----__3~02/A 70,AA 3i 511,020 -70,7281 See Losses 0.1680 14.1924 0.1680 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00_14,18.-27 157-16 16,-17 1---,-1 8 0a 3 t:3 22bendl 43.5L21 i39 511,0201 __TO7gq2-~~~ B~end 1 42.881 42.761 iLo -7078ýL6 Return from condenser Sections 11I & 121 4531 43 340,801 ~ 47,169]27 1 -- onesrScin11&2 59 05' 5.051 340,801 47,1691-.-.-..---.-.-

Assigned Pressure~

40 47 250 871 34722, See Losses 6-00 -%52 0.1800 0.00 -19,-21 0e1800 0.00 _ -22 0-- .1800 0:00 __ 2-23 0.0000! 0.00 -251 0.0000: 0.J 2 0.0000 -35,001 .. 35...................-

..1 AFT Fathom 6.0 Output (5 of 5) 5/19/2005 Sargent & Lundy LLC AFT Fathom Model Jct Name P Static P Static Vol. Flow -Mass Flow '-Loss Elevation Pipes in Out RateThru Jct Rate Thru Jct Factor (K) Inlet Branch 40.66j 40,50 i 2605 36,006 0.0000 0.001 31,-321 33., Assigned Pressure 24.70 24.70 260J50L 36,006 0.0000 35.00 34 34___ Branch 40.78 40.631 250 87jj 34 722 _ 0.0000 0.00 29,-33 3Branch 25.02 25.02 260,150 36,006 0.0000 35.00 32,-34 36 ____P___ ___ ranch 25.18 25.181 250,871 _ 34,722 _ 0.0000 35.00 33-35___ Bend, 41.62 41.54 1 250,871 34,722 0.60 .0 282________Bend

-_41.57 41.48' 260,150 36,006 0.1680, 0.00, 30-31 3_9 __ Te oW We 42.31 42.31 NIAj N/A _See Losses 0.001 2823 Junction Loss Table Jct Pipe Pipe Loss Factor(K)# Dir.P6 In ______ 006 P26 Out 0.09979 P8 Out 1.771-10-P5 Out 1.140 SP10 Out 1.149 P9 in000 I15 1`4 In 0.6800,--P IB In 0.64 oK3-P_27 Out 0000 1-47 19 P 19 Out 0.000 =P25 In 0.9114CDD!P7 In 1.115 C 3 P30 Out 1.349 P2- Out' 1.426 W7 P23 In060.000 0 I G-91"4:ý1A GEA Power Cooling, Inc.143 Union Blvd., Suite 400 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Telephone:

(303) 987-0123 Facsimile:

(303) 987-0101 COOLING TOWER PROPOSAL

SUMMARY

& SCOPE OF SUPPLY Sargent & Lundy -Salem Harbor Project GEA PROPOSAL NO: 1104 Rev. I DESIGN CONDITIONS (EACH UNIT)CIRCULATING WATER FLOW, GPM HOT WATER TEMP, F COLD WATER TEMP, FINLET WET BULB TEMP, FFAN MOTOR OUTPUT POWER PER FAN, BlIP TOTAL FAN MOTOR OUTPUT POWER, BHIP PUMP HEAD FROM BASIN CURB, FT DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION (EACH UNIT)TYPE OF TOWER NUMBER OF CELLS CELL ARRANGEMENT CELL DIMENSIONS (LxWxH), FT OVERALL TOWER DIMENSIONS BASIN INSIDE DIMENSIONS FAN DIAMETER, FT FAN STACK HEIGHT, FT 8 April 2005 511,000 104.4 90.0 76.0 230.0 5,520 29.0 COUNTERFLOW 24 INLINE 54.0 x 54.0 x 39.0 1,296i0 x 54.0 x 49.0 1,298.0 x 60.0 x 4.0 32.8 10.0 FIBERGLASS SILICON BRONZE I SPEED/ 1800'RPM NF-20 SPLASH DOWNSPRAYMATERIAL

SUMMARY

STRUCTURE HARDWARE MOTOR FILL TYPE DISTRIBUTION TYPE COMMERCIAL

SUMMARY

(TWO UNITS)MATERIAL PRICE FREIGHT TO JOBSITE INSTALLATION LABOR (UNION)TOTAL PRICE$15,000,000

$1,000,000

$10,000,000

$26,000,000Freight Terms:

FOB Jobsite Optional Items: None All terms and conditions to be mutually agreed. Taxes and duties not included.Salem CWiS Alternate Intakes MD Tower Report 1 1.050-360-MD Atta c h men t e (5.of Salem CWIS Alternate Intakes.MD Tower Report 11050-360-MD Attachment 7 Pagej]of.J-GEA Power Cooling, Inc.Energy Technology Division COUNTERFLOW TOWER DIMENSIONSJob Name: Proposal Number: Model Number: Number of Cells: Salem Nuclear Station 1104 545439-241-33-FCS Revision: Date: 0 2/21/2005 12:52 PM 24 Item Cell Length: Cell Width: Tower Length: Tower Width: Fan Deck Height:

Fan Stack Height: Air Inlet Height: Overall Tower Height:Fan Diameter:

Transverse Basin Extension:

Longitudinal Basin Extension:

Distribution Inlet Diameter: Drawing AP-006 Reference Symbol English.B 54 ft J 54ff C 1296 ft K 54 ft F 39 ft E 10ft H 14ft G 23 ftL " 1t D 32.8 ft 1 3 ft A 1.ft M 36 in 4/8120059:13 AM Page 1 of 1 Form AP-006 TOWER LOCATION CASING-"-, INLET TRANSVERSE ELEVATION....WOO OR, F1BERGALSS STRUCTURE COUNTER FLOW DESIGN TOWER GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 8 -MD Tower -Analysis of Permitting Requirements Environmental and Planning Consultants 100 Centre BoulevardNorth Marlton Crossing, Suite 106J Marlton, New Jersey 08053 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM GENERATING STATION'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE PREPARED FOR PSEG SERVICES CORPORATION PREPARED BY AKRF, INC.December 6, 2005 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction

...............................................................................................

I I1. Natural Draft Cooling Towers ................................................................

2 A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternative

.....................................................

2 1. Assumptions

......................................................................................

2 2. Applicable Regulatory Programs .......................................................

3 a .A ir q u a lity ...................................................................................... ..3 b. Discharges to Surface W ater and CW ISs ......................................

7 c. Activities in W etlands, W aterways, or Coastal Zones ..................

11 d. Local Approvals

.............................................................................

13 e. Other Approvals

............................................................................

15 B. Regulatory Feasibility

...........................................................................

16 C. Regulatory Schedule ...........................................................................

17 D. Regulatory Costs ..................................................................................

18 Ill. Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower

......................................................

19 A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternatives

.................................................

19 1. Assumptions

....................................................................................

19 2. Applicable Regulatory Programs .....................................................

20 a .A ir q u a lity ........... " ..............

...... ...............

........ ...... ...... ..... ..2 0 b. Discharges to Surface W ater and CW ISs ....................................

25 c. Activities in W etlands, W aterways, or Coastal Zones .......................

29 d. Local Approvals

...........................................................................

32 e. Other Approvals

................................................................................

33 B. Regulatory Feasibility

...........................................................................

34 C. Regulatory Schedule ...........................................................................

35 D. Regulatory Costs ..................................................................................

36 IV. W edgewire Screen Modification

........................................................

37 A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternatives

.................................................

37 1. Assumptions

....................................................................................

37 2. Applicable Regulatory Programs .....................................................

38 a .A ir q u a lity .................................................................................... ..3 8 b. Discharges to Surface W ater and CW ISs ....................................

38 c. Activities in W etlands, 'W aterways, or Coastal Zones ..................

42 d. Local Approvals

...........................................................................

45 e. Other Approvals

...........................................................................

46 B. Regulatory Feasibility

...........................................................................

47 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.C .R egulatory S chedule ........................................................................ ..48 D .R egulatory C osts ............................................................................... ..49 V. Dual Flow Fine Mesh Screen Modification

..........................................

50A .Regulatory Evaluation of Alterntive

........................................

.................

50 1. A ssum ptio ns ................................................................................... ..50 2. .Applicable Regulatory Program s .....................................................

51 a .A ir q u a lity ..........................................................................................

5 1 b. Discharges to Surface Water and CWISs .....................................

51 c. Activities in Wetlands, Waterways, or Coastal Zones ...................

56 d .Local A pprovals ........................................................................... ..58 e. O ther A pprovals ........................................................................ ..59B .R egulatory Feasibility

.......................................................................

..60 C .R egulatory Schedule .........................................................................

61 D .R egulatory C osts ............................................................................... ..62 References

....................................................................................................

63 TABLES Table 1 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Natural Draft Cooling Tower Modifications Table 2 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Modifications Table 3 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Wedgewire Screen Modifications Table 4 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Dual Flow Fine Mesh Screen Modifications ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Evaluation of Air Quality Permitting Requirements and Potential Obstacles for Retrofit of Closed-Cycle Cooling ii SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.I. INTRODUCTION PSEG Nuclear LLC ("PSEG") has requested that AKRF, Inc. ("AKRF") evaluate the permitting requirements, schedule implications, and permitting cost considerations ifPSEG were to make certain modifications to the once-through cooling water system ("OTCWS")

and/or the cooling water intake structure

("CWIS") at its Salem GeneratingStation ("Salem" or the "Station").

The options being considered as modifications include: (1) retrofitting Salem's existing OTCWS to operate as a closed cycle cooling system with natural draft cooling towers; (2) retrofitting Salem's existing OTCWS to operate with a closed cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers; (3)modifying Salem's existing on-shore CWIS to operate with wedgewire screens; and (4)modifying Salem's existing on-shore CWIS to operate with a dual-flow entry screen system equipped with fine mesh screen panels. This report addresses permits or approvals promulgated and/or implemented by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

("NJDEP")

through its Title V program, New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NJPDES")

program, Treatment Works Approval

("TWA") process, Land Use Regulation Program ("LURP") program including Waterfront Development, Coastal Wetland, Coastal Area Facilities Review Act ("CAFRA"), Freshwater Wetlands, and Tidelands; the United States Army Corps of Engineers

("USACOE")

through its Section 404 and Section 10 Programs, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"); the Salem County Soil Conservation District; the Delaware River Basin Commission

("DRBC"), the Federal Aviation Administration; and Lower Alloways Creek Township local approvals.

Salem currently operates pursuant to various environmental permits or approvals including an NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), DRBC dockets, and air permits issued under Subchapter 22 of the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Regulations (N.J.A.C.7:27-22). Implementation of any of the four modifications could require modifications to these existing operating permits.

The construction or installation of these modifications would also trigger the need for a variety of other permits.This report provides a summary of the assumptions AKRF made with respect to the activities that affect permitting for each of the modifications.

It describes each modification in the context of the relative regulatory programs, the schedule implicationsand, any special concerns or studies, beyond those already contemplated or in progress by PSEG, that may be required by the given regulatory program.

A summary of each modification is provided that discusses the potential obstacles and costs to obtain the referenced permits.1 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.II. NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternative

1. Assumptions AKRF's analysis of the natural draft cooling tower modification is based upon the following assumptions including an the analysis of construction from the Sargent &Lundy report (S&L 2005a).* PSEG would install two natural draft cooling towers that would be similar in size and design to the natural draft cooling tower presently operating at PSEG's Hope Creek Generating Station, as described in the S&L report;* In order to assess potential regulatory implications, preliminary dispersion modeling is required.

Modeling assumed: 1. Natural draft cooling towers would be similar in size and operating conditions to the Hope Creek natural draft cooling tower. The existing Hope Creek cooling tower is very similar to a conceptual design of the* natural draft retrofit alternative for Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 performed by Sargent & Lundy;2. Emissions are conservatively estimated using information from the Hope Creek Generating permitting process;* PSEG would need to construct:

two cooling tower basins; some structure(s) or building(s) for mechanical components (e.g., pumps, electrical equipment) and treatment systems (e.g., chlorination and/or de-chlorination systems, sodium hypochlorite and caustic ammonium bisulfite treatment, and NJPDES-required monitoring equipment);

• PSEG would be required to install new piping for transporting the re-circulating cooling water between the condensers and the towers, for make-up water and for the discharge of cooling tower blowdown;* PSEG would be required to site the cooling towers beyond the existing security fence;" PSEG would be required to modify the existing CWIS (by replacing some of the pumps and piping) to accommodate the substantially reduced intake withdrawals;" PSEG would be required to install two new discharge pipes to accommodate blowdown from the towers. The six existing discharge pipes required for the existing once through cooling system would remain as discharge for service water;

• The site layout would be based on the site plan from the S&Lreport (Attachment 1, Figure 1); and 0 2 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.The analysis in this evaluation is limited to the facility location and operation, and does not include potential construction permits (e.g., batch plant, diesel construction equipment).

A depiction of the conceptual layout for the natural draft cooling towers is provided in Attachment 1 of the S&L report.2. Applicable Regulatory Programs

a. Air quality 1. Title V (a). Regulatory Evaluation The Salem-Hope Creek Facility is currently operating under an approved Title V Operating Permit 1.N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24 requires that the construction or installation of any new significant source operation shall be made as a significant modification if a source is, among other things, subject to PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52. Because the retrofit project will be subject to PSD regulations, a Title V Operating Permit Significant Modification would be required.N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 (Subchapter

18) applies, in part, to major facilities or major modifications which will cause a "significant net emission increase" in a non-attainment area (or that will significantly impact a non-attainment area, N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.2(b).

A significant net emission increase occurs when facility-wide emission increases during the "contemporaneous period" (time period between five years prior to initiation of construction and initial source operation) exceed the significant net emission increase thresholds (N.J.A.C.

7:27-18.2(c)).

Facilities which exceed a significant net emission increase threshold for a non-attainment pollutant are required to demonstrate LowestAchievable Emission Rate (LAER), and must include an emission offset plan and an air quality impact analysis to demonstrate compliance with the regulation for the non-attainment pollutant (N.J.A.C.

7:27-18.3).

The Salem-Hope Creek facility is a major facility and the retrofit project would cause a significant net emissions increase of total suspended particulates

("TSP"), PM10 and PM 2.5.2 As a result, Subchapter 18 requirements would apply to the project if the facility 1 The Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations are considered to be a single source under EPA and NJDEP air permitting regulations.

2 The PSD significance thresholds are 25 tons per year (tpy) for total suspended particulates and 15 tpy for PM10.Both cooling tower designs would have annual particulate emissions exceeding 25 tpy.Therefore, both designs would be subject to PSD review.3 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.is located in a TSP, PM10 or PM 2.5 non-attainment area or if the retrofit project significantly impacts a non-attainment area. The facility is located in Salem County which is currently designated as attainment for TSP, PM10 and PM 2.5 , but it is located only about 2100 meters from the border of New Castle County, Delaware.

New Castle County is a PM 2.5 non-attainment area. Therefore, there is the potential that PM 2.5 impacts from the retrofit project may significantly impact a non-attainment area.Preliminary modeling of the natural draft tower design shows all predicted impacts below the PM 2.5 air quality impact significance levels and, as a result, the natural draft retrofit design would not be subject to Subchapter 18 non-attainment requirements.

In addition, N.J.A.C. 7:27-6 limits particulate emissions from source operations associated with manufacturing processes as defined at N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.1.

Per N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.2(a) the maximum allowable particulate emission rates for an affected source are determined based upon a maximum particulate concentration of 0.02 grains ("gr") per standard cubic foot ("scf') in the source exhaust flow. N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.2(a) limits the maximum allowable particulate emission rate to 30.0 lbs/hr because the gas flow is greater than 175,000 standard cubic feet per minute ("scfm").

Recognizing that technology limitations could prevent compliance with the requirements of N.J.A.C.

7:27-6.2(a), the Department included provisions for variances which are found in N.J.A.C.7:27-6.5.

However, the variance provisions in N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.5, were*expressly rejected by EPA when EPA approved Subchapter 6 as part of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP). Therefore, NJDEP believes it is not possible to issue such a variance.In April 2004 PSEG requested that NJDEP revise Subchapter 6 to allow PM emission rates above 30 lb/hr for the Hope Creek cooling tower, which may periodically result from the Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate ("EPU") project. The changes to Subchapter 6 have not as of this date been proposed and it is unclear when, or if, NJDEP will amend the regulations.

Although EPA must approve the revised Subchapter 6 as a SIP change, NJDEP believes that they can issue permits under the revised Subchapter 6 after its adoption on a state level.If the Subchapter 6 revisions are adopted before any air permitting work begins on the retrofit project, then the current Subchapter 6 limitations are not expected to affect the permitting of the retrofit project. If Subchapter 6 is not revised, then particulate emissions from each cooling tower would be limited to 30 lb/hr. This limit on particulate matter emissions is impractical for the presumed cooling tower design and operational characteristics because of periodic naturally-occurring meteorological and river flow conditions that can yield high circulating water system TDS concentrations.

Given currently available technology, the exceedance would preclude the use of natural draft cooling towers, absent a change in the applicable regulations or a modification to the design of the cooling tower.4 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.Two future regulatory initiatives through a 5-year horizon (2010) have been identified which could affect the permitting of the natural draft cooling systems. These are implementation of the ambient air quality standard for PM 2.5 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) statutory review of the particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).EPA announced a proposed PM 2.5 Implementation Rule ("Implementation Rule") in September 2005. The Implementation Rule is anticipated to be finalized in the Fall of 2006. This rule will affect the nonattainment New Source Review and PSD treatment of PM 2.5 and thus could affect the permitting of the closed-cycle systems. EPA has not released sufficient information in the Implementation Rule to determine the precise effect on the hypothetical cooling tower retrofit.EPA's review of the particulate NAAQS may result in a change to the particulate standards toward even greater stringency.

However, if EPA promulgates revised PM standards in September 2006 (under a court ordered deadline), it is likely that new source review requirements for the revised standards will not become effective before 2010.(b) Schedule Considerations The installation of natural draft cooling towers will require a major modification to the existing Salem-Hope Creek Title V permit and a PSD permit. In New Jersey the application to modify the Title V permit also acts as the application for a PSD permit;therefore, only a single application would need to be prepared and submitted to the NJDEP. Both the major modification to the Title V permit and the PSD permit are considered "pre-construction" permits which means that the project could not commence any project-related construction activities prior to both the Title V modification and the PSD permit receiving final approval.

Prior to final approval, the modification to the Title V permit will be subject to a mandatory 45 day review period-for EPA Region I1. EPA Region II will also have the opportunity to review and comment on the supporting dispersion modeling analysis prior to final approval by NJDEP.The natural draft tower design would most likely have insignificant impacts and would not be required to perform a multi-source modeling analysis.

The permitting time frame for the Title V process is expected to take 11 months.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns An assessment of ambient air quality impacts from construction activities related to the retrofit project will most likely be required as part of the environmental impact statement for the project. Because the large site affords a significant buffer between the activities and the fence-line, the ambient impacts from the construction activities are not expected 5 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.to cause or contribute to any exceedance of applicable standards.

Given the site layout, it is likely that this aspect of the permit application can be handled qualitatively.

It has been demonstrated that particulate emissions from the existing Hope Creek tower do not cause significant impacts for particulates in either short-term or annual averaging periods. This study shows a maximum ground level short-term (24-hour average)impact of 0.25 pg/m 3 and a maximum annual average impact of 0.004 pg/m 3.These levels are sufficiently low that even if two additional similar towers were added to the site for the Salem generating stations, significant impacts for particulate matter would not occur. This is an important conclusion in that it:* Eliminates the need for a multi-source modeling analysis including other Salem and Hope Creek sources (combustion turbines, emergency diesels, auxiliary boilers, etc.) thereby reducing the permitting risk to non-project equipment and operations;" Eliminates any possibility of significant impacts in the nearby non-attainment area (New Castle County, Delaware);

• Reduces the permitting costs; and,* Improves the permitting schedule Fogging and/or icing can occur when the condensed plume from the cooling tower is transported/diffused down to ground level. The natural draft tower design will have only a very small potential of producing a plume which could be carried intact to ground level since the exit height will be over 500 feet above grade elevation.

The natural draft tower design would not be expected to have any significant icing or fogging impacts and would probably escape the NJDEP impact modeling requirement.

The particulate emissions from the proposed Salem cooling towers will mainly consist of salt particles contained in the cooling tower drift emissions. The deposition of these salt particles in the surrounding area will need to be evaluated for its potential effects on soils and plants in the area. The natural draft tower design for Salem, with its elevated release height of over 500 feet, would be expected to have very limited deposition impacts within the surrounding area.NJDEP's Title V public comment requirements

[7:27-22.11(k)]

dictate that, beforepublishing notice of a draft operating permit that includes a significant modification, NJDEP must also give notice to the head of the designated air pollution control agency of any "affected state." An affected state is any state contiguous to New Jersey or is located within 50 miles of the facility which is the subject of the permit [7:27-22.1].

In the case of the Salem-Hope Creek Facility the affected states are Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

6 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.b. Discharges to Surface Water and CWISs 1. NJPDES (a) ReQulatory Evaluation o PSEG expects to demonstrate that the blowdown from Salem will be essentially similar in nature to the cooling tower blowdown effluent stream from Hope Creek.The Hope Creek effluent stream currently meets applicable effluent standards.

• PSEG would be required to request a determination that any new or modified discharge is consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP Determination")

3 since it must submit proof with its Application that PSEG received, or requested, a WQMP Determination (N.J.A.C.

7:14A-4.3(a)12.).

• In the event that any of the non-thermal pollutants present in the effluent stream were to exceed applicable surface water quality standards or any water-quality based effluent limitation that may be established, PSEG would be required to install additional treatment technologies to achieve compliance or seek a variance as identified at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-11.7 and the provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8 or 1.9.Based on the operation of the Hope Creek facility, exceedance of the standards fromnon-thermal pollutants is not anticipated.

• Since heat is a regulated pollutant, PSEG would need to assess whether the thermal plume associated with the cooling tower blowdown ("CTB") would be in compliance with the DRBC's 4 thermal SWQS.

If the plume were not in compliance, PSEG would be required to request a variance pursuant to §316(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-11.7(a)(2). The §316(a) Demonstration would require that PSEG provide a description of the thermal plume and an assessment of the impacts of the thermal plume on the aquatic biota of the Delaware Estuary. This assessment would also consider the synergistic effect of heat on other pollutants present in the thermal plume.PSEG has successfully demonstrated that the thermal discharge from Salem's discharge is consistent with the maintenance and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of fish, shellfish and wildlife in and on the Estuary, the standard for granting a variance under §316(a). It is expected that PSEG would be able to meet the thermal water quality standards for the CTB discharge and no §316(a) variance would be required.

The Hope Creek facility meets the thermal water quality standard; the thermal 3 N.J.A.C. 7:15-3.1(b) prohibits the NJDEP's Division of Water Quality from issuing any permit for a new discharge before a formal consistency determination has been made.4 The DRBC developed SWQS (including SWQS for heat and temperature) for the Delaware, which NJDEP has incorporated by reference into its SWQS.7 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.plume from the Salem facility would be similar to that from the Hope Creek facility; and the two discharge points for the CTB would be far enough apart to avoid an additive impact (based on a preliminary analysis of the S&L 2005a).(b) Schedule Considerations NJDEP must determine whether an application is administratively complete within 30 days of receiving an application; however, there are no regulatory time limits on when NJDEP must act to issue a draft or final permit. Once a draft permit is issued, NJDEP is required to provide USEPA Region II and other interested agencies with a copy of the draft permit documents and to provide a 30-day period for public review and comment.At the end of the comment period, NJDEP must then prepare a final permit and a response to comments document.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns No special studies should be necessary to obtain the data required to submit a permit application.

Existing data should suffice to support a permit application.

2. §316(b) Regulations (a) Regulatory Evaluation Pursuant to EPA's recently-adopted NPDES Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities

("Phase II Rules"), PSEG would be deemed in compliance with §316(b) if it were to install closed cycle cooling. PSEG would only be required to comply with the provisions of§122.21(r), which requires permittees to provide supplemental information about the cooling water intake structure, the source water body, and the cooling system. PSEG would not be required to prepare and submit a comprehensive demonstration study required pursuant to 40 CFR §125.95(b) and would not be required to complete any verification monitoring.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no significant schedule concerns or obstacles for §316(b) permit related activities associated with natural draft cooling towers., (c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no special studies or concerns relative to §316(b) permit related activities associated with natural draft cooling towers.8 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS ,OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S'COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.3. Treatment Works Approval ("TWA")(a) Regulatory Evaluation PSEG would be required to obtain treatment works approvals for the cooling towers andany new treatment systems required to treat the cooling tower blowdown prior to discharge pursuant to the TWA regulations at N.J.A.C 7:14A-22 and potentially Technical Requirements for TWA Applications at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-23.(b) Schedule Considerations A valid NJPDES permit for the discharge is a prerequisite to applying for a General Industrial TWA, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22.6(d).

This has implications with respect to the timing of the NJPDES application, which is required to be submitted at least 180 days in advance of the proposed date of discharge.

PSEG would have to obtain permit approval from NJDEP to insure the issuance of a TWA corresponded with the issuance of an NJPDES permit.Per N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22.5(I), the submittal requirements for a General Industrial TWA are administrative in nature. Within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application, NJDEP will either issue the General Industrial TWA or notify the applicant that an individual TWA will be required (due to a potentially significant health risk, environmental impact, 0 or past facility performance).

5 (c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The factors considered in making a determination for TWA approval are the potential fora significant health risk or environmental impact, or past performance of the facility.Currently available data suggest that there should be no impediment to obtaining a TWA for a closed cycle cooling system.4. DRBC (a) Regqulatory EvaluationThe DRBC's Rules of Practice and Procedure

("DRBC Rules") require that activities that have or may have a substantial effect upon the Delaware River Basin must comply withthe "Project Review" procedures in Article 3 of the DRBC's Rules to determine that the Project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan ("CP"). Upon approval, DRBC' According to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22.4(b)3(ii), a treatment works approval or general industrial treatment works approval is not required for "cooling towers for non-contact water/heat exchange units and necessary associated appurtenances." However, NJDEP has not allowed the adjacent Hope Creek cooling tower to operate without the TWA. A specific determination of the TWA requirement for Salem should be presented to NJDEP for consideration.

9 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.issues dockets that authorize a proposed project in the DRBC's CP. PSEG has a Docket for Salem that authorizes the Station to operate with its current OTCWS and CWIS. Any substantial modifications to the OTCWS or CWIS or a change in the consumptive water use at the Station would require that an application for a Project Change be filed with the DRBC.(b) Schedule Considerations Under the Administrative Agreement between the DRBC and the NJDEP, the NJDEP will act first on all issues addressed under the NJDEP's NJPDES program. Subsequent to the NJDEP's issuing a final permit, the DRBC will act on PSEG's request for a modification to the Salem Docket. NJDEP is to receive all applications for review and approval of a reviewable project, provide a technical review, and then notify DRBC of such applications.

The DRBC Executive Director will then make a determination of"substantiality" under the DRBC regulations and requires further action. Although the DRBC's Rules contemplate that NJDEP could simply refer the matter to the DRBC pursuant to the Administrative Agreement between NJDEP' and DRBC, DRBC has always required PSEG to file a separate application.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The DRBC's regulations do not include a provision analogous to the §316(a) variance provision in the NJPDES program. If the thermal discharge from natural cooling tower modifications is not in conformance with the DRBC's thermal surface water quality standard, PSEG's application must include a demonstration that the thermal discharge does not interfere with the designated uses for Zone 5 of the Delaware (Sections 3.10.2, 3.10.3B, 4.30.6.G, and 5.10.3 of the DRBC Water Quality Regulations).

Based on the operating conditions at the Hope Creek facility and given the comparable design for the Salem facility (as shown in. S&L 2005a), it is highly likely that PSEG would meet the DRBC, and consequently the NJDEP, thermal water quality standards for the cooling tower blowdown discharge.

For the most part, additional studies are not required; the information used in to support the NJPDES Permit Application can be utilized to comply with the DRBC's regulatory structure.

Some additional depictions of the thermal discharge may be required since DRBC has previously required that PSEG provide dimensions for the thermal mixing zone in both summer and non-summer periods.5. Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities (a) Regulatory Evaluation Construction activities that disturb five or more acres of land must apply for General NJPDES Discharge to Surface Water ("DSW') Permit No. NJ0088323 for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities.

Based on the S&L conceptual plans 10 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(S&L 2005a), construction activities for natural draft cooling towers would disturb more Hthan five acres. General NJPDES DSW Permit NJ0088323 is issued by the local Soil Conservation District when a soil erosion and sediment control certification is obtained.(b) Schedule Considerations Applicants must submit a Request for Authorization Form to the Salem County Soil Conservation District at least thirty (30) days before any land disturbance activities begin.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns No special studies are required and there are no identifiable obstacles to obtaining this permit.c. Activities in Wetlands, Waterways, or Coastal Zones 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 permits (a) Regulatory Evaluation The USACOE Section 404 Permit regulates discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. Based on the conceptual layout in the S&L report and wetland delineations provided by PSEG for the Salem and Hope Creek generating sites (July 30, 2004), the discharge pipes for the blowdown lines would cross a small (less than three-acre) area of wetlands adjacent to the Delaware River and within Section 404 jurisdiction.

The area of direct'impact would be less than 0.1 acre. Because the majority of the site is within 1,000 feet of a tidal water body, the USACOE regulates any wetland (i.e. tidal or freshwater) within that zone. Therefore, a Section 404 permit from the USACOE would be required.The USACOE Section 10 Permit regulates work (e.g., construction, excavation, dredging) in or over navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands.

A Section 10 permit from the USACOE would be required for the two new discharge pipes because they would be installed below the mean high water mark.(b) Schedule Considerations The estimated time frame for obtaining a Section 10/Section 404 permit is approximately 16 months. Normally, the time frame for obtaining SectionlO/Section 404 permits ranges from 3 -6 months. Given the need for authorization of a new/revised NJPDES and the other permit considerations associated with a modification to a closed water cooling system, the permitting time frame has been expanded to 16 months.11 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns As part of prior regulatory compliance activities, freshwater wetlands have been delineated throughout the site (PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations, Municipal Site Plan, July 2004). The estimated impact to freshwater wetlands would likely qualify for a Nationwide Permit in the absence of other USACOE permitting requirements.

However, it is likely that the USACOE would process the Section 404 and Section 10 permits together as an individual permit. Mitigation for the impact tofreshwater wetlands would be required.Any special studies that may be required for the ACOE Section 10 permitting effort will be covered by the evaluation of the proposed discharge for the NJPDES permit.No, decommissioning of the existing outfalls or intake structures is anticipated.

Therefore, no permits or special studies related to decommissioning would be required.2. NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program Permits ("LURP")(a) Regulatory Evaluation There are four distinct LURP regulatory programs that may have jurisdiction over the construction of natural draft cooling towers including CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Freshwater Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands.

Given that each of these permits is managed by the same program within NJDEP, the applicant can apply for the needed regulatory approvals as part of one permit application.

The Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands regulatory elements are similar to the description provided under the Section 404 discussion above.

Construction of natural draft cooling towers will require a CAFRA permit because Salem falls within the statutorily-defined boundaries of CAFRA's jurisdiction.

The CAFRA permit will require an accompanying Compliance Statement and supporting documentation, most of which will be available from other regulatory initiatives related to air permitting and NJPDES support documentation.

Similar to USACOE Section 10 permitting requirements, any work completed below the mean high water line will require a Waterfront Development Permit. Specifically improvements to the CWIS and any needed discharge pipes will be subject to Waterfront Development compliance.

As part of the Waterfront Development requirements, PSEG will be required to demonstrate that a Tidelands approval (in the form of a license, grant, lease or other acceptable contract) be in place for the area in which the Waterfront Development permit is applicable.

PSEG currently has a Tidelands approval for areas of the waterfront.

The engineering improvements would have to be 12 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.evaluated in the context of the existing Tidelands approval to determine whether the affected areas are within the contract area.Given the level of design detail available at this point, it is unclear whether modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be required.

Based on the S&L plans (S&L2005a), it is assumed that any required modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be covered by a license rather than a grant. A grant requires that a deed be signed by the governor, and requires significantly more time to obtain than a license.(b) Schedule Considerations As noted, CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Freshwater Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands permits can be processed and issued concurrently.

The approval process is dictated by the 90 Day Construction guidelines found at NJAC 7:1C. Typically, the process from submittal to completion should take from six to nine months. The time frame can vary depending upon the complexity of the project and the public interest in the project.(c) Special Studies and/or ConcernsMany of the special studies (e.g., threatened and endangered species and historical and archeological resources) typically required for LURP related permits will have been completed as part of other permitting requirements, e.g. air quality impacts and wastewater discharge. Accordingly, no additional special studies are anticipated as part of the LURP process.d. Local Approvals 1. Lower Alloways Creek Zoning Board Approval (a) Re-gulatory EvaluationSite plan approval will be required for the construction of natural draft cooling towers.Because a height variance request would be required to exceed the current limit of 45 feet, the project will be heard before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

The Zoning Board approval requires 5 endorsements from the board, regardless of the number of members of the board (the full board is comprised of 7 voting members) that are present at the meeting. The Zoning Board of Adjustment approval can be difficult to obtain because of the number of affirmative votes required.Public notice is required as part of the submission process. The site plan approval conducted through the Zoning Board of Adjustment process requires the submission of a site plan and appropriate documentation signed and sealed by a professional 13 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.engineer.

A public hearing is a required element of the review process. Members of the public are permitted to testify in support of and in opposition to the application.(b) Schedule Considerations The typical process for site plan approval takes approximately 30 -60 days from the time of submittal.

There are no approvals required from other regulatory bodies required prior to submittal to the Township.

Other approvals, particularly those issued by the NJDEP LURP and Soil Conservation District, will be required as conditions of any approval issued by the Township.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns It is unlikely that there will be any special studies required by the Township that have not been completed in other regulatory submittals.

Typically, professional studies are not needed, but a study (e.g.

lighting and shading impacts on adjacent properties, noise studies) could be requested if so desired by the Township, 2. Salem County Soil Conservation District (a) Regulatory Evaluation The Salem County Soil Conservation District ("SCD") is required to certify a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for any ground disturbance greater than 5,000 square feet.The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must meet the standards promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.).(b) Schedule Considerations The SCD is required to certify the plan within 30 days of submittal.

The critical path construction schedule will only be affected when significant changes to the plans are made immediately prior to construction, requiring re-certification by the District.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no special studies or concerns associated with Soil Conservation District Certification.

14 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE 0 AKRF, INC.e. Other Approvals 1. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"),l (a) Regulatory Evaluation All plans for structures at electrical generating stations and substations includingnuclear generating stations must be approved (including utilities, exterior/interior building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire protection, elevators and barrier free access) by the DCA (N.J.A.C.

5:23-3.11).

For purposes of this analysis, the cooling towers are considered to be "process equipment," and therefore exempt from DCA permit requirements.

However, the foundations and support building(s) would be reviewed by DCA.6 (b) Schedule Considerations PSEG can apply for a complete release to proceed if all plans, specifications and fees are presented to DCA with the original submission or a partial release to proceed if only components of the overall application are complete at the time of submission.

DCA will advise PSEG within 20 business days of receiving a complete application whether the Project Plans have been released or rejected.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns As long as appropriate engineering design is completed, DCA typically does not require special studies as long as an applicant submits a complete application.

Typically, DCA approval becomes a critical path schedule item as final engineering modifications are made as a result of other permit conditions or changes dictated by internal review. The schedule delays are readily resolvable by quality assurance procedures during the design phase of the project.2. FAA (a) Regulatory Evaluation Per Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, new construction requires that the FAA be notified if the structure is, among other things, (1) more than 200' tall or (2) is of a certain height and is within 20,000 feet of a public-use or military airport with at least one runway of more than 3,200 feet (14 CFR 77.13). Notification is made through Form 7460-1.6 The ultimate decision as to whether the cooling towers are "structures" for purposes of permitting rests with DCA.15 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.The FAA conducts an aeronautical study based on the information in the notice. If the FAA finds that the structure would not present a hazard to navigable airspace, the FAA issues a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.

The Determination can include conditions such as marking and lighting requirements (FAA Obstruction Evaluation/

Airport Airspace Analysis web site, www.oeaaa.faa.gov).

If the FAA finds that the structure exceeds obstruction standards and/or could result in a hazard to navigable airspace, the FAA issues a Determination of Presumed Hazard.Such a determination triggers changes in the structure design and/or public review and comment. Given that the Hope Creek natural draft cooling tower is already present nearby and that there are not any public-use or military airports in the vicinity, it is assumed that a Determination of No Hazard can be made.(b) Schedule Considerations Form 7460-1 must be filed with FAA a minimum of 30 days prior to the start of construction.

Once the Determination of No Hazard is made, the Applicant must submit Form 7460-2 at the start of construction.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns* Advisory Circular 70/7460-2K, Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects That May Affect the Navigable Airspace, provides information to persons proposing to erect oralter an object that may affect the navigable airspace.

Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 K, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, describes the standards for marking and lighting structures such as cooling towers.The requirements for FAA approval are slightly different from other permits that are required by this alternative.

Accordingly some new information may be required to support the permit application including but not limited to type of obstruction marking/lighting required (lighting/marking is required for all structures over 500'), relationship of structure to roads, airports, prominent terrain, existing structures, etc.B. Regulatory Feasibility The NJDEP is on record as supporting closed cycle cooling. Air quality regulations and local zoning and planning approvals are the critical regulatory factors associated with this alternative.

If the Subchapter 6 limit on hourly particulate emissions is not changed, potential exceedance of the limit would preclude the use of natural draft cooling towers as currently designed.

Preliminary studies conducted as part of this evaluation do not indicate any other significant air quality issues associated with this alternative.

The extent of regulatory requirements necessary to implement this alternative is significant.

It is probable that minor regulatory issues will arise during the permitting process.However, assuming the particulate emissions limit can be resolved, then, based on the 16 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.conceptual information available at this time to support this alternative, there does not appear to be any fatal flaw or significant obstacle to obtaining the necessary approvals.

C. Regulatory Schedule The Title V permitting, USACOE Section 404 permitting, and the NJDEP LURP permitting have the longest lead-times associated with the regulatory processes required prior to construction activity.

Given that final design may not be completed until the referenced regulatory processes are final, there will be a period of time after issuance of the Title V, USACOE, and LURP permits for securing construction permits from the Department of Community Affairs and any local construction permits that may be needed. All other permits can run concurrently with the Title V, USACOE, and LURP processes.

The estimated permitting process time from permit preparation to construction start is expected to be 16 to 18 months.17 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.D. Regulatory Costs Table 1 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Natural Draft Cooling Tower Modifications 7 Perm~it Regulatory Fees Support Schedule ,Year 1 Costs Year 2 Title V $50,000 $70,000 11 months $120,000 $0 NJPDES Fee at NJDEP $100,000 10 months $120,000 + $30,000 discretion; permit fees prep costs$50,000 316(b) Fee at NJDEP $100,000 10 months $120,000 + $30,000 discretion; permit fees prep costs$50,000 Treatment Works Fee at NJDEP $25,000 6 months $35,000 + $0 Approval discretion; permit fees prep costs$10,000 Stormwater Control $200.00 $0 2 months $200.00 $0 DRBC Fee per DRBC $2,000 6 months $4,500 $0 formula; permit prep costs $2,500 USACOE Section $25,000 $15,000 16 months $30,000 $10,000 10/404 NJ LURP $30,000 $40,000 16 months $60,000 $10,000 NJ Tidelands $5,000 $10,000 6 months $15,000 $0 Dept. of Community Fee % of $0 1 month $10,000 + $0 Affairs construction costs; Permit fees permit prep$10,000 Salem County SCD

$2,500 $0 2 months $2,500 $0 LAC Planning or $40,000 $20,000 5 months $60,000 $0 Zoning Board FAA $0 $5,000 2 months $5,000 $0 7 The fee schedule provided herein does not include engineering design costs and relate studies. Costs included herein are limited to special studies, environmental impact statements, compliance statements and other studies specifically required by the regulatory program. Because such costs can be a function of specific issues raised by both the regulator and public comment, cost estimates provided herein mayvary significantly depending upon the level of review by the respective regulatory agency.18 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.Ill. MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternatives

1. Assumptions AKRF's analysis of the mechanical draft cooling tower modification is based upon the following assumptions and based on the analysis of construction from the Sargent &Lundy report (S&L 2005b):* PSEG would install two mechanical draft cooling towers, housing 24 cells each, as described in the S&L report;* PSEG would also need to construct:

a system of pipes or conduits between the mechanical draft towers, some structure(s) or building(s) for mechanical components (e.g., pumps, electrical equipment) and treatment systems (e.g., chlorination and/or de-chlorination systems, sodium hypochlorite and caustic ammonium bisulfite treatment, and NJPDES-required monitoring equipment);

• PSEG would be required to install new piping for transporting the re-circulating cooling water between the condensers and the towers, for make-up water and for the discharge of cooling tower blowdown;* PSEG would be required to site the cooling towers beyond the existing security fence;" PSEG would be required to modify the existing CWIS (by replacing some of the pumps and piping) to accommodate the substantially reduced intake withdrawals;

• PSEG would be required to install two new discharge pipes to accommodate blowdown from the towers. The six existing pipes would remain as discharge forservice water;

• The site layout would be based on the site plan from the S&Lreport (Attachment 1, Figure 1); and* The analysis in this evaluation is limited to the facility location and operation, and does not include potential construction permits (e.g., batch plant, diesel construction equipment).

A depiction of the layout and other conceptual plans for the mechanical draft cooling towers is provided in Attachment 1 of the S&L report.19 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.2. Applicable Regulatory Programs

a. Air quality 1. Title V (a) Regulatory Evaluation The Salem-Hope Creek Facility is currently operating under an approved Title V Operating Permit.' N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24 requires that the construction or installation of any new significant source operation shall be made as a significant modification if a source is, among other things, subject to PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52. Because the retrofit project will be subject to PSD regulations, a Title V Operating Permit Significant Modification would be required.N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 (Subchapter

18) applies, in part, to major facilities or major modifications which will cause a "significant net emission increase" in a non-attainment area (or that will significantly impact a non-attainment area, N.J.A.C. 7:27-18.2(b)).

A significant net emission increase occurs when facility-wide emission increases during the "contemporaneous period" (time period between five years prior to initiation of construction and initial source operation) exceed the significant net emission increase thresholds (N.J.A.C.

7:27-18.2(c)).

Facilities which exceed a significant net emission increase threshold for a non-attainment pollutant are required to demonstrate Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and must include an emission offset plan and an air quality impact analysis to demonstrate compliance with the regulation for the non-attainment pollutant (N.J.A.C.

7:27-18.3).

The Salem-Hope Creek facility is a major facility and the retrofit project would cause a significant net emissions increase of total suspended particulates

("TSP"), PM10 and PM 2.5.9 As a result, Subchapter 18 requirements would apply to the project if the facility is located in a TSP, PM10 or PM 2.5 non-attainment area or if the retrofit project significantly impacts a non-attainment area. The facility is located in Salem County which is currently designated as attainment for TSP, PM 1 o and PM 2.5 , but it is located only about 2100 meters from the border of New Castle County, Delaware.

New Castle County is a PM 2.5 non-attainment area. Therefore, there is the potential that PM 2.5 impacts from the retrofit project may significantly impact a non-attainment area.8 The Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations are considered to be a single source under EPA and NJDEP air permitting regulations.

9 The PSD significance thresholds are 25 tons per year (tpy) for total suspended particulates and 15 tpy for PM10.Both cooling tower designs would have annual particulate emissions exceeding 25 tpy.BTherefore, both designs would be subject to PSD review.20 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.The preliminary modeling of the assumed mechanical draft tower design does show irrnpacts exceeding both the 24-hour and annual PM 2.5 air quality significant impact levels within the New Castle County non-attainment area and, as a result, the mechanical draft retrofit design would be subject to Subchapter 18 non-attainment requirements.

The two most significant aspects of the applicability of Subchapter 18 will be (1) the demonstration that the PM 2.5 control technology for the mechanical draft towers represents LAER and (2) acquiring emissions reductions (offsets) from other facilities within the non-attainment area.Any cooling tower retrofits installed at Salem presumably will be subject to N.J.A.C.7:27-6 as a "source operation" as defined under N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.1.

In addition, N.J.A.C.7:27-6.2(a) limits the maximum allowable particulate emission rate to 30.0 lbs/hr. This limit does not recognize technology limitations or source size that could prevent compliance with the Subchapter 6 requirement, and NJDEP previously made provision in the regulations for a variance mechanism.

However, the variance provision has been rejected by EPA and NJDEP believes that it is not possible to issue a variance.In April 2004, PSEG requested that NJDEP revise Subchapter 6 to allow PM emission rates above 30 lb/hr for the Hope Creek cooling tower; these higher rates may periodically result from the Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate ("EPU") project.NJDEP staff has indicated that the regulations would be amended. However, the changes to Subchapter 6 have not been proposed as of this date and it is unclear when, or if, NJDEP will amend the regulations.

Although EPA must approve the revised Subchapter 6 as a State Implementation Plan ("SIP") change, NJDEP believes that they can issue permits under the revised Subchapter 6 after its adoption on a state level.If the Subchapter 6 revisions are adopted before any air permitting work begins on the retrofit project, then the current Subchapter 6 limitations are not expected to affect the permitting of the retrofit project. If Subchapter 6 is not revised, then particulate emissions from each cooling tower would be limited to 30 lb/hr. This limit on particulate matter emissions is impractical for the presumed cooling tower design and operational characteristics because of periodic naturally-occurring meteorological and river flow conditions that can yield high circulating water system total dissolved solids ("TDS")concentrations.

Given currently available technology, the exceedance would preclude the use of mechanical draft cooling towers, absent a change in the applicable regulations or a redesign of the cooling towers.Two future regulatory initiatives through a 5-year horizon (2010) have been identified which could affect the permitting of the mechanical draft cooling systems. These are implementation of the ambient air quality standard for PM 2.5 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) statutory review of the particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).21 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.EPA announced a proposed PM 2.5 Implementation Rule (Implementation Rule) in September 2005. The Implementation Rule is anticipated to be finalized in the Fall of 2006. This rule will affect the nonattainment New Source Review and PSD treatment of PM 2.5 and thus could affect the permitting of the closed-cycle systems. EPA has not released sufficient information in the Implementation Rule to determine the precise effect on the hypothetical cooling tower retrofit.EPA's review of the particulate NAAQS may result in a change to the particulate standards toward even greater stringency.

However, if EPA promulgates revised PM standards in September 2006 (under a court ordered deadline), it is likely that new source review requirements for the revised standards will not become effective before 2010.(b) Schedule Considerations The mechanical draft tower design will produce significant impacts and would be required to perform a multi-source analysis.

The multi-source analysis would include modeling of other particulate sources within the Salem-Hope Creek facility as well as all other major particulate sources within 50-60 km of the facility.

The multi-source modeling analysis would add significant cost to the permitting as well as adding anadditional 4-6 months to the permitting schedule.

It is assumed, for cost and schedule purposes that the Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts ("SACTI")

model will need to be run as part of the refined modeling analysis for the mechanical draft scenario to assess fogging/icing potential.

The permitting time frame for the Title V process is expected to be approximately 17 months. Given the issues regarding particulates noted below, however, there would be a significant likelihood of rejection of the mechanical draft option.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns An assessment of ambient air quality impacts from construction activities related to the retrofit project will most likely be required as part of the environmental impact statement for the project. Because the large site affords a significant buffer between the activities and the fence-line, the ambient impacts from the construction activities are not expected to cause or contribute to any exceedance of applicable standards.

Given the site layout, it is likely that this aspect of the permit application can be handled qualitatively.

For particulate emissions, there are extensive areas where predicted impacts would exceed the 24-hour significance level of 2.2 pg/m 3.The full extent of this area is undefined in the present analysis since impacts exceeding the PM 2.5 significance threshold extend to the edge of the modeling domain (at least 10 km) in all directions.

This is important, as the Delaware border is only about 2 km to the west and southwest of the Salem site. The significant impacts for PM 2.5 , therefore, reach well into New 22 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.Castle County, which has been designated non-attainment for fine particulates.

From a permitting standpoint this then triggers New Jersey Subchapter 18 requirements for LAER and offsets. It is unlikely that any New Jersey non-attainment area would be significantly impacted since the nearest non-attainment area in New Jersey is Gloucester County, at a distance of approximately 30 km.NJDEP's Title V public comment requirements

[7:27-22.11(k)]

dictate that, before publishing notice of a draft operating permit that includes a significant modification, NJDEP must also give notice to the head of the designated air pollution control agency of any "affected state." An affected state is any state contiguous to New Jersey or is located within 50 miles of the facility which is the subject of the permit [7:27-22.1].

In the case of the Salem-Hope Creek Facility the affected states are Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

In addition to the non-attainment issue, there area two areas nearby to the fence line which are predicted to exceed the 30 pg/m 3 24-hour PSD increment level for PM10 by as much as 34.7% (evidenced by the maximum predicted 24-hour concentration of 40.40 pg/m 3).Exceedance of a PSD increment would be a fatal permitting flaw and must be corrected through changes to the presumed design and/or operational characteristics.

Use of the newer air quality dispersion model (AERMOD), when allowed by EPA, will predict impacts that could be higher or lower than those stated herein and this avenue could be investigated as an alternative method for meeting PSD requirements.

Additional areas of possible investigation to reduce impacts would include characterizing the equivalent aerodynamic diameter of the particulate to determine whether a fraction can be excluded from consideration as PM 2.5 emissions and exploring use of the "circular mechanical" tower configuration which enhances plume rise and thereby reduces ground level particulate concentrations.

It may require a combination of such actions to successfully address the issue. It is also possible that no technically and economically feasible action or combination of actions can be found that successfully mitigates the problem because of the constraints imposed by the characteristics of high makeup water TDS concentrations and local site meteorology.

In any event, permitting cannot proceed unless compliance with the PSD increments can be demonstrated or the cooling tower design is modified.Significant annual impacts are also predicted but the extent is less than with the short-term analysis.

Impacts exceeding the assumed annual PM 2.5 significance level of 0.3 pg/m 3 extend approximately

.7.5 km from the Site, with a maximum concentration of 4.19 pg/m 3.This maximum impact is approximately 24.6%

of the annual PM 10 PSD increment standard of 17 pg/m 3.However, addition of the Gibbstown annual background concentration of 13.8 pg/m 3 to the predicted value of 4.19 pg/m 3 results in a total concentration exceeding the NAAQS of 15 pg/m 3 for fine particulate.

This also 23 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.constitutes a potential fatal flaw for the .mechanical draft option, which must be remedied prior to proceeding with permitting.

The mechanical draft tower's exit height will only be approximately 49 feet above grade and plumes from these towers will have a greater probability of causing significant fogging/icing near the tower. The frequency and duration of fogging and icing impacts will decrease as distance away from the tower increases.

A modeling evaluation of the potential to cause significant visibility reductions on the waterway would be required.There are no critical offsite public highways, bridges, or other infrastructure in the area that would appear to be near enough to be adversely impacted by the mechanical draft cooling tower plume icing or fogging.In order to preliminarily assess potential fogging and icing impacts, a previous SACTI study on mechanical draft cooling towers conducted by PSEG (for Linden Generating Station) was examined.

While the Linden study was conducted using northeastern New Jersey (Newark Airport) meteorological conditions, it evaluated the same tower design as assumed for the Salem closed-cycle mechanical draft tower retrofit option and therefore is useful to provide an "order of magnitude" assessment for the Salem / Hope Creek Site. The maximum distance to which at least one hour per year of icing was predicted was approximately 1200 m southwest of the towers, while fogging impacts extend as far as 2 km toward the southwest.

For onsite impacts, the greatest number of hours of predicted impacts occurs within 200 meters of the cooling towers. Onsite fogging impacts are predicted to occur approximately 202 hour0.00234 days <br />0.0561 hours <br />3.339947e-4 weeks <br />7.6861e-5 months <br />s/year while icing impacts are predicted approximately 35.6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />s/year.

The predominant directions for fogging/icing impacts are to the south and west of the towers, due to the previously mentioned adverse meteorological conditions commonly associated with easterly component winds which promote long plumes and plume touchdown.

It should be noted that impacts from mechanical draft towers installed for Salem would be expected to be more severe than those impacts modeled for the Linden Generating Station because of the greater heat and moisture release.The mechanical draft design has a height of approximately 49 feet and, as a result, has a higher chance of causing adverse salt deposition impacts in the surrounding area. Itshould be noted, however, that substantial naturally occurring salt deposition probablyalready occurs in the area due to the proximity of Delaware Bay.24 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.b. Discharges to Surface Water and CWlSs 1. NJPDES (a) Regulatory Evaluation Construction and operation of mechanical draft cooling towers will significantly reduce discharges of non-contact cooling water. The reduction in discharge will not preclude the need for NJPDES compliance.

Accordingly a revised or new NJPDES permit will be required.

NJPDES permit considerations for mechanical draft cooling towers include:* PSEG expects to demonstrate that the blowdown from Salem will be essentially similar in nature to the cooling tower blowdown effluent stream from Hope Creek.The Hope Creek effluent stream currently meets applicable effluent standards.

• PSEG would be required to request a determination

("Request")

that any new or modified discharge is consistent with the Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP Determination")

1 since it must submit proof with its Application that PSEG received, or requested, a WQMP Determination (N.J.A.C.

7:14A-4.3(a)12.).

• In the event that any of the non-thermal pollutants present in the effluent stream were to exceed applicable surface water quality standards

("SWQS") or any water-quality based effluent limitation

("WQBEL")

that may be established, PSEG would be required to install additional treatment technologies to achieve compliance or seek a variance as identified at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-11.7 and the provisions of N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.8 or 1.9. Based on the operation of the Hope Creek Facility, exceedance of the standards from non-thermal pollutants is not anticipated.

• Since heat is a regulated pollutant, PSEG would need to assess whether the thermal plume associated with the CTB would be in compliance with the DRBC's11 thermal SWQS. If the plume were not in compliance, PSEG would be required to request a variance pursuant to §316(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-11.7(a)(2).

The §316(a) Demonstration would require that PSEG provide a description of the thermal plume and an assessment of the impacts of the thermal plume on the aquatic biota of the Delaware Estuary. This assessment would also consider the synergistic effect of heat on other pollutants present in the thermal plume.PSEG has successfully demonstrated that the thermal discharge from Salem's discharge is consistent with the maintenance and propagation of a balanced 10 N.J.A.C. 7:15-3.1(b) prohibits the NJDEP's Division of Water Quality from issuing any permit for a new discharge before a formal consistency determination has been made.11 The DRBC developed SWQS (including SWQS for heat and temperature) for the Delaware, which NJDEP has incorporated by reference into its SWQS.25 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.indigenous community of fish, shellfish and wildlife in and on the Estuary, the standard for granting a variance under §316(a). It is expected that PSEG would be able to meet the thermal water quality standards for the CTB discharge and no§316(a) variance would be required.

The Hope Creek facility meets the thermal water quality standard; the thermal plume from the Salem facility would be similar to that from the Hope Creek facility; and the two discharge points for the CTB would be far enough apart to avoid an additive impact (based on a preliminary analysis of the S&L reports).(b) Schedule Considerations NJDEP must determine whether an application is administratively complete within 30 days of receiving an application; however, there are no regulatory time limits on when NJDEP must act to issue a draft or final permit. Once a draft permit is issued, NJDEP is required to provide USEPA Region II and other interested agencies with a copy of the draft permit documents and to provide a 30 day period for public review and comment.At the end of the comment period, NJDEP must then prepare a final permit and a response to comments document.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns No special studies should be necessary to obtain the data required to submit a permit application.

Existing data should suffice to support a permit application.

2. §316(b) Regulations (a) Regulatory Evaluation Pursuant to EPA's recently-adopted NPDES Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities

("Phase II Rules"), PSEG would be deemed in compliance with §316(b) if it were to install closed cycle cooling. PSEG would only be required to comply with the provisions of §122.21(r), which requires permittees to provide supplemental information about the cooling water intake structure, the source water body, and the cooling system. PSEG would not be required to prepare and submit a comprehensive demonstration study required pursuant to 40 CFR §125.95(b) and would not be required to complete any verification monitoring.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no significant schedule concerns or obstacles for §316(b) permit related activities associated with mechanical draft cooling towers.26 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no special studies or concerns relative to §316(b) permit related activities associated with mechanical draft cooling towers.3. Treatment Works Approval ("TWA")(a) Regulatory Evaluation PSEG would be required to obtain treatment works approvals for the cooling towers and any new treatment systems required to treat the cooling tower blowdown prior to discharge pursuant to the TWA regulations at N.J.A.C 7:14A-22 and potentially Technical Requirements for TWA Applications at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-23.(b) Schedule Considerations A valid NJPDES permit for the discharge is a prerequisite to applying for a General Industrial TWA, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22.6(d).

This has implications with respect to the timing of the NJPDES application, which is required to be submitted at least 180 days in advance of the proposed date of discharge.

PSEG would have to obtain permit approval from NJDEP to insure the issuance of a TWA corresponded with the issuance of an NJPDES permit.Per N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22.5(I), the submittal requirements for a General Industrial TWA are administrative in nature. Within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application, NJDEP will either issue the General Industrial TWA or notify the applicant that an individual TWA will be required (due to a potentially significant health risk, environmental impact, or past facility performance).12 (c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The factors considered in making a determination for TWA approval are the potential for a significant health risk or environmental impact, or past performance of the facility.Currently available data suggest that there should be no impediment to obtaining a TWA.12 According to N.J.A.C.

7:14A-22.4(b)3(ii), a treatment works approval or general industrial treatment works approval is not required for "cooling towers for non-contact water/heat exchange units and necessary associated appurtenances." However, NJDEP has not allowed the adjacent Hope Creek cooling tower to operate without the TWA. A specific determination of the TWA requirement for Salem should be presented to NJDEP for consideration.

27 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.4. DRBC (a) Regulatory Evaluation The DRBC's Rules of Practice and Procedure

("DRBC Rules") require that activities that have or may have a substantial effect upon the Basin must comply with the "Project Review" procedures in Article 3 of the DRBC's Rules to determine that the Project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The DRBC issues dockets that authorize activities found to be in conformance with the DRBC's Comprehensive Plan. PSEG has a Docket for Salem that authorizes the Station to operate with its current OTCWS and CWIS. The Docket concludes that the Station's operation in conformance with the termsand conditions of its NJPDES permit is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.Any substantial modifications to the OTCWS or CWIS or a change in the consumptive water use at the Station would require that an application for a Project Change be filed with the DRBC.(b) Schedule Considerations Under the Administrative Agreement between the DRBC and the NJDEP, the NJDEP will act first on all issues addressed under the NJDEP's NJPDES program. Subsequent to the NJDEP's issuing a final permit, the DRBC will act on PSEG's request for a modification to the Salem Docket. NJDEP is to receive all applications for review and approval of a reviewable project, provide a technical review, and then notify DRBC of such applications.

The DRBC Executive Director will then make a determination of"substantiality" under the DRBC regulations and requires further action. Although the DRBC's Rules contemplate that NJDEP could simply refer the matter to the DRBC pursuant to the Administrative Agreement between NJDEP and DRBC, DRBC has always required PSEG to file a separate application.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The DRBC's regulations do not include a provision analogous to the §316(a) variance provision in the NJPDES program. If the thermal discharge from mechanical cooling tower modifications is not in conformance with the DRBC's thermal SWQS, PSEG's application must include a demonstration that the thermal discharge does not interfere with the designated uses for Zone 5 of the Delaware (Sections 3.10.2, 3.10.3B, 4.30.6.G, and 5.10.3 of the DRBC Water Quality Regulations).

Based on the operating conditions at the Hope Creek facility and given the comparable design for the Salem facility (as shown in S&L 2005b), it is highly likely that PSEG would meet the DRBC, and consequently the NJDEP, thermal water quality standards.

For the most part, additional studies are not required; the information used in to support the NJPDES Permit Application can be utilized to comply with the DRBC's regulatory structure.

Some additional depictions of the thermal discharge may be required since 28 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.DRBC has previously required that PSEG provide dimensions for the thermal mixing zone in both summer and non-summer periods.5. Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities (a) Regulatory Evaluation Construction activities that disturb five or more acres of land must apply for General NJPDES DSW Permit No. NJ0088323 for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities.

Based on the S&L conceptual plans (S&L 2005b), construction activities for mechanical draft cooling towers would disturb more than five acres.General NJPDES DSW Permit NJ0088323 is issued by the local Soil Conservation District when a soil erosion and sediment control certification is obtained.(b) Schedule Considerations Applicants must submit a Request for Authorization

("RFA") Form to the county Soil Conservation District ("SCD") at least thirty (30) days before any land disturbanceactivities begin.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns No special studies are required and there are no identifiable obstacles to obtaining this permit.c. Activities in Wetlands, Waterways, or Coastal Zones 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 permits (a) Recqulatory Evaluation The USACOE Section 404 Permit regulates discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. Based on the conceptual layout in the S&L report and wetland delineations provided by PSEG (July 7, 2004) for the Salem and Hope Creek generating sites, the discharge pipes for the blowdown lines would cross a small (less than three-acre) area of wetlands adjacent to the Delaware River and within Section 404 jurisdiction.

The area of direct impact would be less than 0.1 acre. Because the majority of the site is within 1,000 feet of a tidal water body, the USACOE regulates any wetland (i.e. tidal or freshwater) within that zone. Therefore, a Section 404 permit from the USACOE would be required.The USACOE Section 10 Permit regulates work (e.g., construction, excavation, dredging) in or over navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands.

A 29 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.Section 10 permit from the USACOE would be required for the two new discharge pipes because they would be installed below the mean high water mark.(b) Schedule Considerations The estimated time frame for obtaining a Section 10/ Section 404 permit is approximately 16 months. Normally, the time frame for obtaining SectionlO/Section 404 permits ranges from 3 -6 months. Given the need for authorization of a new/revised NJPDES and the other permit considerations associated with a modification to a closed water cooling system, the permitting time frame has been expanded to 16 months.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns As part of prior regulatory compliance activities, freshwater wetlands have been delineated throughout the site (PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Stations, Municipal Site Plan, July 2004). The estimated impact to freshwater wetlands would likely qualify for a Nationwide Permit in the absence of other USACOE permitting requirements.

However, it is likely that the USACOE would process the Section 404 and Section 10 permits together as an individual permit. Mitigation for the impact to freshwater wetlands would be required.Any special studies that may be required for the ACOE Section 10 permitting effort will be covered by the evaluation of the proposed discharge for the NJPDES permit.No decommissioning of the existing outfalls or intake structures is anticipated.

Therefore, no permits or special studies related to decommissioning would be required.2. NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program Permits

("LURP")(a) Regulatory Evaluation There are four distinct LURP regulatory programs that may have jurisdiction over the construction of mechanical draft cooling towers including CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Freshwater Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands.

Given that each of these permits is managed by the same program within NJDEP, the applicant can apply for the needed regulatory approvals as part of one permit application.

The Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands regulatory elements are similar to the description provided under the Section 404 discussion above.

Construction of mechanical draft cooling towers will require a CAFRA permit because Salem falls within the statutorily-defined boundaries of CAFRA's jurisdiction.

The CAFRA permit will require an accompanying Compliance Statement and supporting 30 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'SCOOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.documentation, most of which will be available from other regulatory initiatives related to air permitting and NJPDES support documentation.

Similar to USACOE Section 10 permitting requirements, any work completed below the mean high water line will require a Waterfront Development Permit. Specifically improvements to the CWIS and any needed discharge pipes will be subject to Waterfront Development compliance.

As part of the Waterfront Development requirements, PSEG will be required to demonstrate that a Tidelands approval (in the form of a license, grant, lease or other acceptable contract) be in place for the area in which the Waterfront Development permit is applicable.

PSEG currently has a Tidelands approval for areas of the waterfront. The engineering improvements would have to be evaluated in the context of the existing Tidelands approval to determine whether the affected areas are within the contract area.Given the level of design detail available at this point, it is unclear whether modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be required.

Based on the preliminary S&L report (S&L 2005b), it is assumed that any required modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be covered by a license rather than a grant. A grant requires that a deed be signed by the governor, and requires significantly more time to obtain than a license.(b) Schedule Considerations As noted, CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Freshwater Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands permits can be processed and issued concurrently.

The approval process is dictated by the 90 Day Construction guidelines found at NJAC 7:1C. Typically, the process from submittal to completion should take from six to nine months. The time frame can vary depending upon the complexity of the project and the public interest in the project.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Many of the special studies (e.g., threatened and endangered species and historical and archeological resources) typically required for LURP related permits have been completed as part of other, permitting completed for project at the site. Other special studies that may be necessitated as part of any submitted LURP applications will consist of data submitted to other agencies related to air quality impacts and wastewater discharge.

Accordingly, no additional special studies are anticipated as part of the LURP process.31 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSISOF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.d. Local Approvals 1. Lower Alloways Creek Zoning Board Approval (a) Regulatory Evaluation Site plan approval will be required for the construction of mechanical draft cooling towers. Because a height variance request would be required to exceed the current limit of 45 feet, the project will be heard before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board approval requires 5 endorsements from the board, regardless of the number of members of the board (the full board is comprised of 7 voting members) that are present at the meeting. The Zoning Board of Adjustment approval can be difficult to obtain because of the number of affirmative votes required.Public notice is required as part of the submission process. The site plan approval process requires the submission of a site plan and appropriate documentation signed and sealed by a professional engineer.

A public hearing is a required element of the review process. Members of the public are permitted to testify in support of and in opposition to the application.(b) Schedule Considerations The typical process for site plan approval takes approximately 30 -60 days from the time of submittal.

There are no approvals required from other regulatory bodies required prior to submittal to the Township. Other approvals, particularly those issued by the NJDEP LURP and Soil Conservation District will be required as conditions of any approval issued by the Township.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns It is unlikely that there will be any special studies required by the Township that have not been completed in other regulatory submittals.

Typically, professional studies are not needed, but a study (e.g. lighting and shading impacts on adjacent properties, noise studies) could be requested if so desired by the Township.2. Salem County Soil Conservation District (a) Regulatory Evaluation The Salem County Soil Conservation District ("SCD") is required to certify a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for any ground disturbance greater than 5,000 square feet.The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must meet the standards promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee (N.J.S.A.

4:24-39 et seq.).32 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(b) Schedule Considerations The SCD is required to certify the plan within 30 days of submittal. The critical path construction schedule will only be affected when significant changes to the plans are made immediately prior to construction, requiring re-certification by the District.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no special studies or concerns associated with Soil Conservation District Certification.

e. Other Approvals 1. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ("DCA ")(a) Regulatory Evaluation All plans for structures at electrical generating stations and substations including nuclear generating stations must be approved (including utilities, exterior/interior building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire protection, elevators and barrier free access) by the DCA (N.J.A.C. 5:23). For purposes of this analysis, the mechanical cooling towers are considered to be "process equipment," and therefore exempt from DCA permit requirements.

However, the foundations and support building(s) would be reviewed by DCA. 13 (b) Schedule Considerations PSEG can apply for a complete release to proceed if all plans, specifications and fees are presented to DCA with the original submission or a partial release to proceed if only components of the overall application are complete at the time of submission.

DCA willadvise PSEG within 20 working days of receiving a complete application (including all required fees) for either release or partial release whether the Project Plans have been released or rejected.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns As long as appropriate engineering design is completed, DCA typically does not require any special studies as long as an applicant submits a complete application.

Typically, DCA approval becomes a critical path schedule item as final engineering modifications 13 The ultimate decision as to whether the cooling towers are "structures" for purposes of permitting restswith DCA a 33 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.are made as a result of other permit conditions or changes dictated by internal review.The schedule delays are readily resolvable by quality assurance procedures during the design phase of the project.2. FAA (a) Regulatory Evaluation Per FAR Part 77, new construction requires that the FAA be notified if the structure is, among other things, (1) more than 200' tall or (2) is of a certain height and is within 20,000 feet of a public-use or military airport with at least one runway of more than 3,200 feet (14 CFR 77.13). Notification is made through Form 7460-1. The mechanical draft towers are only 49 feet in height, and are not within 20,000 feet of any public-use or military airports.

Therefore, FAA approval would not be required.B. Regulatory Feasibility The NJDEP is on record as supporting closed cycle cooling. While the mechanical draft cooling towers meet the closed cycle objective, the impacts to air quality from operation of the towers could be significant.

Retrofit of linear mechanical draft cooling towers will produce significant particulate impacts including significant impacts in the New Castle County, Delaware non-attainment area. A retrofit employing this tower type will likely require installation of LAER particulate control technology and securing particulate offsets. The cost and availability of such offsets is not presently known. Preliminary dispersion modeling of the linear mechanical draft towers shows that, for the assumed design, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) PM 2.514 increment is predicted to be exceeded.

This is a fatal permitting flaw for the assumed design and measures to mitigate these impacts through use of a different design and/or alternative dispersion model would be required before permitting could proceed. In addition, if the Subchapter 6 limit on hourly particulate emissions is not changed, potential exceedance of the limit would preclude the use of mechanical draft cooling towers.There do not appear to be any other significant regulatory obstacles identifiable at this time to prevent implementation of mechanical draft cooling towers. However, the air quality permitting process may preclude implementation of this modification unless there is either a significant change in the conceptual design of the system, changes in the ambient air quality conditions in the region, or changes in the current regulatory programs that govern air quality.14 Particulate matter having an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less.34 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.C. Regulatory Schedule The Title V permitting will be the long lead time regulatory processes required prior to construction activity.

Given that final design may not be completed until this process is complete, there will be a period of time after issuance of the permits for securingconstruction permits from the Department of Community Affairs and any local construction permits that may be needed. All other permits can run concurrently with the Title V, USACOE, and LURP processes.

The estimated permitting process time from permit preparation to construction start is expected to be 20 to 24 months.35 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.D. Regulatory Costs Table 2 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Modifications 15 4.Permit ~ Regulatory Fees 1.Support Schedule Year I Year 2 Costs and Preparation.

Studies ~ Costs~~~Title V $60,000 $125,000 17 months $120,000 $65,000 NJPDES Fee at NJDEP $100,000 10 months $120,000 + $30,000 discretion; permit fees prep costs$50,000 316(b) Fee at NJDEP $100,000 10 months $120,000 + $30,000 discretion; permit fees prep costs$50,000 Treatment Works Fee at NJDEP $25,000 6 months $35,000 + $0 Approval discretion; permit fees prepcosts$10,000 Stormwater Control $200.00 $0 2 months $200.00 $0 DRBC Fee per DRBC $2,000 6 months $4,500 $0 formula; permit prep costs $2,500 USACOE Section $25,000 $15,000 16 months $30,000 $10,000 10/404NJ LURP $30,000 $40,000 16 months $60,000 $10,000 NJ Tidelands

$5,000 $10,000 6 months $15,000 $0 Dept. of Community Fee % of $0 1 month $10,000 + $0 Affairs construction costs; Permit fees permit prep$10,000 Salem County SCD

$2,500 $0 2 months $2,500 $0 LAC Planning or $40,000 $20,000 5 months $60,000 $0 Zoning Board FAA $0 $5,000 2 months $5,000 $0 15 The fee schedule provided herein does not include engineering design costs and relate studies. Costsincluded herein are limited to special studies, environmental impact statements, compliance statements and other studies specifically required by the regulatory program.

Because such costs can be a function of specific issues raised by both the regulator and public comment, cost estimates provided herein may vary significantly depending upon the level of review by the respective regulatory agency.36 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.IV. WEDGEWIRE SCREEN MODIFICATION A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternatives

1. Assumptions AKRF's analysis of the wedgewire screen modification is based upon the following assumptions and based on the analysis of construction from the Sargent & Lundy report (S&L 2005c):* PSEG would install a total of eighty (80) cylindrical wedgewire screen assemblies, and each assembly would be seven (7) feet in diameter and 28 feet in length;* the wedgewire screens would be attached to eight partially buried steel-reinforced, concrete pipes measuring twelve (12) feet in diameter;* the concrete pipes would extend into the Delaware River;* the screens would occupy an area of approximately 150 feet by 325 feet or 1.12 acres;* a new intake plenum would be constructed between the wedgewire screens and the existing CWIS that would be 325 feet by 40 feet and occupy an area of 0.30 acres;.* each Salem unit would be equipped with an air backwash system that would include an air compressor, a receiver, and controls, a 6,000-gallon receiver tank;* the design flow would be based upon the capacity of the existing circulating water pumps (185,000 gpm) and the total intake flow would be 2.2 million gpm for both units;* The site layout would be based on the conceptual plan the S&L report;Attachment 1, Figure 1); and," The analysis in this evaluation is limited to the facility location and operation, and does not include potential construction permits (e.g., batch plant, diesel construction equipment).

A depiction of the layout and other conceptual plans for the wedgewire screens is provided in Attachment 1 of the S&L report.37 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.2. Applicable Regulatory Programs a. Air quality 1. Title V (a) Regulatory Evaluation The wedgewire screen alternative should have little or no impact on existing Title V permits for Salem. Based on the current S&L report, Title V considerations will not impact the regulatory feasibility of the wedgewire screen alternative.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no schedule implications associated with Title V permitting for the wedgewire screen alternative.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns No special studies will be required to support air quality permitting for the wedgewire screen alternative.

b. Discharges to Surface Water and CWISs 1. NJPDES (a) Regulatory Evaluation Implementation of a wedgewire screen modification will not significantly affect existing discharge characteristics from the facility.

Discharge quantities and characteristics will remain essentially the same. However, there will be a significant change to the 316(b)component of any NJPDES application, discussed below. A revised or new NJPDES permit will be required to support the wedgewire screen alternative.(b) Schedule Considerations NJDEP must determine whether an application is administratively complete within 30 days of receiving an application; however, there are no regulatory time limits on when NJDEP must act to issue a draft or final permit. Once a draft permit is issued, NJDEP is required to provide USEPA Region II and other interested agencies with a copy of the draft permit documents and to provide a 30-day period for public review and comment.38 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE 4 AKRF, INC.At the end of the comment period, NJDEP must then prepare a final permit and a response to comments document.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no major obstacles to obtaining any of the required information for effluent streams for the wedgewire screen-alternative.

2. §316(b) Regulations (a) Regulatory Evaluation Pursuant to the Phase II Rule, PSEG will have to demonstrate that the installation of wedgewire screens, in addition to existing and/or other proposed technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures meets the national performance standards for impingement mortality and entrainment.

(40 CFR 125.94(a)(3))

The national performance standards in the Phase II Rule are the reduction of impingement mortality by 80% to 95% and the reduction of entrainment by 60% to 90%.In the alternative, PSEG may propose that it has met a site-specific standard, as approved by the State Director, that the wedgewire screens, in addition to existing and/or other proposed technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures, 0 are the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In that case, the State Director would establish a site-specific standard based upon new and/or existing technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures that achieves an efficacy that is as close to practicable to the performance standards without resulting in costs that are significantly greater than one of two benchmarks:

the costs considered by the EPA Administrator for a facility like Salem in establishing the national performance standards (40 CFR 125.94(a)(5)(i));

or the benefits of meeting the performance standard.

(40 CFR 125.94(a)(5)(ii)).

PSEG would be required to submit the information required under §122.21(r) as well as a permit modification that included an updated Comprehensive Demonstration Study ("CDS"), pursuant to §125.95(b).

The CDS for the wedgewire screen modifications would include, at a minimum, an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study ("IMECS"), a Design and Construction Technology Plan ("DCTP"), a Technology Installation and Operations Plan ("TIOP") and a Verification Monitoring Plan ("VMP"). In addition, if PSEG were to attempt to establish a site-specific standard, PSEG would also have to submit information to support a site-specific determination, including a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study, a Benefits Valuation Study (if a cost-benefit analysis is to be performed), and a Site-Specific Technology Plan. PSEG would likely take the position that it was not necessary to update its Restoration Plan ("RP"), since the Modification would not cause any changes to the RP PSEG will include as part of the 2006 renewal application.

PSEG would also likely take .,...39 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.the position that it was not necessary to submit a Proposal for Information Collection

("PIC"), because the 2004 PIC refers to wedgewire screens as a technology that will be considered in the 2006 permit renewal.If the decision were made to install wedgewire screens, PSEG would be required to prepare a DCTP and a TIOP designed to demonstrate that the proposed modification would be capable of being installed and operated at the Station and would achieve compliance with the applicable performance standards.

In the DCTP, PSEG would be required to provide the capacity utilization factor for Salem, a description of the proposed modification and its operations, an estimate of the reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment from the calculation baseline that would be achieved by installing the modification, and information to support that it would be capable of installation and operation at Salem, and engineering drawings and calculations for the modification.

PSEG would likely be required to conduct an in situ pilot study to determine if the screen modifications are feasible.

In the TIOP, PSEG would be required to provide the schedule for the installation and for the operation and maintenance of the modification, and identify the activities that PSEG would undertake to ensure that the efficacy of the modification would be achieved on an ongoing basis. PSEG would also be required to prepare a VMP, proposing a two year monitoring plan to demonstrate post-installation compliance with the performance standards.

0 (b) Schedule Considerations Schedule considerations would be similar to that described for the NJPDES permit considerations.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns PSEG previously analyzed wedgewire screens as part of its prior two NJPDES renewals and concluded that wedgewire screen modifications are not feasible for installation at Salem.

NJDEP's experts reviewing both applications, Versar, Inc. and ESSA Technologies, LTD., confirmed PSEG's analysis that wedgewire screens are not appropriate for installation at Salem, and NJDEP determined in 1994 and in 2001 that none of the wedgewire screen modifications represent BTA for the Station. The S&L report identifies that wedgewire screens are still not feasible for installation at Salem.Given the established record, PSEG would have to develop new information that would explain why the wedgewire screen modifications are now feasible from an installation and operations perspective and biologically efficacious.

Since the wedgewire screens have not been implemented at a facility similar in size or location to Salem, PSEG may be required to implement costly studies to prove that the technologies would work.

0 40 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.3. Treatment Works Approval ("TWA")(a) Regulatory EvaluationThe wedgewire screen alternative, as described in the S&L report, should not result in a change to the wastewater treatment process for the facility.

Accordingly, a Treatment Works Approval would not be required for this alternative.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no TWA schedule implications associated with the wedgewire screen alternative.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Because a Treatment Works Approval is not required as part of this alternative, no supporting special studies are required.4. DRBC (a) Regulatory Evaluation The DRBC's Rules of Practice and Procedure

("DRBC Rules") require that activities that have or may have a substantial effect upon the Basin must comply with the "Project Review" procedures in Article 3 of the DRBC's Rules to determine that the Project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan ("CP"). Upon approval, DRBC issues dockets that authorize a proposed project in the DRBC's Comprehensive Plan CP.PSEG has a Docket for Salem that authorizes the Station to operate with its current OTCWS and CWIS. The Docket concludes that the Station's operation in conformance with the terms and conditions of its NJPDES permit is in conformance with the CP. Any substantial modifications to the OTCWS or CWIS or a change in the consumptive water use at the Station would require that an application for a Project Change be filed with the DRBC.(b) Schedule Considerations Under the Administrative Agreement between the DRBC and the NJDEP, the NJDEP will act first on all issues addressed under the NJDEP's NJPDES program. Subsequent to the NJDEP's issuing a final permit, the DRBC will act on PSEG's request for a modification to the Salem Docket. NJDEP is to receive all applications for review and approval of a reviewable project, provide a technical review, and then notify DRBC of such applications.

The DRBC Executive Director will then make a determination of"substantiality" under the DRBC regulations and requires further action. Although the DRBC's Rules contemplate that NJDEP could simply refer the matter to the DRBC 41 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.pursuant to the Administrative Agreement between NJDEP and DRBC, DRBC has always required PSEG to file a separate application.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns If PSEG were to decide to implement the wedgewire screen modifications, the information that PSEG provided to NJDEP in support of the CWIS modifications could be resubmitted to the DRBC without substantial modification.

5. Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities (a) Regulatory Evaluation Construction activities that disturb five or more acres of land must apply for General NJPDES DSW Permit No. NJ0088323 for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities.

General NJPDES DSW Permit NJ0088323 is issued by the local Soil Conservation District when a soil erosion and sediment control certification is obtained.It does not appear that the non-water support infrastructure construction would exceed five acres and therefore a Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities would not be required.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no Stormwater Control Permit schedule implications associated with the wedgewire screen alternative.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Because a Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities is not required as part of this alternative, no supporting special studies are required.c. Activities in Wetlands, Waterways, or Coastal Zones 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 permits (a) Regulatory Evaluation The USACOE Section 10 Permit regulates work (e.g., construction, excavation, dredging) in or over navigable waters of the U.S. A Nationwide permit ("NWP") may be 42 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.obtained for "minor" projects, while an individual permit would be required for "major" projects.

Because of the magnitude of in-water structures associated with this alternative an individual permit application under the Section 10 program will be required.

The USACOE is required to notify and solicit comments from other federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), USEPA and National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS").(b) Schedule Considerations Individual permit applications generally parallel NJDEP's approval through the Land Use Regulation Program. For a project of this magnitude, it is likely that the review process will take a minimum of six to twelve months upon submittal of the application.

There are a number of issues that are likely to arise during the review process that will tend to drive the permitting schedule to a longer than normal review cycle.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The USACOE will have notable concerns associated with an application for wedgewire screens including but not limited to:* Impacts of dredging on release of toxic sediments from the river bottom -Dredging issues have been an ongoing issue for activities in the Delaware River." Impacts to anadromous fish populations

-Any permit issued by the USACOE is very likely to have significant seasonal restrictions (based on prior permitting experience) on in-water construction to prevent impacts to anadromous fishpopulations. Such restrictions are likely to limit construction activities during the March to July time frame.* The USFWS and NMFS will review a proposed wedgewire screen alternative with a critical eye. The Section 10 permitting process will enable both agencies to have a formal regulatory review oversight on both the immediate construction impacts to the River and surrounding environs of the wedgewire screens but also the efficacy of the alternative in terms of entrainment and impingement losses at the facility.* Impacts to navigation

-The impacts of the project to navigation will be a critical consideration associated with this alternative. The U.S. Coast Guard will weigh inheavily on the impacts of this alternative on navigable waterways.

43 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.2. NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program Permits ("L URP")(a) Regulatory Evaluation There are four distinct LURP regulatory programs that may have jurisdiction over the wedgewire screen alternative including CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Freshwater Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands.

Given that each of these permits is managed by the same program within NJDEP, the applicant can apply for the needed regulatory approvals as part of one permit application.

Based on the current S&L report, the Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands regulatory elements would not be applicable to this alternative.

The primary structures associated with the wedgewire screen alternative would be placed within the water, and they would be connected to the abutments of the existing intake system, also in the water. Should an upland support structure be required, it would be small, and could be located outside any delineated areas.Therefore, it is unlikely that either of the wetland regulatory programs would have jurisdiction.

CAFRA and Waterfront Development regulations will be applicable.

As part of the Waterfront Development requirements, PSEG will be required to demonstrate that a Tidelands grant (in the form of a license, grant, lease or other acceptable contract) be in place for the area in which the Waterfront Development permit is applicable.

PSEG currently has a Tidelands approval for areas of the waterfront.

The engineering improvements would have to be evaluated in the context of the existing approval to determine whether the impacted areas are covered by the existing license.Given the level of design detail available at this point, it is unclear whether modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be required.

Based on the preliminary S&L report, it is assumed that any required modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be covered by a license rather than a grant. A grant requires that a deed be signed by the governor, and requires significant more time to obtain than a license.(b) Schedule Considerations As noted, CAFRA and Waterfront Development permits can be processed and issued concurrently.

The approval process is dictated by the 90 Day Construction guidelines found at NJAC 7:1C. Typically, the process from submittal to completion should takefrom six to nine months. The time frame can vary depending upon the complexity of the project and the public interest in the project. As noted under the Section 10 permitting analysis, the complexity of issues associated with improvements of the magnitude required by wedgewire screens will require close scrutiny by NJDEP. Accordingly, the normal six to nine month review process could be extended by several months.44 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The issues addressed under the Section 10 description will also be applicable during the LURP review. Concerns related to release of toxic material during dredging operations, impacts to anadromous fish, and efficacy of the wedgewire screens to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment will contribute to the regulatory review process. While public hearings are not necessarily required for each CAFRA and/or Waterfront Development permit review, it is likely that there may be requests for such a hearing, or that NJDEP may establish a hearing on its own volition.

The final decision on LURP related permits will most likely follow the decision path of the NJPDES process.d. Local Approvals 1. Lower Alloways Creek Planning Board Approval (a) Regiulatory Evaluation The primary structures associated with the wedgewire screen alternative would be placed within the water, and they would be connected to the abutments of the existing intake system, also in the water. Therefore, local Planning Board approval of these structures is not required. However, information presentations would be expected.Construction of new equipment housing buildings and other support infrastructure onupland portions of the site (if needed) will require site plan approval from the local planning board. Unlike the cooling tower alternatives, approval for this alternative can be heard by the Planning Board.(b) Schedule Considerations Should a site plan approval be required, the typical process for site plan approval takes approximately 30 -60 days from the time of submittal.

There are no approvals required from other regulatory bodies required prior to submittal to the Township.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Should a site plan approval be required, it is unlikely that there will be any Special Studies required by the Township that have not been completed in other regulatory submittals.

Typically, professional studies are not needed, but a study (e.g.

lighting and shading impacts on adjacent properties, noise studies) could be requested if so desired by the Township.45 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.2. Salem County Soil Conservation District (a) Regulatory Evaluation The Salem County Soil Conservation District is required to certify a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for any ground disturbance greater than 5,000 square feet.Based on the October S&L report, the primary structures needed for the wedgewire screen alternative would be placed within the water. However, there could be upland support facilities that would require disturbance beyond the regulatory threshold.

The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must meet the standards promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee (N.J.S.A. 4:24-39 et seq.).(b) Schedule Considerations The SCD is required to certify the plan within 30 days of submittal.

The only instance when this approval could become part of the critical path schedule for implementation is when significant changes to the plans are made immediately prior to construction that require recertification by the District.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no special studies or concerns associated with Soil Conservation District Certification.

e. Other Approvals 1. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ("DCA ")(a) Regulatory Evaluation The DCA will have regulatory approval over any structures required to support the wedgewire screen alternative including any buildings and or foundations that may be required (N.J.A.C. 5:23).

DCA may also review construction plans for walkways to the screen areas. Typically, any construction related to "process equipment" is exempt from Department review. For purposes of this analysis, the wedgewire screens are considered to be "process equipment," and therefore exempt from DCA permit requirements.

However, any structures on top of the wedgewire screens and any support building(s) would be reviewed by DCA.46 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(b) Schedule Considerations PSEG can apply for a complete release to proceed if all plans, specifications and fees are presented to DCA with the original submission or a partial release to proceed if only components of the overall application are complete at the time of submission.

DCA will advise PSEG within 20 days of receiving a complete application (including all required fees) for either release or partial release whether the Project Plans have been released or rejected.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns As long as appropriate engineering design is completed, DCA typically does not require special studies as long as an applicant submits a complete application.

Typically, DCA approval becomes a critical path schedule item as engineering modifications are made;the review time may delay construction.

The problem is readily resolvable by quality assurance procedures during the design phase of the project.2. FAA (a) Regqulatory Evaluation There are no components of the wedegwire screen alternative of sufficient height to trigger FAA review.B. Regulatory Feasibility PSEG previously concluded that wedgewire screen modifications are not feasible for installation at Salem.

NJDEP's experts, Versar, Inc. and ESSA Technologies, LTD., have confirmed this conclusion, and NJDEP determined in 1994 and in 2001 that none of the wedgewire screen modifications represent BTA for the Station. The S&L report identifies that wedgewire screens are still not feasible for installation at Salem. Given the established record, PSEG would have to develop new information that would explain why the wedgewire screen modifications are now feasible from an installation and operations perspective and biologically efficacious.

Since the wedgewire screens have not been implemented at a facility similar in size or location to Salem, PSEG may be required to implement costly studies to prove that the technologies would work.Regulatory impediments are not limited to NJPDES related programs.

The enormity of the water area impacted by this modification will raise significant environmental issues with both NJDEP LURP and USACOE Section 10 permitting.

Issues related to release of toxic materials resulting from dredging operations, construction impacts to anadromous fish, navigational impacts and the efficacy of the system to reduce 47 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.impingement and entrainment losses in lieu of the referenced construction impacts will complicate the approval process.C. Regulatory Schedule The NJPDES/316(b) permitting will be the long lead time regulatory process. It is possible that the permitting time frame for this modification could extend beyond two years, given the complexity of the modification, public input and the myriad of regulatory issues arising from this design.48 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.D. Regulatory Costs Table 3 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for Wedgewire Screen Modifications 1 6 Permit Regulatory Fees Support Schedule

< Year I Costs Year 2 and Preparation Studies Costs Title V $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 NJPDES Fee at NJDEP $250,000 2 years $250,000 $50,000 discretion; permit prep costs$50,000 316(b) Fee at NJDEP $1,000,000 2 years $750,000 $300,000 discretion; permit prep costs$50,000 Treatment Works N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Approval Stormwater

$0 $0 N/A $0 $0 Control DRBC Fee per DRBC $50,000 6 months $2,500 + fees $50,000 formula; permit prep costs $2,500 USACOE Section $25,000 $100,000 16 months $100,000 $25,000 10/404 NJ LURP $30,000 $100,000 16 months $100,000 $30,000 NJ Tidelands

$5,000 $40,000 6 months $0 -" "$45,000 Dept. of Fee % of $0 1 month $10,000 Permit fees Community Affairs construction costs;permit prep$10,000 Salem County $2,500 $0 2 months $0 $2500 SCD LAC Planning or $10,000 $5,000 5 months $0 $15,000 Zoning Board FAA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 The fee schedule provided herein does not include engineering design costs and relate studies. Costs included herein are limited to special studies, environmental impact statements, compliance statements and other studies specifically required by the regulatory program. Because such costs can be a function of specific issues raised by both the regulator and public comment, cost estimates provided herein may vary significantly depending upon the level of review by the respective regulatory agency.49 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.V. DUAL FLOW FINE MESH SCREEN MODIFICATION A. Regulatory Evaluation of Alternative

1. Assumptions AKRF's analysis of the dual flow fine mesh screen modification is based upon the following assumptions and based on the analysis of construction from the Sargent &Lundy report (S&L 2005d):* fifty-four (54) dual flow screen units'would be installed in the channel of theDelaware Estuary;" a new concrete structure would be constructed 380 feet offshore in front of the existing intake bays;" the new structure would encompass an area 750 feet by 380 feet or 6.54 acres;* the through screen velocity would be less than or equal to 0.5 fps;* the screens would be equipped with 0.5 .mm mesh panels and with baskets tohold fish and other aquatic organisms washed from the screens-* the screens would be equipped with both high and low pressure spray wash systems to remove debris and aquatic organisms, respectively, from the screens;* the screen system would be equipped with separate debris and fish return troughs that would return impinged organisms and debris to the Estuary;" the design flow would be based upon the capacity of the existing circulating water pupps (185,000 gpm) and the total intake flow would be 2.2 million.gpm for both units;* The site layout would be based on the site plan from the S&L report (Attachment 1, Figure 1); and* The analysis in this evaluation is limited to the facility location and operation, and does not include potential construction permits (e.g., batch plant, diesel construction equipment).

A depiction of the layout and other conceptual plans for the dual flow fine mesh screens is provided in Attachment 1 of the S&L report.50 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.2. Applicable Regulatory Programs a. Air quality 1. Title V (a) Regulatory Evaluation The dual flow screen alternative should have little or no impact on existing Title V permits for Salem. Based on the current S&L report, Title V considerations will not impact the regulatory feasibility of the dual flow screen alternative.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no schedule implications associated with Title V permitting for the dual flow screen alternative.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns No special studies will be required to support air quality permitting to support the dual flow screen alternative.

b. Discharges to Surface Water and CWISs 1. NJPDES (a) Regulatory Evaluation Implementation of a dual flow fine mesh screen modification will not significantly affect existing discharge characteristics from the facility. Discharge quantities and characteristics will remain essentially the same. However, there will be a significant change to the 316(b) component of any NJPDES application, discussed below. A revised or new NJPDES permit will be required to support the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative.

The dual flow fine mesh screen system would include fish and debris return troughs that must be included in the NJPDES permit.(b) Schedule Considerations NJDEP must determine whether an application is administratively complete within 30 days of receiving an application; however, there are no regulatory time limits on when NJDEP must act to issue a draft or final permit. Once a draft permit is issued, NJDEP is required to provide USEPA Region II and other interested agencies with a 51 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.copy of the draft permit documents and to provide a 30 day period for public review and comment. At the end of the comment period, NJDEP must then prepare a final permit and a response to comments document.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no major obstacles to obtaining any of the required information for effluent streams.2. §316(b) Regulations (a) Regulatory Evaluation Pursuant to the Phase II Rule, PSEG will have to demonstrate that the installation of dual flow fine mesh screens, in addition to existing and/or other proposed technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures meets the national performance standards for impingement mortality and entrainment.

(40 CFR 125.94(a)(3))

The national performance standards in the Phase II Rule are the reduction of impingement mortality by 80% to 95% and the reduction of entrainment by 60% to 90%.In the alternative, PSEG may propose that it has met a site-specific standard, as approved by. the State Director, that the dual flow screens, in addition to existing and/or other proposed technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures, are the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. In that case, the State Director would establish a site-specific standard based upon new and/or existing technologies, operational measures and/or restoration measures that achieves an efficacy that is as close to practicable to the performance standards without resulting in costs that are significantly greater than one of two benchmarks:

the costs considered by the EPA Administrator for a facility like Salem in establishing the national performance standards (40 CFR 125.94(a)(5)(i));

or the benefits of meeting the performance standard (40 CFR 125.94(a)(5)(ii)).

PSEG would be required to submit the information required under §122.21(r) as well as a permit modification that would include an updated CDS, pursuant to §125.95(b).

The CDS for the dual flow fine mesh screen modifications would include, at a minimum, a Proposal for Information Collection

("PIC"), an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study ("IMECS"), a Design and Construction Technology Plan ("DCTP"), a Technology Installation and Operations Plan ("TIOP") and a Verification Monitoring Plan ("VMP"). In addition, if PSEG were to attempt to establish a site-specific standard, PSEG would also have to submit information to support a site-specific determination, including a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study, a Benefits Valuation Study (if a cost-benefit analysis is to be performed), and a Site-Specific Technology Plan.52 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.PSEG would likely take the position that it was not necessary to update its RP, since the modification would not cause any changes to the RP PSEG included as part of the 2006 renewal Application.

Although PSEG submitted a PIC for Salem in 2004 and will submit an IMECS in 2006, NJDEP may still require PSEG to submit a PIC and IMECS. If PSEG were to be required to submit a PIC, PSEG would be required to identify the technologies (i.e., dual flow fine mesh screens) it wanted to study, to describe prior studies, and to summarize consultations with natural resource protection agencies. If PSEG were to be required to submit an IMECS, PSEG would be required to describe all life stages of fish and shellfish, including threatened or endangered

('T&E") species, in the vicinity of the CWIS and characterize their annual, seasonal and diel abundance and distribution, quantify current impingement mortality and entrainment, and provide estimates of the calculation baseline losses.If the decision were made to install dual flow fine mesh screens, PSEG would be required to prepare a DCTP and a TIOP designed to demonstrate that the proposed modification would be capable of being installed and operated at the Station and would achieve compliance with the applicable performance standards.

In the DCTP, PSEG would be required to provide the capacity utilization factor for Salem, a description of the proposed modification and its operations, an estimate of the reductions in IM and E from the calculation, baseline that would be achieved by installing the modification, and information to support that it would be capable of installation and operation at Salem,and engineering drawings and calculations for the modification.

PSEG would likely be required to conduct an in situ pilot study to determine if the screen modifications are feasible.

In the TIOP, PSEG would be required to provide the schedule for the installation and for the operation and maintenance of the modification, and identify the activities that PSEG would undertake to ensure that the efficacy of the modification would be achieved on an ongoing basis. PSEG would also be required to prepare a VMP, proposing a two year monitoring plan to demonstrate post-installation compliance with the performance standards.(b) Schedule Considerations Schedule considerations would be similar to that described for the NJPDES permit considerations.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns PSEG previously analyzed dual flow fine mesh screens as part of its prior two NJPDES renewals and concluded that dual flow fine mesh screen modifications are not appropriate for installation at Salem. NJDEP's experts reviewing both applications, Versar, Inc. and ESSA Technologies, LTD., confirmed PSEG's analysis that dual flow fine mesh screens are not appropriate for installation at Salem, and NJDEP determined 53 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.in 1994 and in 2001 that the dual flow fine mesh screen modifications do not represent BTA for the Station. Given the established record, PSEG would have to develop new information that would explain why the dual flow fine mesh screen modifications are now appropriate from an installation and operations perspective and biologically efficacious.

Since the dual flow fine mesh screens have not been implemented at a facility similar in size or location to Salem, PSEG may be required to implement costly studies to prove that the technologies would work.3. Treatment Works Approval ("TWA")(a) Re-gulatory Evaluation The dual flow fine mesh screen alternative, as described in the S&L report, should not result in a change to the wastewater treatment process for the facility.

Accordingly, a Treatment Works Approval would not be required for this alternative.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no TWA schedule implications associated with the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Because a Treatment Works Approval is not required as part of this alternative, no supporting special studies are required.4. DRBC (a) Regulatory Evaluation The DRBC's Rules of Practice and Procedure

("DRBC Rules") require that activities that have or may have a substantial effect upon the Basin must comply with the "Project Review" procedures in Article 3 of the DRBC's Rules to determine that the Project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan ("CP"). Upon approval, DRBC issues dockets that authorize a proposed project in the DRBC's Comprehensive Plan ("CP").PSEG has a Docket for Salem that authorizes the Station to operate with its current OTCWS and CWIS. The Docket concludes that the Station's operation in conformance with the terms and conditions of its NJPDES permit is in conformance with the CP. Any substantial modifications to the OTCWS or CWIS or a change in the consumptive water use at the Station would require that an application for a Project Change be filed with the DRBC.54 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(b) Schedule Considerations Under the Administrative Agreement between the DRBC and the NJDEP, the NJDEP will act first on all issues addressed under the NJDEP's NJPDES program. Subsequent to the NJDEP's issuing a final permit, the DRBC will act on PSEG's request for a modification to the Salem Docket. NJDEP is to receive all applications for review and approval of a reviewable project, provide a technical review, and then notify DRBC of such applications.

The DRBC Executive Director will then make a determination of"substantiality" under the DRBC regulations and requires further action. Although the DRBC's Rules contemplate that NJDEP could simply refer the matter to the DRBC pursuant to the Administrative Agreement between NJDEP and DRBC, DRBC has always required PSEG to file a separate application.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns If PSEG were to decide to implement the dual flow fine mesh screen modifications, the information that PSEG provided to NJDEP in support of the CWIS modifications could be resubmitted to the DRBC without substantial modification.

5. Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities (a) Regulatory Evaluation Construction activities that disturb five or more acres of land must apply for General NJPDES DSW Permit No. NJ0088323 for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities.

General NJPDES DSW Permit NJ0088323 is issued by',the local Soil Conservation District when a soil erosion and sediment control certification is obtained.It does not appear that the non-water support infrastructure construction would exceed five acres and therefore a Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities wouldnot be required.(b) Schedule Considerations There are no Stormwater Control Permit schedule implications associated with the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Because a Stormwater Control Permit for Construction Activities is not required as part of this alternative, no supporting special studies are required.55 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTINGREQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TO SALEM'S COOLING.WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.c. Activities in Wetlands, Waterways, or Coastal Zones 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 permits (a) Regulatory Evaluation The USACOE Section 10 Permit regulates work (e.g., construction, excavation, dredging) in or over navigable waters of the U.S. A Nationwide permit ("NWP") may be obtained for "minor" projects, while an individual permit would be required for "major" projects.

Because of the magnitude of in-water structures associated with this alternative an individual permit application under the Section 10 program will be required.

The USACOE is required to notify and solicit comments from other federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), USEPA and National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS").(b) Schedule Considerations Individual permit applications generally parallel NJDEP's approval through the Land Use Regulation Program. For a project of this magnitude, it is likely that the review process will take a minimum of six to twelve months upon submittal of the application.

There are a number of issues that are likely to arise during the review process that will tend to drive the permitting schedule to a longer than normal review cycle.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The USACOE will have notable concerns associated with an application for dualflow fine mesh screens including but not limited to:* Impacts of dredging on release of toxic sediments from the river bottom -Dredging issues have been an ongoing issue for activities in the Delaware River.* Impacts to anadromous fish populations

-Any permit issued by the USACOE is very likely to have significant seasonal restrictions (based on prior permitting experience) on in-water construction to prevent impacts to anadromous fish populations.

Such restrictions are likely to limit construction activities during the March to July time frame." The USFWS and NMFS will review a proposed dual flow fine mesh screen alternative with a critical eye. The Section 10 permitting process will enable both agencies to have a. formal regulatory review oversight on both the immediate construction impacts to the River and surrounding environs of the dual flow fine mesh screens but also the efficacy of the alternative in terms of entrainment and impingement losses at the facility.56 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.Impacts to navigation

-The impacts of the project to navigation will be a critical consideration associated with this alternative.

The U.S. Coast Guard will weigh in heavily on the impacts of this alternative on navigable waterways.

2. NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program Permits

("L URP")(a) Requlatory EvaluationThere are four distinct LURP regulatory programs that may have jurisdiction over the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative including CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Freshwater Wetlands and Coastal Wetlands.

Given that each of these permits is managed by the same program within NJDEP, the applicant can apply for the needed regulatory approvals as part of one permit application.

Based on the current S&L report, the Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands regulatory elements would not be applicable to this alternative. The primary structures associated with the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative would be placed within the water, and they would be connected to the abutments of the existing intake system, also in the water. Should an upland support structure be required, it would be small, and could be located outside any delineated areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that either of the wetland regulatory programs would have jurisdiction.

CAFRA and Waterfront Development regulations will be applicable.

As part of the Waterfront Development requirements, PSEG will be required to demonstrate that a Tidelands grant (in the form of a license, grant, lease or other acceptable contract) be in place for the area in which the Waterfront Development permit is applicable.

PSEG currently has a Tidelands approval for areas of the waterfront.

The engineering improvements would have to be evaluated in the context of the existing approval to determine whether the impacted areas are covered by the existing license.Given the level of design detail available at this point, it is unclear whether modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be required.

Based on the S&L report, it is assumed that any required modification to the existing Tidelands approval would be covered by a license rather than a grant. A grant requires that a deed be signed by the governor, and requires significantly more time to obtain than a license.(b) Schedule Considerations As noted, CAFRA and Waterfront Development permits can be processed and issued concurrently.

The approval process is dictated by the 90 Day Construction guidelines found at NJAC 7:1C. Typically, the process from submittal to completion should takefrom six to nine months. The time frame can vary depending upon the complexity of the project and the public interest in the project. As noted under the Section 10 permitting 57 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.analysis, the complexity of issues associated with improvements of the magnitude required by dual flow fine mesh screens will require close scrutiny by NJDEP.Accordingly, the normal six to nine month review process could be extended by several months.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns The issues addressed under the Section 10 description will also be applicable during the LURP review. Concerns related to release of toxic material during dredging operations, impacts to anadromous fish, and efficacy of the dual flow fine mesh screens to reduce impingement and entrainment will contribute to the regulatory review process.While public hearings are not necessarily required for each CAFRA and/or Waterfront Development permit review, it is likely that there may be requests for such a hearing, or that NJDEP may establish a hearing on its own volition.

The final decision on LURP related permits will most likely follow the decision path of the NJPDES process.d. Local Approvals 1. Lower Alloways Creek Planning Board Approval (a) Regulatory Evaluation The primary structures associated with the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative would be placed within the water, and they would be connected to the abutments of the existing intake system, also in the water. Local approval is not required for these structures,.-however, information presentations would be expected.Construction of new equipment housing buildings and other support infrastructure on upland portions of the site (if needed) will require site plan approval from the local planning board.(b) Schedule Considerations Should a site plan approval be required, the typical process for site plan approval takes approximately 30 -60 days from the time of submittal.

There are no approvals required from other regulatory bodies required prior to submittal to the Township.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns Should a site plan approval be required, it is unlikely that there will be any Special Studies required by the Township that have not been completed in other regulatory submittals.

Typically, professional studies are not needed, but a study (e.g.

lighting and 58 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.shading impacts on adjacent properties, noise studies) could be requested if so desired by the Township.2. Salem County Soil Conservation District (a) Regulatory Evaluation The Salem County Soil Conservation District is required to certify a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for any ground disturbance greater than 5,000 square feet.Based on the S&L report, the primary structures needed for the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative would be placed within the water. However, there could be upland support facilities that would require disturbance beyond the regulatory threshold.

The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must meet the standards promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee (N.J.S.A.

4:24-39 et seq.).(b) Schedule Considerations The SCD is required to certify the plan within 30 days of submittal.

The only instance when this approval could become part of the critical path schedule for implementation is when significant changes to the plans are made immediately prior to construction that require recertification by the District.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns There are no special studies or concerns associated with Soil Conservation District Certification.

e. Other Approvals 1. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs ("DCA ")(a) Regulatory Evaluation The DCA will have regulatory approval over any structures required to support the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative including any buildings and or foundations that may be required.

DCA may also review construction plans for walkways to the screen areas.Typically, any construction related to "process equipment" is exempt from Departmentreview. For purposes of this analysis, the dual flow fine mesh screens are considered to be "process equipment," and therefore exempt from DCA permit requirements.

However, any structures on top of ithe dual flow fine mesh screens and any support building(s) would be reviewed by DCA.59 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.(b) Schedule Considerations PSEG can apply for a complete release to proceed if all plans, specifications and fees are presented to DCA with the original submission or a partial release to proceed if only components of the overall application are complete at the time of submission.

DCA will advise PSEG within 20 days of receiving a complete application (including all required fees) for either release or partial release whether the Project Plans have been released or rejected.(c) Special Studies and/or Concerns As long as appropriate engineering design is completed, DCA typically does not require special studies as long as an applicant submits a complete application.

Typically, DCA approval becomes a critical path schedule item as engineering modifications are made;the review time may delay construction.

The problem is readily resolvable by quality assurance procedures during the design phase of the project.2. FAA (a) Regulatory Evaluation There are no components of the dual flow fine mesh screen alternative of sufficient height to trigger FAA review.B. Regulatory Feasibility PSEG previously concluded that dual flow fine mesh screen modifications addressed in this report are not applicable for installation at Salem. NJDEP's experts, Versar, Inc.and ESSA Technologies, LTD., have confirmed this conclusion, and NJDEP determined in 1994 and in 2001 that none of the dual flow fine mesh screen modifications represent BTA for the Station. Given the established record, PSEG would have to develop new information that would explain why the dual flow fine mesh screen modifications are now feasible from an installation and operations perspective and biologically efficacious.

Since the dual flow fine mesh screens have not been implemented at a facility similar in size or location to Salem, PSEG may be required to implement costly studies to prove that the technologies would work.

Regulatory impediments are not limited to NJPDES related programs.

The enormity of the water area impacted by this modification will raise significant environmental issues with both NJDEP LURP and USACOE Section 10 permitting.

Issues related to release of toxic materials resulting from dredging operations, construction impacts to anadromous fish, navigational impacts and the efficacy of the system to reduce 60 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.impingement and entrainments losses in lieu of the referenced construction impacts will complicate the approval process.C. Regulatory Schedule The NJPDES/316(b) permitting will be the long lead time regulatory process. It is possible that the permitting time frame for this modification could extend beyond two years, given the complexity of the modification, public input and the myriad of regulatory issues arising from this design.61 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.D. Regulatory Costs Table 4 Required Permits, Regulatory Costs and Schedule for the Dual Flow Screen Modifications 1 7 Fine Mesh P'i RegulatoryFees Support Schedule Year 1 Costs Year 2~and Preparation~

Studies:y

< -Costs~Title V $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 NJPDES Fee at NJDEP $250,000 2 years $250,000 $50,000 discretion; permit prep costs$50,000 316(b) Fee at NJDEP $1,000,000 2 years $750,000 $300,000 discretion; permit prep costs$50,000 Treatment Works N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Approval Stormwater

$0 $0 N/A $0 $0 Control DRBC Fee per DRBC $50,000 6 months $2,500 + fees $50,000 formula; permit prep costs $2,500 USACOE Section $25,000

$100,000 16 months $100,000 $25,000 10/404NJ LURP $30,000 $100,000-16 months $100,000 $30,000 NJ Tidelands

$5,000 $40,000 6 months $0 $45,000.Dept. of Fee % of $0 1 month $10,000 Permit fees Community Affairs construction costs;permit prep$10,000 Salem County $2,500 $0 2 months $0 $2500 SCD LAC Planning or $10,000 $5,000 5 months $0 $15,000 Zoning Board FAA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 The fee schedule provided herein does not include engineering design costs and relate studies. Costs included herein are limited to special studies, environmental impact statements, compliance statements and other studiesspecifically required by the regulatory program. Because such costs can be a function of specific issues raised by both the regulator and public comment, cost estimates provided herein may vary significantly depending upon the level of review by the respective regulatory agency.62 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ANALYSIS OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS TOSALEM'S COOLING WATER SYSTEM OR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE AKRF, INC.REFERENCES S&L, 2005a. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS, Evaluation

& Budgetary Cost Estimate for Natural Draft Cooling Tower Option, October 2005 Draft (Attachment 6-9 to this Application).

S&L, 2005b. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS, Evaluation

& Budgetary Cost Estimate for Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Option, October 2005 Draft (Attachment 6-10 to this Application).

S&L, 2005c. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS, Evaluation

& Budgetary Cost Estimate for Wedgewire Screen Option, October 2005 Draft (Attachment 6-3 to this Application).

S&L, 2005d. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS, Evaluation

& Budgetary Cost Estimate for the Dual Flow Screen Option, October 2005 Draft (Attachment 6-4 to this Application).

0 0 63 PSEG Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Evaluation of Air Quality Permitting Requirements and Potential Obstacles for Retrofit of Closed-Cycle Cooling Study Report Prepared for: AKRF, Inc.Prepared by: 0 Envirc'iýLgp EnviroMet, LLC 1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite K-54 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 June 17, 2005 Revised December 6, 2005 EnviroMet Project No. 70502 Executive Summary The air quality permitting requirements and potential permitting obstacles for a hypothetical retrofit of a closed-cycle cooling system to Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 have been identified and evaluated with respect to permitting feasibility.

Heat rejection using either natural draft or mechanical draft towers has been evaluated.

Because complete preliminary engineering

/ design information is not presently available, a cooling tower design has been assumed for purposes of determining regulatory program applicability, permitting obstacles, and permitting schedule.

The natural draft option is based upon the design of the Hope Creek cooling tower and the mechanical draft option is based upon a conceptual design provided by Sargent and Lundy but with air flows estimated based upon cooling towers studied at other PSEG generating stations.

Particulate emissions from the towers -a result of the emission of drift droplets containing dissolved solids -are based upon the conceptual tower design provided by Sargent and Lundy as well as studies performed for the Hope Creek cooling tower in support of the Extended Power Uprate project.Preliminary dispersion modeling of the mechanical draft option and review of previously performed dispersion modeling of the Hope Creek cooling tower as well as a fogging and icing study previously performed for the PSEG Linden Generating Station cooling towers yields the following conclusions:

• Retrofit of natural draft towers is unlikely to produce significant particulate impacts on a non-attainment area and therefore is not likely to trigger Subchapter 18 requirements to obtain emissions offsets and install Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technology.

• Retrofit of natural draft towers is unlikely to produce significant fogging, icing, or salt deposition problems onsite or offsite, which will expedite permitting.

• Retrofit of linear mechanical draft cooling towers will produce significant particulate impacts including significant impacts in the New Castle County, Delaware non-attainment area. A retrofit employing this tower type will likely require installation of LAER particulate control technology and securing particulate offsets. The costand availability of such offsets is not presently known." Preliminary dispersion modeling of the assumed design for the linear mechanical draft towers shows that the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) PM101 increment is predicted to be exceeded.

This is considered a fatal permitting flaw for the presumed design and measures to mitigate these impacts through use of a different design and/or alternative dispersion model would be required beforepermitting could proceed. It may be possible to successfully mitigate this problemthrough additional drift control, increased make-up to reduce basin TDS 1 Particulate matter having an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less.

concentrations, taller fan stacks, or more sophisticated dispersion modeling techniques

-all at additional costs to the project.* Linear mechanical draft towers are likely to produce significant fogging and perhaps some limited icing conditions close to the towers.ý The potential for fogging interference with river navigation would require a more detailed modeling assessment.

It may be possible to mitigate fogging through use of a wet-dry tower design at substantial additional cost." Linear mechanical draft towers are much more likely to produce operationally troublesome salt deposition on plant high voltage equipment than natural draft towers.Both the mechanical and natural draft tower design options will emit significant quantities of particulate matter, which becomes a potential confounding factor and the factor triggering New Jersey permitting requirements.

The New Jersey Air Pollution Control regulations at N.J.A.C 7:27-6 limit particulate emissions to 30 lb/hr. The anticipatedmaximum hourly particulate emissions from both the mechanical and natural draft tower designs exceed this regulatory limit, thereby precluding their use absent a change in the presumed engineering or operation of the towers or a change to the applicable regulations.

A PSD pre-construction permit would be required under 40 CFR 52 (federal PSD regulations).

A major modification to the Hope Creek Generating Station / Salem Generating Station Title V operating permit would be required under N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24 since the project would be subject to 40 CFR 52. Subchapter 18 (N.J.A.C.

7:27-18) non-attainment requirements, including the application of LAER and emissions offsets, are likely to be required for the mechanical draft design only.

This results from predicted significant impacts in the New Castle County, Delaware non-attainment area, which extends to the northern tip of Artificial Island. The PSD and Title V major modification permits must be finalized before construction can begin.Two future regulatory initiatives through a 5-year horizon (2010) have been identified which could affect the permitting of either the natural draft or the mechanical draft closed-cycle cooling systems. These are implementation of the ambient air quality standard for PM2.5 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) statutory review of the particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).EPA announced a proposed PM2.5 Implementation Rule (Implementation Rule) in September 2005. The Implementation Rule is scheduled to be finalized in the Fall of 2006. This rule will affect the nonattainment New Source Review and PSD treatment of PM2.5 and thus could affect the permitting of the closed-cycle systems. EPA has not released sufficient information in the Implementation Rule to determine the precise effect on the hypothetical cooling tower retrofit.EPA's review of the particulate NAAQS may result in a change to the particulate standards toward even greater stringency.

However, if EPA promulgates revised PM standards in ii September 2006 (under a court ordered deadline), it is likely that new source review requirements for the revised standards will not become effective before 2010.Assuming the regulatory hurdles can be overcome; permitting of the natural draft option is estimated to require 11 months while permitting of the mechanical draft option is estimated to require 17 months. The longer schedule for the mechanical draft option is related to Subchapter 18 applicability and the greater air quality impacts produced by that design.The estimated permitting budget requirement for the natural draft option is $120,000 whilethe estimated budget requirement for the mechanical draft option is $185,000.

The difference is, again, a result of Subchapter 18 applicability and the significantly greater environmental impacts expected from the mechanical draft towers.III TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

.....................

1 1.1 Purpose of Study ......................................

.........................................

1 1.2 Description of Salem / Hope Creek Generating Stations ....................

2 1.3 Description of Surrounding Region ....................................................

3 1.4 Considerations Regarding Environmental and Equipment Impacts ..........

3 2.0 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR CLOSED CYCLE COOLING RETROFIT ....... 8 2.1 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Retrofit ...............................................

8 2.2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Retrofit .........................................

10 3.0 Air Quality (Particulate) Environmental Setting .....................................

17 4.0 CURRENT AND REQUIRED AIR QUALITY PERMITS ...........................

19 4.1 Current Air Q uality Perm it ...............................................................

19 4.2 Regulatory Applicability (Natural Draft and Mechanical Draft) ...... 20 4.2.1 New Jersey Air Pollution Control Regulations

...........................

20 4.2.2 Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations

................................

23 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF CLOSED-CYCLE COOLING ......................

25 5.1 C onstruction

..................................................................................

25 5.2 O peration

.......................................................................................

25 5.2.1 Particulate Em issions ...............................................................

25 5.2.2 Potential for Adverse Fogging, Icing, and Salt Deposition Impacts 29 5.2.3 Impact on Brigantine Class I area ..............................................

31 6.0 PERMITTING SCHEDULE AND COSTS ..............................................

35 7.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE REGULATORY INITIATIVES

......................

39 7.1 Federal and State Regulatory Initiatives

...........................................

39 7.1.1 Federal .................................................................................. ..39 7.1.2 N ESCA U M ..............................................................................

45 8.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS .....................................................................

47 9.0 REFEREN C ES ..........................................................................................

5 1 iv LIST OF TABLES 7m-Number Title 2-1 Salem Generating Station -Assumed Design for Natural Draft Towers With Comparison to Existing Hope Creek Generating Station Natural Draft Tower 2-2 Salem Generating Station; Assumed Design for Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers; Design Assumptions Based On GEA Power Cooling, Inc. Specifications 3-1 Criteria Pollutant Background Concentrations

(ýtg/m 3)8-1 Salem Generating Station Evaluation of Air Permitting Issues for Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit -Summary of Study Results V0 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1-1 Location of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 1-2 Aerial photo of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Site 1-3 Regional Political Boundaries and PM2.5 Attainment Status in the Vicinity of Salem Generating Station 2-1 Sketch of Potential Natural Draft Cooling Tower Location -Salem Generating Station 2-2 Sketch of Potential Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower.

Location -Salem Generating Station 2-3 Assumed Location of Linear (2xl 2) Mechanical Draft Towers On Salem Generating Station Site 5-1 Salem Generating Station / Hope Creek Generating Station Site -Dispersion Modeling for Mechanical Draft Tower Option -Structures Included for Downwash Evaluation 5-2 ISC-PRIME

-Predicted 24-Hour Maximum Particulate Impacts from Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Scenario 5-3 ISC-PRIME

-Predicted Maximum Annual Particulate Impacts from Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Scenario 6-1 Schedule Estimate -Air Permitting of Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Salem Generating Station Units No. 1 and 2 -Natural Draft Cooling Tower Design 6-2 Schedule Estimate -Air Permitting of Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Salem Generating Station Units No. 1 and 2 -Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Design 7-1 Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring Results -Maximum 24-Hour and Annual Average Values -NJDEP Gibbstown Monitor vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION Salem Generating Station (Salem) is an electric generating facility consisting of two nuclear-powered pressurized water reactors each with a licensed rating of 3,423 megawatts-thermal (MWt), and ancillary equipment.

Ancillary equipment includes one steam turbine / generator set per unit, each with an electrical output of approximately 1200 megawatts-electric (MWe).Salem Unit 1 commenced commercial operation in 1977 with Unit 2 following in 1981. Units 1 and 2 are treated as identical units for purposes of this study. The adjacent Hope Creek Generating Station ("Hope Creek") commenced commercial operation of a single unit in 1986. Hope Creek Unit 1 is similar in thermal and electrical energy production to the Salem units. Hope Creek employs a singlenatural draft tower to dissipate excess heat from the steam cycle.

The two Salem units are cooled using open-cycle cooling.

The NJDEP has issued a Title V air permit considering Salem and Hope Creek as a single "facility".

The air permit includes the natural draft cooling tower associated with Hope Creek. This permit limits the maximum hourly emission rate ofparticulate matter (PM) from the Hope Creek cooling tower to 29.4 lb/hr and the annual emission rate of PM to 128.8 tons per year (tpy).This study examines certain air quality-related aspects of retrofitting closed-cycle cooling systems to both Salem Units.

Closed-cycle cooling systems would reject excess heat directly to the atmosphere rather than to the Delaware Estuary. Heat would be dissipated primarily through the evaporation of cooling water. The heatdissipation process results in emissions of PM to the atmosphere and therefore triggers certain regulatory requirements for permitting and impact analysis.1.1 Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determine the air permitting requirements, evaluate the air permitting feasibility and estimate schedule implications for retrofitting closed-cycle cooling systems to Salem Units 1 and 2. Both natural draft and mechanical draft towers are considered in the study since differences will exist in the impact characteristics and permitting requirements.Since air quality permitting requirements, cost and schedule are strongly dependent upon the magnitude and type of emission and whether or not significant ambient impacts are predicted through dispersion modeling, it is necessary to assume some 1 aspects of cooling system design to achieve the purposes of this study. In essence, the study assumes the following:

• A natural draft retrofit tower would be similar in size and operating characteristics to the Hope Creek cooling tower, already in operation at the site. The existing Hope Creek cooling tower is very similar to a conceptual design of the natural draft retrofit alternative for Salem Generating StationUnits 1 and 2 performed by Sargent and Lundy (Reference 1-1).* A conceptual design of the mechanical draft option has been performed by Sargent -and Lundy (Reference 1-2) and is used as the basis for the mechanical draft option impact evaluation.

• Emissions from either option are conservatively estimated using information developed for the Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate (EPU) permitting.

• The cooling towers for either option would be located to the east of the Salem containment, turbine structures and switchyard.

1.2 Description

of Salem / Hope Creek Generating Stations The Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations are located on adjacent sites on Artificial Island in the Delaware Estuary (River Mile 50) in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The 'location of Salem and Hope Creek, as depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle of Taylor's Bridge, Del-N.J. is shown in Figure 1-1, and on an aerial photograph in Figure 1-2.Together, Hope Creek and Salem occupy about 740 acres.Currently, cooling water for the Salem Units 1 and 2 condensers is obtained fromthe Delaware Estuary. If closed-cycle cooling systems were retrofit to these units,the source of make-up water would also likely be the Delaware Estuary 2.Freshwater flows into the Estuary and other ambient conditions determine the quality of the make-up (i.e. the concentration of salinity plus other dissolved solids).

Periods of lower salinity typically occur during prolonged periods of high freshwater flow. Periods of higher salinity typically occur during extended periods of drought and low freshwater flow.NJDEP currently considers Salem and Hope Creek to be a single facility with respect to implementation of state and federal air permitting regulations.

At the time this determination was made, the two stations were both owned (majority share) and operated by the same parent company (PSEG). This fact, plus the fact that the 2 Previous studies of alternative sources of make-up water for closed-cycle cooling systems at the site have demonstrated that the only feasible make-up water source is the Delaware Estuary. See References 1-1 and 1-2.2 stations are on adjacent parcels and share the same Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code led the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to combine both stations into a single facility for air permitting purposes.

A single Title V permit has been issued covering both stations.1.3 Description of Surrounding Region The Hope Creek and Salem site is located on Artificial Island in the southwestern portion of Salem County. The site is bordered by water on the west and south sides and by lowland marshes on the north and east sides (refer to Figure 1-2). The formation of Artificial Island began early in the twentieth century when the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers disposed of hydraulic dredging spoils within a diked area established around a natural bar projecting into the Delaware River. The "island" is not a true island as it is connected to the mainland of New Jersey. The approximate grade of Artificial Island is 9 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), however most plant structures are at a base elevation a few feet higher.The site is located approximately 18 miles south of Wilmington, DE; 30 miles southwest of Philadelphia, PA; and 7.5 miles southwest of Salem, NJ. Land use in the surrounding area (for air quality analysis purposes) is classified as rural consisting of natural covers, water bodies, and agricultural uses. Terrain elevations within New Jersey are essentially flat within 10 km. There are some low elevation (50 foot) terrain features within this distance in Delaware to the west and southwest of the site.While the Hope Creek and Salem Generating Station structures a're located within the state of New Jersey, the border between New Jersey and Delaware is nearby, running northward from Delaware Bay in the middle of the River but then cutting eastward to the edge of the New Jersey shore across the northernmost portion of Artificial Island (see Figure 1-3 for political boundaries).

The very close proximity of the site to the State of Delaware is important to air quality permitting issues as will be discussed in Section 4.1.4 Considerations Regarding Environmental and Equipment Impacts Expected air pollutant emissions from any retrofit closed-cycle cooling systems will consist primarily of materials and compounds present in the make-up water. The most notable constituent is dissolved solids (essentially sea salts). In addition, settleable solids, and small quantities of volatile organic compounds are present in the make-up water drawn from the Estuary. The dissolved solids will be present in 3 the liquid drift droplets emitted from the retrofitted cooling towers in the same concentration found in the cooling tower basin and circulating water system. The concentration within the circulating water system (and therefore the drift droplets)will vary continuously as a function of makeup Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)concentration, heat load and meteorological conditions.

The drift droplets will evaporate (under non-saturated atmospheric conditions) leaving a small particle.These particles are considered a pollutant (TSP, PMio and PM2.5)3 under the regulations of the State of New Jersey. However, in the context of the environmental significance of this emission, the particles are comprised essentiallyof sea salt.

A review of available information, including the Operating License Environmental Report for Hope Creek (where a natural draft tower was evaluated) discovered noparticularly sensitive offsite receptors for airborne sea salt.The operation of mechanical draft cooling towers can result in offsite fogging and, in winter, icing. There are no rail lines or major public roadways or bridges close enough to the site to be affected by these phenomena.

Modern cooling tower design limits drift rates to the degree that significant offsite icing is not likely to beimportant. However, the potential to affect Delaware River channel shipping by fogging from mechanical draft towers must be considered.

0 The area surrounding the site is "in-attainment" for PM1o. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently determined that Salem County is "in-attainment" for PM2.5; however, New Castle County Delaware is in a non-attainment status for this pollutant and is in very close proximity to the site. The attainment status of the site and the close proximity of a non-attainment area will affect the air permitting of the retrofit closed-cycle systems.In addition to the offsite environmental considerations of salt emissions, the onsite impact upon plant equipment must also be considered.

The degree of potential impact is strongly dependent upon the type of cooling tower installed and the proximity to electrical equipment, especially high voltage equipment.

Salt deposition on insulators is a known cause of flashover.

Airborne salt emissions from mechanical draft towers are of special concern. With respect to icing, the lowdrift rates of state-of-the-art cooling tower designs limits liquid water emissions typically to a few gallons per minute (gpm) which limits ice accretion rates to the degree that significant icing of plant equipment is not likely to occur.TSP is "Total Suspended Particulate";

PMio is Particulate Matter having an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of 1Qp or less; and PM2.5 is Particulate Matter having an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of or less. PM2.5 is also known as "Fine Particulate" 4 Figure 1-1Location of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 1,0 v , I%77-w S ' R EL K MADl HORSE CZl+/- RVIX TI N WW IR NJAGCMIN A (FA 1 t UM 1000 m 200Um 0UUUm 4UUUm 5 0 Figure 1-2 Aerial Photo of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Site 0 I Om 500m I 000m 1500m 2000m North is at the top of the figure.0 6 Figure 1-3 0 Regional Political Boundaries and PM 2.5 Attainment Status in the Vicinity of Salem Generating Station t. i-ý~~t Philadelphia)

Cmde 8ouCountyo CSalem County (N(J)Cony(D iN% @J> Ieiawar Couty PA ... c C e c il t , ....' : ....ouluesenCuny(Ny (MID) asý Couny (E)' N SalemIHove Cre *Facilit Attainment (or Unclassifiable)

Areas Nonattainment Areas 7

2.0 DESIGN

ASSUMPTIONS FOR CLOSED CYCLE COOLING RETROFIT A nuclear generating station's heat dissipation system accepts heat rejected from certain auxiliary equipment as well as the main condenser, and transfers this heat to either a water body ("open-cycle cooling")

or the atmosphere

("closed-cycle cooling")

for dissipation.

The focus of this study is a potential conversion of the present open-cycle system at Salem to a closed-cycle system.In a closed-cycle system, the transfer of excess heat to the atmosphere is accomplished primarily by evaporation of circulating water within a cooling tower.Two major options exist with respect to the type of cooling tower for this use: natural draftand mechanical draft. In a natural draft tower, the air within the tower is heated by the circulating water and becomes buoyant with respect to the surrounding atmosphere. (Being warmer, it is less dense than the surrounding air.)Natural, gravity-driven buoyancy processes induce the required airflow upwards through the tower. In order to optimally achieve this effect, natural draft towers are designed as tall structures, having a hyperbolic vertical cross-section.

Typically, for a large natural draft tower, the warm, saturated air and drift droplets are emitted at an elevation of approximately 500 feet above ground level. In mechanical draft towers, the required airflow is achieved by fans, which draw air through the towerto cool the circulating water. These towers are much shorter than natural draft towers and therefore emit the warm, saturated air and drift droplets closer to ground level. Both tower designs are evaluated in this report.2.1 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Retrofit Because of the similarity in electric generating capacity, steam cycle design, design heat rejection, and other factors between each of the Salem units and the single Hope Creek unit, it is instructive to first examine the natural draft cooling tower already installed at the adjacent Hope Creek Generating Station.Hope Creek presently employs a closed-cycle cooling system including a "counter-flow" hyperbolic natural draft tower in which air moving upward in the towercontacts heated circulating water flowing downward.

The evaporation saturates and warms the surrounding air and cools the water. The warm-moist air rises to the top of the tower because its density is less than the cooler and drier ambient air outside the tower. The resulting air pressure within the base of the tower is slightly lower than atmospheric which causes the cooler ambient air to be drawn into the tower base. In operation, a continuous stream of cooler ambient air is drawn in at the 8 base, warmed by the circulating water, rises through the tower, and emerges from the top of the tower.The Hope Creek cooling tower is equipped with drift eliminators that are designed to limit drift losses to 0.0005% of the circulating water flow rate. The results of testing conducted on the Hope Creek cooling tower determined that an even greater drift reduction, to a level of 0.000410%, was being achieved (Reference 2-1). For purposes of the present study, the design value of 0.0005% will be assumed.Hope Creek Unit 1 is very similar in thermal and electrical production to each of Salem Units 1 and 2. The major design parameters of the Hope Creek cooling tower, therefore, will be assumed to apply to a retrofit of closed-cycle cooling through natural draft cooling towers at Salem. Emissions will be conservatively scaled upward from the Hope Creek cooling tower, however, based on differences in drift rates, which are discussed within this section. The design parameters for the Hope Creek cooling tower important to air permitting issues are provided in Table 2-1. It should be noted that the actual circulating water flow rate measured in the Hope Creek circulating water system is 612,000 gpm yet that system (including the cooling tower) was designed for a flow of 552,000 gpm. The circulating water flow rate affects the PM emissions since drift is a percentage of circulating water flow.The 612,000 gpm value has been used in all recent emissions calculations for regulatory purposes.

A recent study conducted by Sargent and Lundy (Reference 1-1) calculated that a circulating water flow rate of approximately 511,000 gpm would be required for each of the Salem units if closed-cycle operation were to be employed.

Application of the Hope Creek cooling tower particulate emissions to a Salem natural draft tower retrofit will be conservative in this regard and allows for the same variance in "as built" circulating water system conditions as has occurred at Hope Creek by applying Hope Creek's actual circulating water flow rate.The same Sargent and Lundy study (Reference 1-1) shows that the location of the two retrofit natural draft towers (one per Salem unit) would be the east of the major station structures on a portion of the site that is currently undeveloped.

Figure 2-1, taken from Reference 1-1, shows the location as a sketch (no scale).The thermal duty and make-up characteristics of any retrofit natural draft cooling tower for each of the Salem units will be essentially the same as for the Hope Creek cooling tower. The particulate emissions estimated for the Hope Creek cooling tower will therefore be assumed to apply to each of the two Salem retrofit towers with one adjustment:

For purposes of this'study, the 42 lb/hr particulate emission rate recently applied-for in conjunction with the EPU project at Hope Creek will beconservatively adjusted upwards by the ratio of the design drift rate (0.0005%)

overthe measured drift rate (0.00041 %). The increased thermal loading associated withthe Hope Creek EPU results in increased eyaporation of the circulating water and aresulting further concentration of the TDS. This effect will be allowed to remain in 9 the emissions estimation for the Salem towers as a contingency since an actualpreliminary design has not yet been done for Salem.

It should be noted that the 42 lb/hr value is also based upon a make-up water TDS concentration which is conservative in that it represents an "outlier" maximum measurement of make-up TDS. Applying the 0.0005/0.00041 ratio to the Hope Creek cooling tower emission results in a particulate emission of 51.22 lb/hr per unit (tower). The New Jersey Air Pollution Control regulations at N.J.A.C 7:27-6 limit particulate emissions to 30 lb/hr. The maximum hourly particulate emissions from each of the natural draft towers as designed exceeds this regulatory limit, thereby precluding their use absent a change in the presumed engineering or operation of the towers or a change to the applicable regulations.

The annual emission will be assumed to be 128 tons/year per natural draft tower.This is the same value permitted for the Hope Creek cooling tower under the existing Title V Operating Permit and contains considerable margin. The above emission value assumptions form the basis for determining the permitting requirements and evaluating the ambient impact for particulate described later in this report.The retrofit natural draft cooling tower design assumed for the Salem units is summarized in Table 2-1 with a comparison to the Hope Creek cooling tower also provided in that table. Except for the emission rate and drift rate, the assumed design is identical to the Hope Creek cooling tower which allows dispersion modeling of particulates performed in support of the Hope Creek EPU to be used as the basis for estimation of impacts for the natural draft tower alternative studied here for the Salem Generating Station. The small differences between the Sargent and Lundy conceptual design in Reference 1-1 and the natural draft tower assumed in the analysis presented in this report are inconsequential with respect to the conclusions reached herein.2.2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Retrofit Unlike the natural draft tower case, a site- and unit-specific design surrogate is not available for the mechanical draft option. Mechanical draft towers are available in a wide variety of configurations and a retrofit must be optimized to the heat rejection duty, the site meteorology, to avoid interference and recirculation, and to consider the location' and type of existing plant equipment, especially high voltage components.

A recent report issued by Sargent and Lundy estimated that a single 24-cell tower would be required for each Salem unit for a total of 48 cells for both units (Reference 1-2). The location of the towers would be east of the major station structures on a part of the site that is currently undeveloped.

Figure 2-2, taken from Reference 1-2, shows the location as a sketch (no scale).10 0 Information on the mechanical tower design used to evaluate air permitting issues was obtained from the GEA Power Cooling, Inc. mechanical tower specifications provided in Attachment 7 of the Sargent and Lundy Mechanical Draft Tower Report (Reference 1-2). The towers specified in Reference 1-2 are 2x12 linear mechanical draft towers (twenty four cells arranged in two rows of 12 in each tower).The cooling tower design includes drift eliminators capable of limiting drift to a rate of 0.0005% of the circulating water flow, the same as assumed for the natural draft tower retrofit.

The exit flow for each cell was not provided in the Sargent and Lundy report and was estimated based on the air flow to circulating water ratios from PSEG's Linden 2 and Bergen 4 Mechanical draft towers. An emission rate of 42.72 lb/hr/unit is assumed evenly divided among the 24 cells per unit giving a particulate emission rate of 1.78 lb/hr per cell. The New Jersey Air Pollution Control regulations at N.J.A.C 7:27-6 limit particulate emissions to 30 lb/hr. The maximum hourly particulate emissions from each of the two mechanical draft towers as designed exceeds this regulatory limit, thereby precluding their use absent a change in the presumed engineering or operation of the towers or a change to the applicable regulations.

Table 2-2 presents the mechanical draft tower design information assumed for the present study. Figure 2-3 shows the assumed location of the linear mechanical draft towers on the Salem site.

0 11 0 Table 2-1 Salem Generating Station Assumed Design for Natural Draft Towers with Comparison to Existing Hope Creek Generating Station Natural Draft Tower 0 Parameter Hope Creek Cooling Tower Salem Generating Station (As Built / With EPU) Retrofit Cooling Towers (each of two)Tower Base Elevation 11 feet above MSL 11 feet above MSLTower Height 512 feet 512 feet (see note 1)Tower Exit Diameter 271 feet 271 feet Tower Exit 106.2 0 F 106.2 0 F Tem peratu reCirculating Water Flow 612,000 gpm 612,000 gpm (see note 2)Drift Rate 0.0004 1 % (measured) 0.0005%(conceptual design)Maximum Basin TDS 33,306 mg/I 33,306 mg/I Maximum Short-term Emission Rate (PM) 42 lb/hr 51.2 lb/hr Maximum Annual Mision Rat 128 tons/yr 128 tons/yr Emission Rate (PM)Notes:(1) The Sargent and Lundy design in Reference 1-1 differs very slightly from the design assumed here, being 500 feet high, however, this very small difference is immaterial to the analysis and conclusions.

(2) The conceptual Sargent and Lundy design is for a circulating water flow rate of 511,000 gpm, however, the Hope Creek flow rate of 612,000 is used for conservatism.

See text in section 2.1 for further explanation.

Impact analysis conclusions are unaffected by this assumption.

12 Table 2-2 Salem Generating Station Assumed Design for Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers Design Assumptions Based On GEA Power Cooling, Inc Specifications Parameter Value Number of Cooling Tower Cells 48 (24 for each unit)Number of Cells/Tower 24 (12x2 arrangement)Tower Height 39 feetTower Width 108 feet Tower Length 648 feet Cell Diameter 54 feet Cell Fan Stack Height 49 feet Exit Temperature 97.2 0 F Cell Exit Flow 1,490,854 acfm (estimated)

Maximum Hourly PM Emissions 1.78 lb/hr/cellMaximum Annual PM Emissions 1.22 lb/hr/cell 0 13 0 -T- -7'C1 1 _7 N4..I ij! 7:0 __ _v) 7'ý4. 'QFA fl YT)'I -P CD d *. k /0 ' A ~EL- EL-(k-4I'= C-TV 00 fI (.1)zAM

....... ..- ... ....o-n -.~__ --2 .7'~ -----Ln E-~CD % T, LYJ CD 0' -Er .j-A 'Ai -p W~3~/~~-T,... 7X Mooo~t co. D j-0 All\\\-f 4 -..1J.y~J-I ~ IA-.~ -, -c'- 4 ~ C Ayj~ 0 o~~~~~~~ 2.FT1~E ~ -~ 7'- c U-1~ DEL~- LLrJ~S 1p X'LXLA- xkI CWx ImEAT SHIPS TVO Cq.O u ~rtucl\pzegV-IAUL ROUTE dgn 8/19t'7005 11:10;04 AM 0 4 Figure .2-3Assumed Location of Linear (12x2) Mechanical Draft Towers On Salem Generating Station Site 4369000' " 4368800 ;43686600 4 4368400,'4368200 'V 4368000,i 4367800 454000 454200 454400 454600 454800 Coordinates are in UTM system. North is towards top.455000 455200 "455400 16 3.0 Air Quality (Particulate)

Environmental Setting The Salem site is located in southwestern Salem County. Nearby air pollution sources are limited primarily to transportation, agricultural activities, and combustion sources at both Salem and Hope Creek (emergency generators, auxiliary boilers, and combustion turbines).

There are heavily industrialized portions of both the Delaware and New Jersey banks of the Delaware River farther upstream but little significant industrial activity in the immediate vicinity of the site. Most particulate in Salem County's air has been transported to the County from emissions of particulate and precursors elsewhere.

Salem County is in attainment of both the PMio and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). PM1o is classified as "attainment" in neighboring counties and in New Castle County, Delaware, as well. Neighboring Cumberland County and New Castle County, Delaware, however, are classified as "non-attainment" for PM2.5. Figure 1-3 shows the PM2.5 attainment status of Salem and surrounding counties.Background air quality monitoring is conducted by the NJDEP in Gibbstown, Gloucester County. Monitored air quality for PM1o and PM2.5 is shown in Table 3-1 for the years 2002 through 2004 (2003 and 2004 data are from the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) which may differ slightly in value from that to be eventually officially provided by the NJDEP.)17 Table 3-1 Criteria Pollutant Background Concentrations (jig/rn 3)24-Hour Camden Lab 62.8 36 56 52 49 150 PM10.4- 4 .4- - I- I- -41 Annual Camden Lab 62.8 36 24.4 27.0 22.0 5024-Hour Gibbstown 45.1 27 J 35.7(a) 35.3 33.0 65 PM2. A Annual Gibbstown 45.1 27 13.0 13.8 12.4 15 Notes: (a) 24-Hour data for year 2002 reflects the exclusion of the single day monitored values of July 7, 2002 during a forest fire event. This event gave the single highest 24-hour PM2.5 value ever recorded at Gibbstown (96.9 jg/m 3). This value is included in the annual average.(b) Data for 2002 were provided by the NJDEP Bureau of Air Monitoring in (Reference 3-1)(c) Data for 2003 and 2004 were provided by the EPA AIRS website (Reference 3-2).18

4.0 CURRENT

AND REQUIRED AIR QUALITY PERMITS 4.1 Current Air Quality Permit The Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations are considered to be a single source (or"facility")

under the EPA and NJDEP air permitting regulations.

The two stations are combined into a single source for air permitting purposes because the two stations are adjacent to one another and, at the time of determination, both were owned (majority share) and operated by the same parent company. The criteria for determining whether a facility is a minor or major source for air permitting purposes are based on the facility's potential to emit certain criteria pollutants.

A facility is considered a "major" facility if it has the potential to emit pollutants that exceed the "Threshold (tpy)" amounts listed in the following table: Major Source Applicability Thresholds Air Contaminant Threshold (tpy)

Any Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) 10 Combination of HAPs 25 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 PM10 100 TSP 100 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) 100 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 25Lead (Pb) 10 Any Other Air Contaminant 100 The Salem-Hope Creek facility is considered a "major" source because its potential emissions exceed one or more of the threshold levels. As a result, the Salem-Hope Creek facility is subject to NJDEP's Title V operating permit regulations as contained in N.J.A.C.7:27-22.The Salem-Hope Creek facility received an approved Title V operating permit from NJDEP on February 15, 2005. The Title V permit contains emissions limits, regulatory requirements, monitoring and recordkeeping provisions and reporting requirements for all potential emissions sources at the Salem-Hope Creek facility.

Included in the approved Title V permit is the existing Hope Creek natural draft cooling tower.

The cooling tower is currently limited to a maximum hourly particulate emission rate of 29.4 lbs/hr and annual particulate emissions of 128 tpy. In addition to the particulate emission limits, the permit 19 also requires bi-weekly sampling of the TDS concentration in the circulating water and an.annual report detailing the calculated hourly and annual particulate emissions resulting from the TDS sampling.

There is also a limitation on the type and quantity of chemical additives that may. be added to the circulating water.4.2 Regulatory Applicability (Natural Draft and Mechanical Draft)This section provides a brief analysis of the applicability of the New Jersey and Federal air pollution control regulations of particular relevance to a closed-cycle retrofit project at the Salem Generating Station.4.2.1 New Jersey Air Pollution Control Regulations N.J.A.C. 7:27-6 Control and Prohibition of Particles from Manufacturing Processes N.J.A.C. 7:27-6 limits particulate emissions from source operations associated with manufacturing processes.

Any cooling tower retrofits installed at Salem presumably will be subject to N.J.A.C. 7:27-6 as a 'source operation" under N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.1.

Per N.J.A.C.7:27-6.2(a) the maximum allowable particulate emission rates for an affected source are determined based upon a maximum particulate concentration of 0.02 grains (gr) per standard cubic foot (scf) in the source exhaust flow. N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.2(a) limits the maximum allowable particulate emission rate to 30.0 lbs/hr by not making explicit provisions for sources having a gas flow greater than 175,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). Recognizing that technology limitations could prevent compliance with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.2(a) and/or that the size of some sources could exceed the 175,000 scfm value, the Department made provision for a variance mechanism which is found in N.J.A.C.7:27-6.5.

However, the variance provisions in N.J.A.C. 7:27-6.5, were expressly rejected by EPA when EPA approved Subchapter 6 as part of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP). Therefore, NJDEP believes it is not possible to issue such a variance.In April 2004 PSEG requested that NJDEP revise Subchapter 6 to allow PM emission rates above 30 lb/hr for the Hope Creek cooling tower, which may periodically result from the Hope Creek EPU project. NJDEP had stated to EnviroMet (Reference 4-1) that changes to Subchapter 6 are being drafted for adoption on a state level.. The changes to Subchapter 6 were not proposed by the the date of this report and it is thereby unclear when NJDEP will amend the regulations.

Although EPA must approve the revised Subchapter 6 as a SIP change, NJDEP believes that they can issue permits under the revised Subchapter 6 after its adoption on a state level.20 If the Subchapter 6 revisions are adopted before any air permitting work begins on the retrofit project, then the current Subchapter 6 limitations are not expected to affect the permitting of the retrofit project. If Subchapter 6 is not revised, then particulate emissions from each cooling tower would be limited to 30 lb/hr. This limit on particulate matter emissions is impractical for the presumed cooling tower design and operational characteristics because of periodic naturally-occurring meteorological and river flow conditions that can yield high circulating water system TDS concentrations.

!The plant operator has no control over these factors.N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 Operating Permits The Salem-Hope Creek Facility is currently operating under an approved Title V Operating Permit. N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.24 requires that the construction or installation of any new significant source operation shall be made as a significant modification if a source is subject to the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52. Because the retrofit project will be subject to PSD regulations, a Title V Operating Permit Significant Modification would be required.NJDEP's Title V public comment requirements

[7:27-22.11(k)]

dictate that, before publishing notice of a draft operating permit that includes a significant modification, NJDEP must also give notice to the head of the designated air pollution control agency of any"affected state". An affected state is any state contiguous to New Jersey or is located within50 miles of the facility which is the subject of the permit [7:27-22.1].

In the case of the Salem-Hope Creek Facility the affected states are Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 0 New York. The regulations state that NJDEP will accept and consider any comments which are received from the affected state prior to the close of the public comment period. If NJDEP does not accept any recommendation by an affected state during the public comment period, NJDEP will inform the affected state and EPA in writing, setting forth NJDEP's reasons for not accepting the recommendation.

NJDEP regulations

[7:27-22.12(g)]

state that if EPA does not object to the proposed operating permit within its 45 day comment period, "any person" (presumably the affected state) may petition the EPA during the 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45 day comment period, and may request that EPA object to the proposed operating permit.The Clean Air Act prescribes that, if EPA denies the petition for review, then EPA's denial isthen subject to judicial review.21 N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Emissions Offset Rule)N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 (Subchapter

18) applies to major facilities or major modifications which will cause a "significant net emission increase" in a non-attainment area (or that will significantly impact a non-attainment area). A significant net emission increase occurs when facility-wide emission increases during the "contemporaneous period" (time period between five years prior to initiation of construction and initial source operation) exceed the, significant net emission increase thresholds.

Facilities which exceed a significant netemission increase threshold for a non-attainment pollutant are required to demonstrate Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and include an emission offset plan and an air quality impact analysis to demonstrate compliance with the regulation for the non-attainment pollutant.

TheSalem-Hope Creek facility is a major facility and the retrofit project will cause a significant net emissions increase of TSP, PMio and PM2.5. As a result, Subchapter 18 requirements would apply to the project if the facility is located in a TSP, PM1o or PM2.5 non-attainment area or if the retrofit project significantly impacts a non-attainment area.The facility is located in Salem County which is currently designated as attainment for TSP, PMio and PM2.5 but it is located only about 2100 meters from the border of New CastleCounty, Delaware.

New Castle County is a PM2.5 non-attainment area. Therefore, there is the potential that PM2.5 emissions from the retrofit project may significantly impact a non-attainment area.Since Subchapter 18 is applicable, dispersion modeling will be required. Preliminary modeling of the natural draft tower design (as presented in Section 5 of this report) shows all predicted impacts below the PM2.5 significance levels and, as a result, the natural draft retrofit design would not be subject to Subchapter 18 non-attainment requirements.

The preliminary modeling of the assumed mechanical draft tower design shows impacts exceeding both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 significant impact levels within the New Castle County non-attainment area and, as a result, the mechanical draft retrofit design would be subject to Subchapter 18 non-attainment requirements.

The two most significant.aspects of the applicability of Subchapter 18 will be (1) the demonstration that the PM2.5 control technology for the mechanical draft towers represents LAER and (2) acquiringemissions reductions (offsets) from other facilities within the non-attainment area.It is expected that the proposed drift rate of 0.0005% for the mechanical draft towers would satisfy the demonstration of LAER control technology.

The procurement of PM2.5 emissions offsets is much more problematic.

Final implementation of the PM2.5 standard will specify required offset ratios.

Current interim guidance (Reference 4-2) requires only a 1:1 ratio. Depending on the timing of the project, PSEG would be expected to secure between 1 and 2 tpy of offset emissions per ton of emission increase.

If it were assumed that the project would be permitted for an increase of 256 tpy of PM2.5 it will need to 22 acquire between 256 and 512 tpy of PM2.5 offsets from sources in the non-attainment area.The cost and availability of these emissions offsets is unknown at this time since the areaonly recently became designated as non-attainment and EPA has not yet issued guidance on how to implement the requirements for PM2.5 non-attainment areas.4.2.2 Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSD regulations require new major stationary sources and major modifications to stationary sources located in attainment and unclassified areas to:* conduct a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis and install BACT* demonstrate compliance with PSD air quality increments and the NAAQS o demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards o determine project impacts on soils, vegetation, growth and visibility The determination of whether or not a source is subject to PSD review, and to what extent the review must be conducted, is based upon a comparison of source emissions andimpacts to pollutant thresholds specified in the PSD regulations. Applicability to PSD regulations is required to be determined under the final rule published on December 31, 2002 PSD and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR), however this rule remains a matter of dispute between NJDEP and the EPA. Because the particular issues of this dispute do not touch on matters that would affect the PSD requirements for a closed-cycle cooling retrofit at Salem, it is assumed that the dispute will not affect permitting level of effort or schedule.The Salem-Hope Creek facility is currently considered an existing major source as definedunder the PSD regulations.

Therefore, in order to determine whether the retrofit project would trigger PSD review (PSD applicability), the potential emission increases from either scenario must be compared against the PSD "significant net emission increase" thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants for which the area is in attainment (i.e., NO., CO, S02, TSP, PMio, Pb). If the proposed emission increase associated with the project "by itself" is less than the significant net emissions increase threshold, the project is not subject to PSD review. If the proposed emission increase, by itself, is greater than the significant emissions increase, a netting analysis is conducted, taking into account all contemporaneous creditable emission decreases and increases at the facility.

If the emission increases from the netting analysis are above the significant net emission increase thresholds for any pollutant, then that pollutant is subject to PSD review. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that the only contemporaneous emission increase will be from the recentlyproposed change to the Hope Creek cooling tower (EPU Project).23 The installation of new cooling towers at Salem would only be expected to affect emissions of particulate.

The PSD significant increase thresholds for TSP and PMio are 25 tpy and 15tpy, respectively 4.Both cooling tower designs being considered will have potential annual particulate emissions exceeding 25 tpy and therefore would be subject to PSD review.The PSD permit is a "pre-construction" permit.

Most construction activities related to the project cannot begin until the permit is final.4 PSD Significant increase thresholds for PM25 have not yet been established; EPA is relying upon the PMio thresholds in this interim period prior to promulgation of new guidance (Reference 4-2).24 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF CLOSED-CYCLE COOLING An applicant for a PSD permit is required to conduct an air quality modeling analysis to assess the ambient impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed source. The retrofit project (either design) will require a PSD permit and therefore will require an air quality analysis to be performed to assess the ambient impacts of the project.

The main purpose of an air quality analysis under the PSD program is to determine whether the emissions from the project will cause or significantly contribute to a NAAQS or PSD increment violation.Because this is such an important hurdle to cross in the actual permitting process, a cursory modeling study of the mechanical draft retrofit option has been performed as part of the present study. It was not necessary to model the natural draft option for study purposes as explained later.5.1 Construction An assessment of ambient air quality impacts from construction activities related to the retrofit project will most likely be required as part of the environmental impact statement for the project. Because the large site affords a significant buffer between the activities and the property boundary, the ambient impacts from the constructionactivities are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable standards.

Given the site layout, it is likely that this aspect of the permit applicationcan be handled qualitatively.

5.2 Operation

5.2.1 Particulate

EmissionsFor PSD projects, assessing the air quality impacts from operation of the retrofit project requires the use of an EPA-recommended mathematical dispersion model.For the present study, the model chosen for use is the EPA's Industrial Source Complex Model with Plume Rise Model Enhancement (ISC-PRIME) (Reference 5-1)'.' ISCST PRIME was chosen for this study to be reasonably compatible with previous work on the Hope Creek cooling tower (the previous work used ISC with Huber-Snyder algorithms) and to utilize the latest downwash algorithms (PRIME algorithms) since downwash will be significant for the mechanical draft towers. ISCST is presently the EPA-recommended model for analyses such as this cooling tower study. However, EPA is in the process of replacing the ISCST model with the 250 This model predicts both short-term and annual ambient concentrations of emitted airborne pollutants for comparison with existing environmental thresholds and standards.

For cooling tower emissions subject to PSD regulation in the State of New Jersey, these thresholds and standards consist of (in order of decreasing impact stringency) Significant Impact Levels (SILS), PSD increments, New Jersey Ambient Air Quality Standards (NJAAQS), and the NAAQS for TSP, PMio, and PM2.5 (as applicable).

Predicted impacts for any modeled pollutant are calculated at ground level. The buoyancy of mechanical draft tower plumes is less than that of the natural draft tower plumes since the total heat rejected is emitted across a substantial horizontal distance compared with the more concentrated emission of the natural draft design.Mechanical draft tower plumes are also severely affected by aerodynamic.downwash under certain meteorological conditions.

Since the mechanical draft towers emit a plume subject to downwash effects at a height of only approximately 49 feet above grade, dispersion of plume material downward to ground level is expected to occur quickly under many meteorological conditions.

Conversely, anatural draft cooling tower plume experiences a significantly greater amount of dilution before reaching ground level because its exit height is about 500 feet above grade. This greater diffusion would be expected to lead to much smaller predicted impacts for the natural draft tower than for the mechanical draft tower.Natural Draft Cooling Towers From previous modeling studies (Reference 5-2) completed for the nearby Hope Creek cooling tower in support of the EPU project, it was conclusively shown that particulate emissions from the tower do not cause significant impacts for particulates in either short-term or annual averaging periods.

This study shows a maximum ground level short-term (24-hour average) impact of 0.25 /g/m 3 and a maximum annual average impact of 0.004/pg/m 3.These levels are sufficiently low that even iftwo additional similar towers were added to the site for Salem Units 1 and 2, significant impacts for particulate matter would not occur. This is an important ,conclusion in that it: " Eliminates the need for a multisource modeling analysis which would include other Salem and Hope Creek sources (combustion turbines, emergency diesels, auxiliary boilers, etc.) thereby reducing the permitting risk to non-project equipment and operations

• Eliminates any possibility of significant impacts in the nearby non-attainmentarea (New Castle County, Delaware)

• Reduces the permitting costs

• Improves the permitting schedule AERMOD model for regulatory purposes. Once the promulgation of AERMOD is completed, PSD analyses will be required (absent a demonstration otherwise) to use AERMOD for impact analysis.

26 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers In order to estimate the impacts of mechanical draft cooling towers at the Salem /Hope Creek site, preliminary dispersion modeling was conducted using the design assumptions provided in Table 2-2.To provide basic consistency with the previously modeled natural draft tower impacts, the same base model, receptor field, and meteorological data (surface station -Wilmington, DE; upper-air station -Sterling, VA; data years 1991-1995) are used here for mechanical draft modeling as were employed for the previous Hope Creek cooling tower modeling supporting the EPU. The only notable difference from the previous modeling of the Hope Creek cooling tower was the use of the PRIME downwash algorithms for simulating downwash processes for the mechanical draft towers.Using the above-described methodology, and accounting for aerodynamic downwash from the structures depicted in Figure 5-1 (the existing Hope Creek cooling tower and the hypothetical Salem Units 1 and 2 mechanical draft tower structures), 24-hour short-term and annual particulate impacts were predicted for thearea within 10 km of the Salem / Hope Creek site. As with the Hope Creek coolingtower modeling, all particulate impacts are assumed to be 100% TSP, PM1o and PM2.5, and these impacts are compared to the most stringent existing significance 0 level and PSD increment for determination of any significant impact area or increment exceedance.

For 24-hour and annual impacts, the most stringent significance levels are for PM2.5. For this pollutant, the NJDEP Bureau of Air Quality Evaluation (BAQEv) has been applying 2.2 /g/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 0.3 /g/m 3 on an annual basis, absent formal guidance from EPA (Reference 5-2). For PSD increment, the most restrictive is for PM1o, with increments of 30 /jg/mi and 17 pjg/mi for 24-hour and annual impact thresholds.

PSD increments for PM2.5 have not yet been established.

Figure 5-2 classifies the maximum 24-hour concentration (occurring in 1995)predicted at each of the 5512 receptors within the modeling domain, highlighting those receptors which exceed either the PM2.5 significant impact level (2.2 /g/m 3) or have predicted impacts greater than the PSD increment of 30 pg/m 3 for PMio.Figure 5-3 similarly depicts the maximum annual impact (year 1994), with similar comparisons to the annual significant impact level of 0.3 /jg/m 3 (PM2.5) and PSD increment of 1 7 /g/m 3 (PMio) for an annual average concentration.

As can be seen in Figure 5-2, there are extensive areas where predicted impactsexceed the 24-hour significance level. The full extent of this area is undefined in the present analysis since impacts exceeding the PM2.5 significance threshold extend to the edge of the modeling domain (at least 10 km) in all directions.

This is 27 important, as the Delaware border is only about 2 km to the west and southwest of the Salem site.

The significant impacts for PM2.5, therefore, reach well into New Castle County, which has been designated non-attainment for fine particulates (as seen in Figure 1-3). From a permitting standpoint this then triggers New Jersey Subchapter 18 requirements for LAER and offsets, as outlined in Section 4. It is unlikely that any New Jersey non-attainment area'would be significantly impactedsince the nearest non-attainment area in New Jersey is Gloucester County, at a distance of approximately 30 km.In addition to the non-attainment issue, Figure 5-2 shows two areas nearby to the fenceline which are predicted to exceed the 30 /jg/m 3 24-hour PSD increment level for PMio by as much as 34.7% (evidenced by the maximum predicted 24-hour concentration of 40.40 /g/m 3).Exceedance of a- PSD increment would be a fatal permitting flaw and must be corrected through changes from the presumed design and/or operational characteristics.

Use of the newer air quality dispersion model (AERMOD) when allowed by EPA, will predict impacts that could be higher or lower than those stated here and this avenue could be investigated.

Additional areas of possible investigation to reduce, impacts would include characterizing the equivalent aerodynamic diameter of the particulate to determine whether a fraction can be excluded from consideration as PM2.5 emissions and exploring use of the "circular mechanical" tower configuration which enhances plume rise and thereby reduces ground level particulate concentrations.

It may require a combination of such actions to successfully address the .issue. It is also possible that no technically and economically feasible action or combination of actions can be found thatsuccessfully mitigates the problem because of the constraints imposed by the characteristics of high makeup water TDS concentrations and local site meteorology.

In any event, permitting cannot proceed unless compliance with the PSD increments can be demonstrated., Figure 5-3 shows significant annual impacts are also predicted but the extent is less than with the short-term analysis.

Impacts exceeding the assumed annual PM2.5 significance level of 0.3 /g/m 3 extend approximately 7.5 km from the Site, with a maximum concentration of 4.19 ug/mi. This maximum impact is approximately 24.6% of the annual PMio PSD increment standard of 1 7/pg/m 3.However, addition of the Gibbstown annual background concentration of 13.8 /g/m 3 to the predicted value of 4.19 pg/mr results in a total concentration exceeding.

the NAAQS of 15/pg/m 3 for fine particulate.

This also constitutes a potential fatal flaw for the mechanical draft option, which must be remedied prior to proceeding with permitting.

28

5.2.2 Potential

for Adverse Fogging, Icing, and Salt Deposition Impacts Fogging and Icing Potential NJDEP Technical Manual 1002

-Guidance on Preparing an Air Quality ModelingProtocol (Reference 5-3) requires that the permit applicant evaluate the potential for cooling tower fogging/icing impacts on offsite critical areas. Assessment of these potential cooling tower plume impacts requires the use of a mathematical computer model. Although somewhat dated, the most commonly used model for this purpose in New Jersey is still the Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts (SACTI)model. The model is used for the prediction of seasonal/annual physical impacts ofcooling tower plumes including fogging, icing and shadowing.

The model was developed by EPRI for the express purpose of evaluating impacts from power plant cooling towers (Reference 5-4).Fogging and / or icing can occur when the condensed plume from the cooling tower is transported

/ diffused down to ground level. The natural draft tower design will have only a very small potential of producing a plume which could be carried intact to ground level since the exit height will be over 500 feet above grade elevation.

The natural draft tower design would not be expected to have any significant icing or fogging impacts and would probably escape the NJDEP impact modeling requirement.

The mechanical draft tower's exit height will only be approximately 49 feet above grade and plumes from these towers will have a greater probability of causingsignificant fogging/icing near the tower. The frequency and duration of fogging and icing impacts will decrease as distance away from the tower increases.

The assumed location for mechanical draft towers is approximately 2.5 km from the Delaware River shipping channel and less than 500 meters from the water's edge.Additionally, the tower plume would be transported toward the River under the typical adverse meteorological condition (easterly component winds, cool to cold temperatures and a nearly saturated atmosphere).

A modeling evaluation of the potential to cause significant visibility reductions on the waterway would be required.

There are no critical offsite public highways, bridges, or other infrastructure in the area that would appear to be near enough to be adverselyýimpacted by the mechanical draft cooling tower plume icing or fogging.Fogging and icing impacts are, of course, possible onsite but the potential of these impacts to seriously interfere with plant operation is deemed relatively small.Because of the high efficiency drift eliminators, the primary type of ice deposition would be rime and accrual would be very slow. Onsite fogging is likely under certain meteorological conditions.

29 W In order to preliminarily assess potential fogging and icing impacts, model runs supporting a previous New Jersey SACTI study on similar mechanical draft cooling towers conducted by PSEG (for Linden Generating Station) were examined (Reference 5-5). While the Linden study was conducted using northeastern New Jersey (Newark Airport) meteorological conditions, it evaluated essentially the same generic tower design as assumed for the Salem closed-cycle mechanical draft tower retrofit option and therefore is useful to provide an "order of magnitude" assessment for the Salem / Hope Creek Site. The maximum distance to which at least one hourper year of icing was predicted was approximately 1700 m southwest of the towers.

For onsite impacts, the greatest number of hours of predicted impacts occurs within 200 meters of the cooling towers. Onsite fogging impacts are predicted to occur approximately 200 hour0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />s/year while icing impacts are predicted approximately 35 hour4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br />s/year.

The predominant directions for fogging/icing impacts are to the south and west of the towers, due to the previously mentioned adverse meteorological conditions commonly associated with easterly component winds which promote long plumes and plume touchdown.

It should be noted that impacts from mechanical draft towers installed for Salem would be expected to be more severe than those impacts modeled for the Linden Generating Station because of the greater heat and moisture release.Potential for Adverse Salt Deposition Impacts 0 One of the PSD permit application requirements is performance of a study of theeffects of the new emissions on the soils, vegetation, and sensitive species in the impact area. The analysis would be based on the guidance and details provided by EPA in the Additional Impact Analysis Chapter of the Draft NSR Workshop Manual (Reference 5-6), and in the 1980 EPA document A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals (Reference 5-7).The particulate emissions from the proposed Salem cooling towers will mainly consist of salt particles contained in the cooling tower drift emissions.

The deposition of these salt particles in the surrounding area will need to be evaluated for its potential effects on soils and plants in the area. The natural draft tower design for Salem, with its elevated release height of 500 feet, would be expected to have very limited deposition impacts within the surrounding area.The mechanical draft design has a much lower release height of approximately 49 feet and, as a result, has a higher chance of causing adverse salt deposition impacts in the surrounding area. It should be noted, however, that substantial naturally occurring salt deposition probably already occurs in the area due to the proximity of Delaware Bay.30 0 5.2.3 Impact on Brigantine Class I area The retrofit project will be a major modification subject to PSD and, therefore,could potentially be required to demonstrate that emissions from cooling towers would not adversely impact the nearest Class I area.The Salem-Hope Creek facility is located approximately 90 km from the Brigantine Division of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (formerly the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge). The Brigantine Class I Area constitutes about 6,600 acres of the more than 42,000 acres of Edwin B. Forsythe NWR. The Federal Land Manager (FLM) of each Class I area is charged with protecting that area's unique attributes, expressed generically as Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs). The FLM is responsible for defining specific AQRVs for an area and for establishing the criteria used to determine if air pollution is having an adverse impact on the AQRVs. The FLM for the Brigantine Class I area is the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS).The vast majority of the particulate emissions from the proposed cooling towers willbe salt particles derived from the drift released by the towers.

The Brigantine Class I area is located in a coastal environment that has a naturally elevated level of salt particles in the air due to the close proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. As a result, it is not anticipated that the FWS will require an analysis of visibility impacts from the 0 salt particles emitted by the proposed cooling towers. The FWS has also previously stated that deposition impacts need not be analyzed for the Brigantine Class I Area because of the buffering effect of the coastal environment.

31 Figure 5-1 Salem Generating Station / Hope Creek Generating Station Site Dispersion Modeling for Mechanical Draft Tower Option Structures Included for Downwash Evaluation 4370000-4369500 S4369000-z D 4368500o 4368000 4367500, 453000 453500454000454500 UTM Easting (m)455000455500 456000 32 Figure 5-2 ISC-PRIME

-- Predicted 24-Hour Maximum Particulate Impacts from Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Scenario 0 z I-4378000..4376000 4374000.4372000 4370000 4368000-.4366000-1 4364000-'4362000-..

4360000............

................

.7-JLý"...............

................

1- ::::..... .......

i, 444000 446000 448000 450000 452000 454000 456000 458000 460000 462000 UTM Easting (m)C 0 to 2.2.2.2 to 30 30-.-40.40 (Max)Receptor Concentration (in ugfm3)33 Figure 5-3 ISC-PRIME

-- Predicted Maximum Annual Particulate Impacts from Salem Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Scenario 4378000.4376000.4374000.4372000-i

.4370000-.0 z.43680006..

4366000,*4364000..43620001 4360000...4.-e Ir t o-o o Q ,e g.o 4-,6-.U o o 4 o o I, 0 0 0 Q 6 0 II 0 Q 0-tb.-Q 0 8 Q J e O g e 0 9 e..*...e 0..i............ ..........................

...........

........ ..................... ....

.............

....................

..........

...........

........ ................

................

..........

..........

e e m Q444000 446000 448000 450000 452000 454000 45.6000 458000 460000 462000 UTM Easting (rM)' ..... ...... ......

............... .....0 to 0.3 0. 3 to 1 4.19 (Max): Receptor Concentration (in uglm3)34

6.0 PERMITTING

SCHEDULE AND COSTSThe installation of either natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers will require amajor modification to the existing Salem-Hope Creek Title V permit and a PSD permit. In New Jersey the application to modify the Title V permit also acts as the application for a PSD permit, therefore; only a single application would need to be prepared and submitted to the NJDEP. Both the major modification to the Title V permit and the PSD permit are considered "pre-construction" permits which means that the project could not commence any project-related construction activities prior to both the Title V modification and the PSD permit receiving final approval.

Prior to final approval, the modification to the Title V permit will be subject to a mandatory 45-day review period for EPA Region II. EPA Region II will also have the opportunity to review and comment on the supporting dispersion modeling analysis prior to final approval by NJDEP.The major differences in permitting schedule and cost between the two cooling tower designs is related to (1) the triggering of NJ Subchapter 18 requirements for the mechanical draft design and (2) the complexity of the dispersion modeling analysis that would be required for a particular design.

The natural draft tower design is expected to haveinsignificant impacts and would not be required to perform a multisource modeling analysis.

The mechanical draft tower design will produce significant impacts and would be required to perform a multisource analysis.

The multisource analysis would include modeling of other particulate sources within the Salem-Hope Creek facility as well as all other major particulate sources within 50-60 km of the facility.

The multisource modeling analysis would add significant cost to the permitting as well as an additional 4-6 months to the permitting schedule.

It is assumed, for cost and schedule purposes, that the SACTI model will need to be run as part of the refined modeling analysis for both scenarios to assess fogging/icing potential, however, the mechanical draft option would require considerably more study than the natural draft option.Figure 6-1 provides an estimated air permitting schedule for the natural draft cooling tower design and Figure 6-2 provides an estimated schedule for the mechanical draft design.The following tables list the estimated costs for permitting each cooling tower design: 35 Estimate of Labor Hours and Costs Permitting of New Natural Draft Cooling Towers Estimated Estimated Labor Hours Cost Permit Application Preparation 560 $50,000 Impact Analyses 800 $70,000 TOTAL $120,000 Estimate of Labor Hours and Costs Permitting of New Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers Estimated Estimated Labor Hours Cost Permit Application Preparation 660 $60,000 Impact Analyses 1400 $125,000 TOTAL $185,000 36 Figure 6-1 Schedule Estimate Air Permitting of Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Salem Generating Station Units No. 1 and 2 Natural Draft Cooling Tower Design T * ....................

.......31, .... 3,0 ---0 ;4 D 50>, 480 O Submit Title V Permit ModificatiornPSD Permit Application Submit PSD Dispersion Modeling Protocol PSD Modeling Protocol Approved 90 V'Submit PSD Refined Modeling Analysis 135 V'PSD Refined Modeling Approved 210 'V Draft Title V modification/PSD Permit Issued 270 V Final Title V modificatiornPSD Permit Issued 330 '37 Figure 6-2 Schedule Estimate Air Permitting of Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Salem Generating Station Units No. 1 and 2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Design To Day 1c, K IG 120' 150 1 10~ 1210 1240 1270 300 330 136U, 1390 1420' F450 148) 1510 SubmitTitle V Permit ModificationlPSD Permit Application Submit PSD Dispersion Modeling Protocol PSD Modeling Protocol Approved 90 V Submit PSD Refined Modeling Analysis 150 V PSD Refined Modeling Approved 240 V Submit PSD Multisource Modeling Protocol 270 PSD Multisource Modeling Protocol Approved 315 :V Submit PSD Multisource Modeling Analysis 360 PSD Multisource Modeling Approved 420 V Draft Title V modificationfPSD Permit Issued 450 V Pinal Title V modificatiosrPSD Permit Issued 510 V 38 0 7.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE REGULATORY INITIATIVES This section addresses future regulatory initiatives that may affect the air permitting of the closed-cycle cooling retrofit.

State and federal regulatory and policy initiatives and the anticipated schedule for these initiatives are addressed.

7.1 Federal

and State Regulatory Initiatives Major State and federal regulatory initiatives that may impact air permitting of the closed-cycle cooling tower retrofit can be limited to those involving particulate matter because emissions of all other pollutants will be inconsequential.

A six-yearhorizon (through 2010) was analyzed because it was assumed that the retrofit will not become operational before then.7.1.1 FederalThere are two major regulatory initiatives at the federal level that may affect the Salem closed-cycle cooling tower retrofit during the regulatory analysis timeframe extending through 2010: implementation of the ambient air quality standard for PM2.5 and EPA's review of the particulate matter NAAQS. Each of these is discussed separately below.It is very unlikely that the closed-cycle cooling tower retrofit air permitting will be affected by EPA's regional haze rule because the particulate emissions from the cooling towers would mainly be salt and because the drift eliminators that would be installed would constitute the best control technology available for controlling particulate matter from the towers.

Implementation of PM2.5 Standard In effect, PM2.5 must be addressed in air permits before EPA has issued concrete guidance on how this is to be done. This approach makes it difficult for the States and industrial sources to determine how implementation of the PM2.5 standard will affect their project -addressing both PSD and nonattainment NSR (NNSR)requirements.

This is the case with the Salem closed-cycle cooling retrofit.EPA issued official designations as to which areas of the country attain and which do not attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. Salem County is designated attainment for PM2.5 but PM2.5 several nonattainment areas are nearby. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the 39 New Castle County, Delaware PM2.5 nonattainment area is located only about 2100 meters from the facility (see Figure 1-3) and the preliminary modeling of the assumed mechanical draft tower design shows impacts exceeding both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 significant impact levels within this non-attainment area. As a result, the mechanical draft retrofit design would be subject to Subchapter 18 non-attainment requirements.

The PM2.5 designations became effective on April 5, 2005. Because the PM2.5 nonattainment designations are now effective, States are required to issue major NSR permits that address nonattainment major NSR requirements for PM2.5. Sources subject to PSD were required to address PSD requirements for PM2.5 upon the effective date of the PM2.5 NAAQS (September 16, 1997).EPA believes that the PM2.5 nonattainment problem has a substantial regional component because the formation and transport of secondarily formed particles, such as sulfates and nitrates, extends over hundreds of miles. The regional nature of PM2.5 is in contrast to the more localized nature of PMio.EPA has issued interim guidance to address NSR permitting in PM2.5 nonattainment and attainment/unclassifiable (PSD) areas. On the date that the PM2.5 nonattainment designations took effect (April 5, 2005), EPA issued a memo entitled Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5 Non-attainment Areas (Reference 4-2) pending the development of an implementation rule for PM2.5.In that April 5, 2005 memo EPA discusses NSR requirements in PM2.5 nonattainment areas and re-affirms a 1997 memo (Reference 7-1) that applies, in PSD areas. Both memos recommend that the States use PMio requirements as a surrogate for PM2.5 permitting in nonattainment and PSD areas. PMio impacts and permitting relating to PMio are addressed fully in this document.On September 8, 2005 EPA released its Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

This PM2.5 Implementation Rule (Implementation Rule) is expected to be published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005. The latest EPA schedule shows that the Implementation Rule will be finalized by the Fall of 2006.Within the Implementation Rule EPA generally does not propose a single approach for each aspect of PM2.5 NAAQS implementation , rather, they provide several options for consideration and comment. Consequently concrete PM2.5 guidance (even proposed concrete guidance) is not available from EPA's proposal.The Implementation Rule proposal addresses changes to the NSR program as well as the following topics:.Classifications and attainment dates 40

• Modeling and attainment demonstrations

• Precursor emissions coverage

• PM2.5 test methods E [mission inventories NJDEP must submit its PM2.5 State Implementation Plans to EPA Region II by April 5, 2008. This plan will contain all of the NJDEP regulations necessary to ensure that all areas of the New Jersey eventually attain the PM2.5 standard.Under the proposed EPA approach, NJDEP will be required to submit an attainment demonstration for each nonattainment area proposing an attainment date that is as expeditious as practicable for each area. The initial attainment date for PM2.5 areas would be no later than April 2010. For an area with an attainment date of April 2010, EPA would determine whether it had attained the standard by evaluating airquality data from the three previous calendar years (i.e., 2007, 2008, and 2009).EPA may extend the attainment date for a PM2.5 nonattainment area for a period not greater than 10 years from the date of designation (i.e., no later than April 2015), taking into account the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area, and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.

Alternatively, areas may also qualify for two 1-year attainment date extensions.

NJDEP may also submit a SIP demonstrating that it is impracticable to attain the PM2.5 standard in a nonattainment area by April 2010.Because the Salem / Hope Creek facility is located in a PM2.5 attainment area, an important effect that the Implementation Rule will have on the retrofit project will be to the PSD permitting program, specifically:

• PM2.5 significant emission rate levels* PM2.5 ambient air significance levels* PM2.5 increment levels* Changes in air quality modeling procedures to address PM2.5* Revised emission estimation procedures EPA is proposing a PM2.5 significant emission rate level of 10 tons/year in the Implementation Rule. EPA does not provide any concrete proposal on any of the other aspects listed above.A specific assessment of how implementation of the PM2.5 standard will affect the retrofit project is not possible until EPA finalizes the Implementation Rule in 2006.41 EPA Review of Particulate Matter NAAQS Particulate matter (PM) is one of six "criteria" air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The CAA requires the EPA to periodically (every 5 years) review and revise, if appropriate, the criteria and NAAQS for a given criteria pollutant.

EPA documents its review of the scientific basis for the standards by preparing an Air Quality Criteria Document (Criteria Document).

EPA issued the latest Criteria Document for PM in October 2004 (Reference 7-2)The schedule for completion of EPA's review of the PM NAAQS is governed by a modified consent decree, entered by a court on December 16, 2004. It provides that EPA will sign for publication a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning its review of the PM NAAQS no later than December 20, 2005. EPA must sign a notice of final rulemaking no later than September 27, 2006.The original NAAQS for PM were issued in 1971 for TSP. The NAAQS were revised in 1987 to focus on protecting against human health effects associated with exposure to ambient PM less than 10 microns (PMio).Taking into account information and assessments presented in the 1996 PM Criteria Document and EPA "Staff Papers", the EPA Administrator promulgated significant revisions to the PM NAAQS in July 1997. Special attention was given to severalsize-specific classes of particles, including PM1o and the principal fractions of PM0o, referred to as the fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM1o-2.5) fractions.

The Administratordecided that the PM NAAQS should continue to focus on particles less than or equal to 10 /m in diameter, however it was also determined that the fine and coarse fractions of PMlo should be considered separately.

New standards were added, using PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles and PMio standards were retained for the purpose of regulating coarse-fraction particles.

Two new PM2.5 standards wereset: an annual standard of 15 /pg/m 3 and a 24-hour average standard of 65 pg/m 3.To continue to address coarse-fraction particles, the annual PMio standard was retained, and the form, but not the level, of the 24-hour PMio standard was revised to be based on the 99 th percentile of 24-hr PMio concentrations at each monitor in an area.In a May 1999 ruling a court found that PMio was not an appropriate indicator for coarse particles (PM10-2.5).

Consequently, the court vacated the revisions to the 1987 PMio standards on the basis of PMio being a "poorly matched indicator for coarse particulate pollution" because PM1o includes fine particles.

As a result of this aspect of the court's ruling, the 1987 PMio standards remain in effect.EPA assessed PM health effects and documented the results in a second draft Staff Paper (Staff Paper) released by EPA on February 1, 2005 (Reference 7-3)42 0 The Staff Paper is intended to help bridge the gap between the scientific review contained in the Criteria Document and the practical judgments required by the EPA Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to revise the PM NAAQS.The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) review of the second draft Staff Paper was released on June 10, 2005 (Reference 7-4). The panel endorsed an Environmental Protection Agency staff recommendation to significantly tighten the air quality standards for fine particulate matter.On July 1, 2005 EPA released the final staff paper (Reference 7-5). The final staff paper provides two alternative approaches to tightening the standard:

1) retain annual PM2.5 standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3), together with a revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard in the range of 35 to 25 pg/m3, or 2) revise annual PM2.5 standard, within the range of 14 to 12 /g/m3, together with a revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard in the range of 30 to 40 ug/m3, with either the annual or the 24-hour standard, or both, at the middle to lower end of these ranges. The staff paper also recommended that EPA continue to regulate PMio but revise the current PMio standards with a new health-based standard for particles known as "thoracic coarse" particles

-particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter that can be deeply inhaled. Staff recommended that such a standard apply to more toxic urban coarse particles, thus denominated as UPM10-2.5.

The staff paper recommends 0 consideration of a 24-hour UPM10-2.5 standard with a level in the range of approximately 50 to 70 pg/m3, 98th percentile form, or approximately 60 to 85 pg/m3, 99th percentile form.Given that EPA staff is currently recommending tighter PM air quality standards, EPA will face major opposition to the standards from industry groups. However, should EPA eventually decide to keep the PM NAAQS at current levels there will likely be major opposition from environmental and health advocacy groups (e.g., the American Lung Association).

This opposition will certainly lead to legal action that will delay the final resolution of whether the PM standards must be modified and, if so, to what levels.As an example of the extended timeframe between an EPA decision to change thestandards and the eventual point where those standards actually impact source owners, we can consider the delay in implementing the current PM2.5 NAAQS.Following promulgation of the revised PM NAAQS in 1997, legal challenges were filed by a large number of parties, addressing a broad range of issues. It is important to note that a concurrent review of the ozone NAAQS occurred along with the review for the PM NAAQS.The PM2.5 implementation timeline was-as follows: 43 Final PM Criteria Document PM NAAQS Proposed PM NAAQS Finalized U.S. Court of Appeals Ruling U.S. Supreme Court Ruling U.S. Court of Appeals Reject All Remaining Challenges EPA Responds To State-Proposed PM2.5 Designations EPA Finalizes PM2.5 Designations PM2.5 Designations Effective EPA PM2.5 Implementation Guidance Proposed EPA PM2.5 Implementation Guidance Finalized PM2.5 SIPs due to EPA April 1996 December 1996 July 1997 May 1999 February 2001 March 2002 June 28, 2004 January 5, 2005 April 5, 2005Summer,2005 (scheduled)

March,2006 (scheduled)

April 5, 2008 There is no guarantee that the EPA will tighten the PM NAAQS, and if it does, that the litigation over any revised standards will not take as long as it did the last time the PM NAAQS were revised. It will have taken approximately 8 years for the PM2.5 designations (and accompanying new source review requirements) to become effective from the time that the PM2.5 standards were promulgated in mid-1 997 and, given the current schedule, an elapsed time of almost 12 years before SIPs are due to EPA for review.For purposes of the potential retrofit of closed-cycle cooling systems at the Salem Generating Station, it is safe to assume that, should EPA promulgate revised PM standards in September 2006 under the court ordered deadline, the new source review requirements for the revised standards will not become effective before 2010. If an air permit is obtained prior to 2010, it can be assumed that EPA's revisions of the PM NAAQS will not affect the air permitting of the retrofit project.It is useful to compare current PM2.s levels near the Salem Generating Station to EPA's current thinking regarding to what levels the PM2.5 standards may be revised.Figure 7-1 shows the maximum 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 levels measured by the NJDEP at the PM2.5 monitoring site nearest to the Salem Generating Station, i.e., NJDEP's Gibbstown monitor. The figure also shows the lower end of the range of PM2.5 standards EPA staff discusses in the Staff Paper.Use of the lower ends of the NAAQS standard ranges currently considered by EPA is conservative but Table 7-1 shows that Salem County may be a non-attainment area for the revised PM2.5 standards in the future.

However, if the closed-cycle cooling tower retrofit is in operation at that time, it is doubtful that NJDEP would require additional control requirements given the nature of the emission source.Planned revisions to NJDEP Subchapter 6 regarding process particulate emissionswere discussed in Section 4.2.1. No other NJDEP regulatory initiatives, other than 44 those associated with implementing the PM2.5 standard, are expected to affect the retrofit project air permitting.

7.1.2 NESCAUM

New Jersey is part of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), an interstate association of air quality control divisions in the Northeast states. One of NESCAUM's purposes is to promote cooperation and coordination of technical and policy issues regarding air quality control among the member states.There are no NESCAUM initiatives presently underway that would affect the closed-cycle cooling retrofit through 2010.45 Figure 7-1 Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring Results Maximum 24-Hour and Annual Average Values NJDEP Gibbstown Monitor---iw--- Max 24-Hr -.--*- Annual 70 65 60 55 50 i; 45 E S4035 030 0 4 25 20.15 10 5 0 16 14 12 iO 10E 8 a-2 0, 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Source: U.S. EPA AirData web site, www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html 46 8.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS The air quality permitting requirements and potential permitting obstacles for a hypothetical retrofit of a closed-cycle cooling system to Salem Generating StationUnits 1 and 2 have been identified and evaluated with respect to permitting feasibility. Heat rejection using either natural draft or mechanical draft towers has been evaluated.Permitting costs, schedule, and difficulty are a function of the magnitude of the ground level particulate matter impact. Table 8-1 provides an overview of study results.47 Table 8-1 (Sheet 1 of 3)Salem Generating StationEvaluation of Air Permitting Issues for Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Summary of Study Results Factor Natural Draft Retrofit Mechanical Draft Retrofit Comments Air Quality Impacts .PM2.5 significant impact None Yes (Comparison performed against NJDEP interim policy levels used for Hope Creek EPU)Extent of PM2.5 significant None Extensive Extends at least 10 km beyond the site boundary impacts Significant impact in non- No Yes Would require application of LAER and purchase!attainment area generation of offsets PMo significant impact None Yes Requires multisource modeling during permitting.

Invites NJDEP modeling scrutiny of other Salem /Hope Creek emissions sources Extent of PMio significant None Extensive Extends at least 10 km beyond the site boundary impacts for mechanical draft. Complicates permitting analyses.Compliance with PSD Yes Exceeds increment for Exceedance of increment requires design/emissions increment (PMio) configuration assumed in changes from those assumed (otherwise constitutes study a fatal flaw for mechanical towers)Compliance with NAAQS for Yes Exceeds for annual average Exceedance of NAAQS requires design/emissions PM2.s changes or modeling changes from those assumed (otherwise constitutes a fatal flaw for mechanical towers)48 Table 8-1 (Sheet 2 of 3)Salem Generating Station Evaluation of Air Permitting Issues for Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Summary of Study Results Factor Natural Draft Retrofit Mechanical Draft Retrofit Comments Fogging / Icing Impacts " Onsite fogging Negligible Frequent during adverse All fogging, icing and salt deposition findings are meteorology based on studies at other facilities and professional judgment Onsite icing Negligible Slight Offsite fogging/impact on Negligible Moderate -could affect transportation systems marine transportation systems under adverse meteorological conditions.

Offsite icing / impact on Negligible Negligible to slight transportation systems Onsite salt deposition impact Negligible Depends upon placement on HV equipment and orientation of towers --could be significant Developments ..... ==Fine particulate implementation Depends upon Depends upon While the specifics will not be known until the implementation guidance implementation guidance guidance is finalized, the risk of adverse effects is that has yet to be finalized.

that has yet to be finalized.

greater for the mechanical draft towers because of their much higher impacts.Revised NAAQS Not likely to be impacted Not likely to be impacted Time horizon is through 2010 during time horizon of during time horizon of study study Table 8-1 (Sheet 3 of 3)49 Salem Generating StationEvaluation of Air Permitting Issues for Closed-Cycle Cooling Retrofit Summary of Study ResultsNatural Draft Retrofit Mechanical Draft Retrofit Comments Factor Estimated Air Permitting Costs .Permit application preparation

$50,000 $60,000 Mechanical draft option would require LAER costs analysis while natural draft would not Mechanical draft option would require Impact analysis costs $70,000 $125,000 multisource modeling and, potentially, Class Iimpact analysis while natural draft would not Total permitting costs $120,000 $185,000 Estimated Air Permitting Schedule Longer mechanical draft schedule is due to Overall permitting schedule 11 months 17 months more extensive impact analysis and additional interaction with NJDEP 50

9.0 REFERENCES

1-1 Sargent and Lundy, LLC (S&L 2005a). Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS -Natural Draft Tower Option Report No. 11050-360-ND; Sargent and Lundy, LLC 2005.1-2 Sargent and Lundy, LLC (S&L 2005b). Alternative Intake Technologies for CWIS -Mechanical Draft Tower Option Report No. 11050-360-MD; Sargent and Lundy, LLC 2005.2-1 PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG 2004a). Hope Creek Generating Station -Air Pollution Permit Application

-(Permit Revision) for Extended Power Uprate;Submitted to: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality Engineering; February 2004 2-2 PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG 1999). Salem Permit Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, March 4, Appendix F.3-1 NJDEP. 2002 Air Quality Report; NJDEP Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring; http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/02rpt.htm 3-2 EPA AirData website; http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html 4-1 Personal Conversation; Call From: Rich Langbein -NJDEP -AQPP-BOP; Call To: George McComb -EnviroMet; May 25, 2005;4-2 USEPA. "Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2,5 Non-attainment Areas"; Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, USEPA OAQPS; dated April 5, 2005 5-1 EPRI. Addendum to ISC3 User's Guide -The PRIME Plume Rise and Building Downwash Model; Electric Power Research Institute; November 1997; http://www.epa.gov/scramOOl/tt26.htm#iscprime 5-2 PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG 2004b)Hope Creek Generating Station Refined Modeling Analysis For Extended Power Uprate; Submitted to: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Evaluation; July 20045-3 NJDEP.

Guidance on Preparing an Air Quality Modeling Protocol; Technical Manual 1002; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy; August 1997 51 5-4 EPRI. User's Manual: Cooling-Tower Plume Prediction Code (Revision 1);Engineering and Environmental Science, Champaign, IS; September 1987;Prepared for: Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California 94304 (Seasonal

-Annual Cooling Tower Impacts Model (SACTI))5-5 Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G).Linden Station -Seasonal And Annual Cooling Tower Impact (SACTI) Model Results -Draft; EnviroMet, LLC; May 3, 20015-6 USEPA-OAQPS.

New Source Review Workshop Manual; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Non-attainment Area Permitting; USEPA-OAQPS; Draft; October 1990 5-7 USEPA. A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals; USEPA; 1980 7-1 USEPA OAQPS. 'Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for PM2.5";

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, USEPA OAQPS; dated October 24, 1997.7-2 USEPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, E PA/600/P-99/OO2aF, October 2004;http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/partmatt.cfm 7-3 USEPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper -Second Draft; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -EPA-452/D-05-001; January 2005;http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s pm cr sp.html 7-4 USEPA. EPA's Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (Second Draft PM Staff Paper, January 2005);

A Review by the Particulate Matter Review Panel of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F); Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC EPA-SAB-CASAC-05-007; June 2005;http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-05-007.pdf 7-5 USEPA. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -EPA-452/R 005; June 2005;http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s pm cr sp.html 52 SALEM NJPDES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6-10 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES FOR CWIS -MECHANICAL TOWER OPTION REPORT NO. 11050-360-MD SARGENT AND LUNDY, LLC Attachment 9 -MD Tower Estimated Load List 0-I S Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Estimated Load List Salem Generating Station Alternate Intake Technologies for CWIS Mechanical Draft Cooling Existing CWIS Elec Sys Modified CWIS Elec Sys Tower Total Assumed Total Total Voltage hp, kVA, Running hp. kVA, Running Connected Level Load Description Quantity kW Load Load Description Quantiy tkW Load Load Descdption Quantity hp, kVA, klW Load Circulating Water Pumps (10 of 13.8 12 Run, 2 are back-up) 12 3500 42000 Leave 12 running on list for conservative load estimate Remaining Circ Water / Make-Up 4.16 Existing Circ Water Pumps 12 2000 24000 Water Pumps (removed) 0 2000 0 Make-Up Water Pumps (4 of 6 running) 4 300 1200 480 Cooling Tower Fans lest bhp) 48 230 11040Cooling Tower Cell Inlet MOV 480 (hp est) 48 20 96g 48s Circ Wtr P MOVs (hp est) 12 100 1200Cooling Tower Make-Up Water 480 MOV (hp est) 2 25 50 Cooling Tower Fill & By-Pass 480 MOV (hp est) 25 50Power Panel

-Elec Equip &480 Pump Room 2 500 1000 480 Lighting &

Receptacle Panel 2 150 300 Traveling Screen Drive (4 of 6 480 Traveling Screen Dove 12 15 180 running) 4 15 60 480 Screen Wash Pump 8 150 1200 Screen Wash Pump (2 running) 2 150 300Screen Wash Strainer (2 of 8 48d Screen Wash Strainer 8 0.75 6 running) 2 0.75 1.5 480 Trash Rake (1 lot various motors) 2 12 24 Trash Rake (1 lot various motors) 1 12 12480 Heat Trace Panel (Estimate) 2 30 60 Heat Trace Panel (Estimate) 2 30 60 Heat Trace Panel 4 50 200 Cathodic Protection (Estimate) 2 ? 0 Cathodic Protection (Estimate) 2 0 Cathodic Protection 8 50 400 TOTAL 20,470 Running 1,644 _onnected 57,200 NEW CW AND MD TWR SYSTEM TOTAL CONNECTED LOAD K 58,44unni 50,200NEW CW AND MD TWR SYSTEM RUNNING LOAD Kw 81844NET INCREASE IN RUNNING KW I 1 I 26,3741 Attachment 9 Page 1 of 1 Salem/ Hope Creek Environmental Audit -Post-Audit Information Question #: ENV-91 Category:

Water / Groundwater Statement of Question:

Please provide the following documents that were made available during the Salem and HCGS License Renewal Environmental Audit.NEI RGGP [sic] [(Radiological Groundwater Protection Initiative)]

inspection (TI) Report [issued by NRC]Response:

The NRC completed an integrated inspection at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station on March 31, 2009. The inspection examined activities conducted under the NRC operating licenses for Units 1 and 2, including an assessment of PSEG's groundwater protection program to verify, in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/173, that PSEG implemented the voluntary industry Ground Water Protection Initiative (GPI)approved by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The results of the inspection were reported as item 40A5.2 in NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000272/2009002 and 05000311/2009002, which is being provided.List Attachments Provided: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Inspection Report 05000272/2009002 and 05000311/2009002." Enclosure to Letter from NRC (A. Burritt) to PSEG Nuclear LLC (T. Joyce). 4/29/2009.

NONI-PSEG÷ E°&4 "UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGIONI 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-1415 April 29, 2009 Mr. Thomas Joyce President and Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC -N09 P.O. Box 236 Hancock's Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 -NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000272/2009002 and 05000311/2009002

Dear Mr. Joyce:

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an integrated inspection at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The enclosedinspection report documents the inspection results discussed on April 3, 2009, with Mr. Braun and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.

Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.cqov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).Sincerely, IRA/Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos: 50-272; 50-311 License Nos: DPR-70; DPR-75

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 05000272/2009002 and 05000311/2009002 w/

Attachment:

Supplemental Information 2 cc w/encl: W. Levis, President and Chief Operating Officer, PSEG Power R. Braun, Site Vice PresidentP. Davison, Director of Nuclear Oversight E. Johnson, Director of Finance G. Gellrich, Salem Plant Manager J. Keenan, Manager Licensing, PSEG L. Peterson, Chief of Police and Emergency Management Coordinator P. Baldauf, Assistant Director, NJ Radiation Protection Programs P. Mulligan, Chief, NJ Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, DEP H. Otto, Ph.D., Administrator, DE Interagency Programs, DNREC Div of Water Resources Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania N. Cohen, Coordinator

-Unplug Salem Campaign E. Zobian, Coordinator

-Jersey Shore Anti Nuclear Alliance A. Muller, Executive Director, Green Delaware V. Cebulaski, General Solicitor, PSEG 3 Mr. Thomas Joyce President and Chief Nuclear Officer PSEG Nuclear LLC -N09 P.O. Box 236 Hancock's Bridge, NJ 08038

SUBJECT:

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 -NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000272/2009002 and 05000311/2009002

Dear Mr. Joyce:

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an integrated inspection at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results discussed on April 3, 2009, with Mr. Braun and other members of your staff.The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license.The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.

Based on the results of this inspection, no findings of significance were identified.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).Sincerely, IRA/Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Distribution w/encl. A. Turlin, DRP H. Chernoff, NRR S. Collins, RA R. Moore, DRP R. Ennis, NRR, PM M. Dapas, DRA D. Schroeder, DRP, SRI C. Sanders, NRR, Backup PM D. Lew, DRP H. Balian, DRP, RI J. Shea, NRR J. Clifford, DRP K. Venuto, DRP, OA A. Burritt, DRP S. Campbell, RI OEDO L. Cline, DRP R. Nelson, NRR N. Valentine, NRR ROPreports@nrc.gov Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

SUNSI Review Complete:

ALB (Reviewer's Initials)

ML091190177 DOCUMENT NAME.: G: DRP\BRANCH3\INSPECTION'REPORTSVISSUED\SALO902.DOC After declaring this document "An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public.To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFCE RI/DRP I RI/DRP RI/DRPI NAME DSchroeder/LC for LCline/LC ABurrittIALB DATE 04/28/09 04/28/09 04/28/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Docket Nos: License Nos: Report No: Licensee: Facility: Location: Dates: Inspectors:

Approved By: 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I 50-272, 50-311 DPR-70, DPR-75 05000272/2009002 and 05000311/2009002 PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG)Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 D. Schroeder, Senior Resident Inspector H. Balian, Resident Inspector J. Furia, Senior Health Physicist J. Schoppy, Senior Reactor InspectorS. Barr, Senior Emergency Preparedness Specialist J. Bream, Project Engineer A. Turilin, Project Engineer Arthur L. Burritt, Chief Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS S U M M A R Y O F F IN D IN G S .............................................................................................................

3 REPORT DETAILS ............................................................................

... .. 4 1. R EA C T O R SA FETY .................................................................................................... .... 4 1 R01 Adverse Weather Protection

....................................

4 1 R04 Equipment Alignment

...............

..................

..................................

........ 4 1R05 Fire Protection

.............................................

5 1R06 Flood Protection Measures ..........................................

................................ .6 1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program .......................................................

6 1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness

.....................................

6 1 R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control

.....................

71R 15 O perability Evaluations

...................................................................................... ..8 1R 18 P la nt M o d ificatio ns .................................................................................................

8 1R 19 P ost-M aintenance Testing ...................................................................

...................

9 1 R 22 S urveillance Testing ..........

.......................................................................... ..9 1 EP2 Alert and Notification System (ANS) Evaluation

...............................................

10 1EP3 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Staffing and Augmentation System .... 10 1 EP4 Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emergency Plan Changes ..........................

11 1 EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses

.......................................

11 1 E P 6 D rill E va luatio n ............................................................................................... ..1 1 2. RADIATION SAFETY ...................................................

12 20S1 Access Control to Radiologically Significant Areas .........................

12 20S2 ALARA Planning and Controls .................................................................................

13 20S3 Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation and Protective Equipment......................

13 4 .O T H E R A C T IV IT IE S ..................................................................................................... ..14 40A1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification

.............................................................

14 40A2 Identification and Resolution of Problems ...........................

.... 15 40 A 3 Event Follow up ............................................................................................... ..15 40 A 5 O ther A ctivities

............................................................................................... ..15 40 A 6 M eetings, Including Exit .....................................................................................

17 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

.....................................................................................

A-1 KEY PO INTS O F C O NTA CT ...............................................................................................

A -1 LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

...................................................

A-1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED..:..................................................................................

A-2 LIST O F A C R O N Y M S .....................................................................................................

A -10 Enclosure 3

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS IR 05000272/2009002, 05000311/2009002; 01/01/2009

-03/31/2009; Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Routine Integrated Report.The report covered a three-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced inspections by regional specialist inspectors.

The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.No findings of significance were identified.

Enclosure 4 REPORT DETAILS Summary of Plant Status Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 1 (Unit 1) began the period at full power. On March 27, operators lowered Unit 1 to three percent power due to a condensate polishing system malfunction that required the turbine generator to be taken off line. Operators returned Unit I to full power on March 31.Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 2 (Unit 2) began the period at full power. Unit 2operated at full power for the duration of the inspection period.1. REACTOR SAFETY Cornerstones:

Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity and Emergency Preparedness 1R01 Adverse Weather Protection (71111.01 -1 sample).1 Evaluate Readiness for Impending Adverse Weather Conditions

a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed one impending adverse weather inspection sample for the onset of high levels of river detritus. The inspectors reviewed PSEG's weather preparation activities related to the potential for river grass intrusion conditions.

Inspectors assessed implementation of PSEG's grassing readiness plan through plant walk downs, corrective action program review, and discussions with cognizant managers and engineers.

Documents reviewed by inspectors are listed in the Attachment.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 R04 Equipment Alignment (71111.04

-4 samples)*1 Partial Walk down a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed four partial system walk down inspection samples. The inspectors walked down the applicable systems to verify the operability of redundant ordiverse trains and components when safety equipment was inoperable.

The inspectors focused their review on potential discrepancies that could impact the function of the system and increase plant risk. The inspectors reviewed applicable operating procedures, walked down control systems components, and verified that selected breakers, valves, and support equipment were in the correct position to support system operation.

The inspectors also verified that PSEG properly utilized its corrective action program to identify and resolve equipment alignment problems that could cause initiating events or impact the capability of mitigating systems or barriers.

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The inspectors walked down the systems listed below: Enclosure 5* Unit 1 1A and 1B Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs), 11 and 12 auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pumps when 13 AFW pump was unavailable on February 9;* Unit 2 Service water screens, pumps, and strainers during grassing season on March 19;* Unit 2 2B and 2C EDGs when 2A EDG was out of service for planned maintenance on January 29; and o Unit 2 heating systems for the refueling water storage tank (RWST), auxiliary feedwater storage tank (AFWST) and pure water storage tank (PWST) during extreme cold weather on January 20.b. Findingqs No findings of significance were identified.

1 R05 Fire Protection (71111.05Q

-4 samples, 71111.05A -1 sample)S1 Fire Protection

-Tours a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed four fire protection quarterly walkdown inspection samples.The inspectors performed walk downs to assess the material condition and operational status of fire protection features.

The inspectors verified that combustibles and ignition sources were controlled in accordance with PSEG's administrative procedures; fire detection and suppression equipment was available for use; that passive fire barriers were maintained in good material condition; and that compensatory measures for out-of-service, degraded, or inoperable fire protection equipment were implemented in accordance with PSEG's fire plan. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

The inspectors evaluated the fire protection areas listed below:* Unit 1 and 2 AFW pump areas; and* Unit 1 and 2 spent fuel and component cooling areas.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

.2 Fire Protection

-Drill Observation

a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed one fire drill observation inspection sample. The inspectors observed an unannounced fire drill conducted in the 2B emergency diesel generator room. The inspectors observed' the drill to evaluate the readiness of the plant fire brigade to fight fires. The inspectors verified that PSEG staff identified deficiencies; openly discussed them in a self-critical manner at the drill debrief, and took appropriate corrective actions. Specific attributes evaluated were: proper wearing of turnout gearand self-contained breathing apparatus; proper use and layout of fire hoses;employment of appropriate fire fighting techniques; sufficient fire fighting equipment

_Enclosure 6 Wbrought to the scene; effectiveness of fire brigade leader communications, command, and control; search for victims and propagation of the fire into other plant areas; smoke removal operations; utilization of pre-planned strategies; adherence to the pre-planned drill scenario; and drill objectives.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 R06 Flood Protection Measures (71111.06

-1 sample)a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed one flood protection measures inspection sample. The inspectors evaluated flood protection measures for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 auxiliary buildings.

The inspectors walked down the areas to assess operational readiness of various features in place to protect redundant safety-related components and vitalelectric power systems from internal flooding.

These features included plant drains, flood barrier curbs, and wall penetration seals. The inspectors also reviewed the results of flood barrier penetration seal inspections, flooding evaluations, preventive maintenance history, and corrective action notifications associated with flood protection measures.

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

b. Findings* No findings of significance were identified.

1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program (71111.11Q -1 sample).1 Requalification Activities Review by Resident Staff.a. Inspection ScopeThe inspectors completed one quarterly licensed operator requalification program inspection sample. Specifically, the inspectors observed simulator training administered to a single crew on March 3, 2009. The scenario involved biofouling of the circulating water and turbine area cooling systems, loss of two circulating water pumps, a reactor coolant leak that transitioned into a loss of coolant accident requiring a reactor trip and safety injection.

This training scenario was developed and administered as a corrective action to a reactor coolant draining incident that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2008.The original issue is discussed in inspection reports 05000272/2008009 and 05000272/2008005.

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness (71111.12Q

-2 samples)a. Inspection Scope Enclosure 7 The inspectors completed two quarterly maintenance effectiveness inspection samples.The inspectors reviewed performance monitoring and maintenance effectiveness issues for two systems. The inspectors reviewed PSEG's process for monitoring equipment performance and assessing preventive maintenance effectiveness.

The inspectors verified that systems and components were monitored in accordance with the maintenance rule program requirements.

The inspectors compared documented functional failure determinations and unavailability hours to those being tracked by PSEG to evaluate the effectiveness of PSEG's condition monitoring activities and to determine whether performance goals were being met. The inspectors reviewed applicable work orders, corrective action notifications, and preventive maintenance tasks. The documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

The inspectors evaluated the systems listed below:* Unit 1 and Unit 2 steam driven AFW pumps; and

• Unit 1 and Unit 2 vital instrument bus inverters.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

IR13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control (71111.13

-5 samples)a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed five maintenance risk assessment and emergent work control inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed the applicable maintenance activities to verify that the appropriate risk assessments were performed as specified by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) prior to removing equipment for work. The inspectors reviewed the applicable risk evaluations, work schedules and control room logs for these configurations.

PSEG's risk management actions were reviewed during shift turnover meetings, control room tours, and plant walk downs. The inspectors also used PSEG's on-line risk monitor (Equipment Out-Of-Service workstation) to gain insights into the risk associated with these plant configurations.

The inspectors reviewed notifications documenting problems associated with risk assessments and emergent work evaluations.

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

For this inspection the inspectors assessed the plant configurations listed below:* Unit 2 performance of pressurizer pressure functional test on February 3, 2009, which closed both Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) block valves, 2PR6 and 2PR7;0 Unit 1 unplanned unavailability of the 13 AFW pump concurrent with maintenance on the 5023 offsite power line on February 9, 2009;a Unit 2 planned unavailability of the 21 component cooling heat exchanger (CCHX) concurrent with unavailability of the 23 service water pump and automatic operation of pressurizer PORV 2PR1 on January 19;* Unit 2 unplanned unavailability of the 26 service water pump concurrent with planned unavailability of the 23 service water pump and subsequent emergent unavailability of the 25 service water pump on February 20 and 21; and Unit 2 planned unavailability of the 21 CCHX and 26 SWP on February 25.Enclosure 8 b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.1R15 Operability Evaluations (71111.15

-8 samples)a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed eight operability evaluation inspection samples. The inspectors reviewed the operability determinations for degraded or non-conforming conditions associated with: 13 charging pump speed control linkage found in the low pressure position during plant power operations; 23 chiller low discharge pressure due to the 23SW102 valve failure to close on demand;* Unit 1 containment integrity given degradation of containment spray valve 12CS2;* Unit 2 AFW system performance due to degradation of 22 AFW pump minimum recirculation flow control valve 22AF40;

• Unit 1 reactor coolant leak detection given degradation of containment fan coil unit condensate collection system;* Unit 2 service water system during concurrent planned and unplanned unavailability of up to three service water pumps;Unit, 1 overhead annunciator system during failure of the annunciator verification system (AVS); and Unit 2 solid state protection system (SSPS) given degradation of a time delay relay in the train A test circuitry.

The inspectors reviewed the technical adequacy of the operability determinations to ensure the conclusions were justified.

The inspectors also walked down accessible equipment to corroborate the adequacy of PSEG's operability determinations.

Additionally, the inspectors reviewed other PSEG identified safety-related equipment deficiencies during this report period and assessed the adequacy of their operability screenings.

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment.

a. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 R18 Plant Modifications (71111.18 -1 sample)* 1 Temporary Modification

a. Inspection Scope The inspectors completed one plant modification inspection sample. The inspectors reviewed a temporary modification for Unit 1 SSPS train A test circuitry. Two leads were lifted to stop a relay in the circuit from chattering.

The lifted leads were left in place to facilitate the replacement of a time delay relay in the. SSPS train A cabinet. The inspectors reviewed the temporary modification documentation and verified that the Enclosure 9 modification did not affect system functionality.

Following replacement of the time delay relay, inspectors verified that the temporary modification was removed and that the original system configuration was restored.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 R19 Post-Maintenance Testing (71111.19

-7 samples)a. Inspection ScopeThe inspectors completed seven post-maintenance testing inspection samples. The inspectors observed portions of and/or reviewed the results of the post-maintenance test activities.

The inspectors verified that the effect of testing on the plant was adequately addressed by control room and engineering personnel; testing was adequate for the maintenance performed; acceptance criteria were clear, demonstrated operational readiness and were consistent with design and licensing basis documentation; test instrumentation was calibrated, and the appropriate range and accuracy for the application; tests were performed, as written with applicable prerequisites satisfied; and equipment was returned to an operational status and ready to perform its safety function.Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The inspectors evaluated the post-maintenance tests for the following maintenance items listed below: Work Order (WO) 50118530, replacement of the 13 AFW pump speed control governor;* WO 30175773, repair of the 23SW102 pressure control valve on the 23 chiller;* WO 60081161, adjustment and repair of 21SW122 flow control valve;* WO 30060411, replacement of 2A EDG starting air solenoid operated valves;* WO 60079798, rotation of the pressurizer PORV 2PR2;* WO 30095033, replacement of the 26 service water pump; and* WO 60081911, oil change of the 23 AFW pump speed control governor.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 R22 Surveillance Testing (71111.22

-7 samples)a. Inspection ScopeThe inspectors completed seven surveillance testing inspection samples. The inspectors observed portions of and/or reviewed results for the surveillance tests to verify, as appropriate, whether the applicable system requirements for operability were adequately incorporated into the procedures and that test acceptance criteria were consistent with procedure requirements, the technical specification requirements, the UFSAR, and ASME Section XI for pump and valve testing. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment. The inspectors evaluated the surveillance tests listed below:

• S2.IC-FT.RCP-0018, "2PT-456 Pressurizer Pressure Protection Channel II;" Enclosure 10* 1Si.OP-ST.DG-0003, "1C Diesel Generator Surveillance Test;"* S2.OP-ST.SW-0006, "Inservice Testing, 26 Service Water Pump;"* S2.IC-CC.RCP-0028, "2FT-512 #21 Steam Generator Steam Flow Protection Channel I;"* SC.OP-PT.CA-0001, "SBO Diesel Control Air Compressor Test;"* S2.OP-ST.AF-0003, "Inservice Testing -23 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump;" and* S2.OP-ST.CVC-0006, "Inservice Testing Chemical and Volume Control Valves Modes 1-6." b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1EP2 Alert and Notification System (ANS) Evaluation (71114.02-1 sample)a. Inspection Scope An onsite review was conducted to assess the maintenance and testing of the Salem and Hope Creek ANS. During this inspection, the inspectors interviewed Emergency Preparedness (EP) staff responsible for implementation of the ANS testing and maintenance and reviewed corrective action program notifications pertaining to the ANS for causes, trends, and PSEG's corrective actions. The inspector reviewed the ANS procedures and the ANS design report to ensure PSEG's compliance with system maintenance and testing commitments. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment

.02. Planning Standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b) (5) and the related requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, were used as reference criteria.b. Findinqs No findings of significance were identified.

1EP3 Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Staffing and Augmentation System (71114.03

-1 sample)a. Inspection ScopeThe inspectors conducted a review of Salem/Hope Creeks' ERO augmentation staffing requirements and the process for notifying and augmenting the ERO. This was performed to ensure the readiness of key staff for responding to an event and to ensure timely facility activation.

The inspectors reviewed the ERO roster, training records, applicable procedures, drill reports for augmentation, quarterly EP drills and correctiveaction program notifications related to the ERO staffing augmentation system. The inspectors also reviewed the implementation of the change in the ERO augmentation time from 60 to 90 minutes. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment

.03. Planning Standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and related requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, were used as reference criteria.b. Findings Enclosure 11 No findings of significance were identified.

1 EP4 Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emergency Plan Changes (71114.04

-1 sample)a. Inspection Scope Prior to this inspection, the NRC,,had received and acknowledged changes made to the Salem/Hope Creek Emergency Plan and its implementing procedures.

PSEG developed these changes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q), and determined that the changes did not result in a decrease in effectiveness of the Plan. PSEG also determined that the Plan continued to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR 50. During this inspection, the inspectors conducted a review of Salem's and Hope Creek's 10 CFR 50.54(q) screenings for all changes made to the EALs, and for a sample of the changes made to the Plan, from May 2008 through March 2009, that could have potentially resulted in a decrease in effectiveness. This review of the EAL, Plan, and EPIP changes did not constitute NRC approval of the changes and, as such, the changes remain subject to future NRC inspection.

In addition, the inspectors reviewed notifications written related to this area. The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment

.04. The requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(q) were used as reference criteria.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 EP5 Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses (71114.05 -1 sample) S a. Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed a sampling of self-assessment procedures and reports to assess PSEG's ability to evaluate their EP performance and programs. The inspectors reviewed a sampling of notifications written between January 2008 and March 2009 that were initiated by PSEG at Salem and Hope Creek for issues identified during drills, self-assessments and audits. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed:

Nuclear Oversight audits; the event report for the August 2008 Unusual Event declaration at Hope Creek;and, the 2007 and 2008 50.54(t) audit reports. This inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 71114, Attachment

.05. Planning Standard, 10 CFR 50.47(b) (14) and the related requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E were used as reference criteria.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

1 EP6 Drill Evaluation

a. Inspection Scope (71114.06 -1 sample)The inspectors completed one drill evaluation inspection sample. On March 17, 2009, the inspectors observed the drill from the control room simulator, the technical support center (TSC) and the emergency offsite facility (EOF). The inspectors attended the drill Enclosure 12 debrief to ensure that PSEG captured drill deficiencies in their critique.

The inspectors evaluated the drill performance relative to developing event classifications and notifications.

The inspectors reviewed the Salem Event Classification Guides and Emergency Plans. The inspectors referenced Nuclear Energy Institute 99-02,"Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator (PI) Guideline," Revision 5, and verified that PSEG correctly counted the drill's contribution to the NRC PI for drill and exercise performance.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.2. RADIATION SAFETY Cornerstone:

Occupational Radiation Safety 20S1 Access Control to Radiologically Significant Areas (71121.01

-6 samples)a. Inspection Scope The inspectors identified exposure significant work areas (about 2-3) within radiation areas, high radiation areas (<1 R/hr), or airborne radioactivity areas in the plant and reviewed associated PSEG controls and surveys of these areas to verify that controls (e.g., surveys, postings, barricades) were acceptable.

With a survey instrument, the inspectors walked down these areas or their perimeters to verify that prescribed radiation work permits, procedure, and engineering controls were in place, PSEG surveys and postings were complete and accurate, and air samplers were properly located.The inspectors reviewed radiation work permits used to access these and other high radiation areas and identify what work control instructions or control barriers were specified.

The inspectors used plant-specific technical specification high radiation area requirements as the standard for the necessary barriers. The inspectors reviewed electronic personal dosimeter alarm set points (both integrated dose and dose rate) for conformity with survey indications and plant policy. The inspectors verified that workers knew what actions were required when their electronic personal dosimeter malfunctioned or alarmed.The inspectors verified adequate posting and locking of all entrances to high dose rate-high radiation areas and very high radiation areas.The inspectors discussed with the Radiation Protection Manager high dose rate-high radiation area and very high radiation area controls and procedures.

The inspectors reviewed procedural changes completed since the last inspection.

The inspectors verified that changes to PSEG procedures did not substantially reduce the effectiveness and level of worker protection.

The inspectors discussed with health physics supervisors the controls in place for special areas that have the potential to become very high radiation areas during certain plant operations. The inspectors verified that communication with the health physics Enclosure 13 group was required prior to these plant operations to allow proper posting and control of radiation hazards.The inspectors evaluated PSEG performance in this area against the requirementscontained in 10 CFR 20, and Technical Specification 6.12.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

20S2 ALARA Planning and Controls (71121.02 -

4 samples)a. Inspection Scope Utilizing PSEG records, the inspectors reviewed the historical trends and current status of tracked plant source terms. The inspectors verified that PSEG made allowances or developed contingency plans for expected changes in the source term due to changes in plant fuel performance issues or changes in plant primary chemistry.

The inspectors compared the person-hour estimates provided by maintenance planning and other groups to the radiation protection group with the actual work activity time requirements and evaluated the accuracy of these time estimates.

The inspectors verified that PSEG developed an understanding of the plant source term, including knowledge of input mechanisms to reduce the source term. The inspectors also verified that PSEG had a source-term control strategy in place.The inspectors reviewed specific sources identified by PSEG for exposure reduction actions and the associated priorities PSEG established for implementation of these actions. The inspectors reviewed results achieved for these priorities since the last refueling cycle. During the previous 12 month assessment period, the inspectors verified that source reduction evaluations were completed and actions taken to reduce the overall source-term compared to the previous.year.

The inspectors evaluated PSEG performance in this area against the requirements contained in 10 CFR 20.1101.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

20S3 Radiation Monitorinq Instrumentation and Protective Equipment (71121.03 -1 sample)a. Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed the qualification documentation for onsite personnel designated to perform maintenance on the vendor-designated vital components and the vital component maintenance records for three self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)units currently designated as "ready for service." For the same three units, the inspectors ensured that the required periodic air cylinder hydrostatic testing was documented and up to date and the DOT required retest air cylinder markings were in Enclosure 14 place. The inspectors reviewed the onsite maintenance procedures governing vital component work and verified agreement between PSEG procedures and the SCBA manufacturer's recommended practices.

The inspectors evaluated PSEG performance in this area against the requirements contained in 10 CFR 20.1501, 10 CFR 20.1703 and 10 CFR 20.1704.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES 40A1 Performance Indicator (PI) Verification (71151 -9 samples)a. Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed PSEG submittals for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Mitigating Systems cornerstone PIs and the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Barrier Integrity cornerstone PIs discussed below. Data reviewed was for all four quarters of calendar year 2008. Emergency preparedness PI data was reviewed from the second through the fourth quarters of 2008. To verify the accuracy of the PI data reported during this period the data was compared to the PI definition and guidance contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Indicator Guideline," Revision 5.Cornerstone:

Mitigating Systems* Unit 1 and 2 Safety System Functional Failures Cornerstone:

Barrier Integrity* Unit 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Unidentified Leak Rate; and* Unit 1 and 2 RCS Specific Activity The inspectors reviewed main control room logs and were familiar with leak rate data through plant status reviews required by NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2515, Appendix D, "Plant Status." Cornerstone:

Emergency Preparedness

• Drill and Exercise Performance (DEP)" ERO Drill Participation; and" ANS Reliability.

For the PIs listed above to verify the accuracy of the reported data the inspectors reviewed the PI data, supporting documentation, and the information PSEG reported, from the second quarter through the fourth quarter of 2008.Enclosure 15 b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

40A2 Identification and Resolution of Problems (71152).1 Review of Items Entered into the Corrective Action Program: As required by Inspection Procedure 71152, "Identification and Resolution of Problems," and in order to help identify repetitive equipment failures or specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of all items entered into PSEG's corrective action program.

This was accomplished by reviewing the description of each new notification and attending daily management review committee meetings.4OA3 Event Followup (71153 -1 sample).1 (Closed) LER 05000272/2008002-00, Missed Containment Spray Valve Surveillance per Technical Specification 4.0.5 On December 9, 2008, with Salem Unit 1 in Mode 1, it was identified that containment spray pressure relief (vacuum breaker) valve 1CS12 could not be located to perform a required post removal as-found surveillance test in accordance with the requirements of the technical specifications (TS) and the ASME OMa-1988, Part 1, Requirements for Inservice Performance Testing of Nuclear Power Plant pressure Relief Devices. The inability to perform the test because of the loss of the 1 CS1 2 resulted in a conservative determination that the valve would not have passed the TS surveillance pressure test.The valve misplacement was attributed to failure to follow work order instructions to properly retain the valve for testing. The valve testing scope was expanded to the second redundant valve on the tank. The test of the redundant valve concluded that the valve would have performed its function.

All pressure relief valves on the containment spray additive tank were replaced with new valves. The failure to comply with TS 4.0.5,"Surveillance Requirements for Inservice Inspection," constituted a violation of minor significance not subject to enforcement action in accordance with NRC's Enforcement Policy. The inspectors reviewed this LER and identified no additional findings of significance or violations of NRC requirements.

PSEG documented the cause and corrective actions for this failure in notification 20394390.

This LER is closed.40A5 Other Activities

• 1 Quarterly Resident Inspector Observations of Security Personnel and Activities

a. Inspection Scope During the inspection period, the inspectors conducted observations of security forcepersonnel and activities to ensure that the activities were consistent with PSEG security procedures and regulatory requirements related to nuclear plant security.

These observations took place during both normal and off-normal plant working hours. These quarterly resident inspector observations of security force personnel and activities did not constitute any additional inspection samples. Rather, they were considered an integral part of the inspectors' normal plant status review and inspection activities.

Enclosure 16 b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

.2 TI 2515/173, Review of the Implementation of the Industry Ground Water Protection Voluntary Initiative

a. Inspection Scope On March 9-13, 2009, the inspectors assessed PSEG's ground water protection program to verify that PSEG implemented the voluntary industry Ground Water Protection Initiative (GPI). The GPI was unanimously approved by a formal vote of theNuclear Energy Institute member utility chief nuclear officers.

This established the industry's commitment to implement the initiative.

The GPI identifies the actions the industry deemed necessary for implementation of a timely and effective ground water protection program.The inspectors verified that the following objectives for the GPI were contained in PSEG's program: 1.1 Site Hydrology and Geology 1.2 Site Risk Management 1.3 On-Site Ground Water Monitoring

1.4 Remediation

Process 1.5 Record Keeping 2.1 Stakeholder Briefing 2.2 Voluntary Communication 2.3 Thirty-Day Reports 2.4 Annual Reporting 3.1 Perform a Self-Assessment

3.2 Review

the Program Under the Auspices of NEI Unit 1 Tritium Ground Water MonitoringThe inspectors reviewed PSEG actions regarding the tritium in ground water from the Unit 1 fuel pool, first identified in 2002. The inspectors discussed with PSEG current activity levels of tritium, historical trends, remediation activities and future plans regarding this issue.b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

.3 World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Plant Assessment Report ReviewThe inspectors reviewed the final report for the WANO plant assessment of the Salem Generating Station, August 2008 evaluation, dated March 2009. No new safety issues were identified.

Enclosure 17.4 Emergency Response Organization, Drill/Exercise PI, Program Review The inspectors performed NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/175, ensured the completeness of PSEG's completed Attachment 1 from the TI, and forwarded that data to NRC Headquarters.

40A6 Meetings, Including Exit On April 3, 2009, the resident inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Braun.PSEG acknowledged that none of the information reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection period was proprietary.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 0 Enclosure A-1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel:

H. Berrick, Senior Engineer Nuclear, Regulatory AssuranceL. Cataldo, Nuclear Technical Supervisor, Chemistry R. Gary, Radiation Protection Manager G. Gellrich, Plant Manager M. Gwirtz, Director Operations E. Keating, Environmental Manager, Regulatory Affairs D. McCollum, Component Maintenance Organization E. Villar, Licensing Engineer H. Miller, Technical Support Specialist G. Rich, Chemist T. Davis, Environmental Specialist L. Rajkowski, Design Engineering Manager L. Oberembt, NSSS Systems Manager M. Rahmani, Electrical Systems Engineer A. Garcia, BoP Systems Engineer G. Pawha, Programs Engineer P. Quick, Salem EP Manager P. Williams, LOR Instructor J. Gebely, Fire Department Shift Supervisor D. Burgin, Manager Emergency Preparedness D. Kabachinski, D&E Coordinator C. Banner, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator B. Vondrasek, Emergency Preparedness Training Coordinator C. Simmermon, Emergency Preparedness Facility and Equipment Coordinator LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened None Opened/Closed 05000272/2008002-00 LER Missed Containment Spray Valve Surveillance per Technical Specification 4.0.5 (Section 40A3.1)Discussed Attachment A-2 None LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED In addition to the documents identified in the body of this report, the inspectors reviewed the following documents and records: Section 1R01: Adverse Weather Protection Procedures WC-AA-107, Seasonal Readiness, Rev, 8 EN-SA-403-1001, Salem Rivergrass Predictive Methodology, Rev. 0 Notification 20399054 Section 1 R04: Equipment Alignment Procedure S2.OP-SO.DG-0002, 2A Diesel Generation Operation, Rev. 33 Drawings 205334 205336 Notification 20398093 Section 1RO5: Fire Protection Procedures FRS-ll-432, Spent Fuel / Component Cooling Heat Exchanger & Pump Area, Elevation:

84' -0", Rev. 5 FRS-Il-433, Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps Area, Elevation:

84' -0", Rev. 6 FRS-I1-445, Diesel Generator Area, Elevations:

100' & 122', Rev. 11 Other Document Controller/Observer Drill Evaluation Form for fire drill conducted March 17, 2009 Section 1R06: Flood Protection Measures Other Documents S-C-ZZ-SDC-1203, Moderate Energy Break Analysis (Reconstitution), Rev. 3 VTD 317095, Safe Shutdown Equipment List, Salem Generating Station Unit 2, Rev. 1 S-C-ZZ-MDC-0572, Design Pressure Criteria for Salem Generating Station Barriers, Rev. 8 S-C-ZZ-SDC-1419, Salem Generating Station Environmental Design Criteria, Rev. 3 Section IR11: Licensed Operator Requalification Program Procedures Attachment A-3 OP-AA-101-111-1003, Use of Procedures, Rev. 1 2-EOP-TRIP-1, Reactor Trip or Safety Injection, Rev. 27 2-EOP-TRIP-2, Reactor Trip Response, Rev. 27 2-EOP-LOCA-1, Loss of Reactor Coolant, Rev. 28 2-EOP-LOCA-2, Post LOCA Cooldown and Depressurization, Rev. 25 S2.OP-AB.CHEM-0001, Abnormal Secondary Plant Chemistry, Rev. 20 S2.OP-AB.LOAD-0001, Rapid Load Reduction, Rev. 17 S2.OP-AB.CW-0001, Circulating Water System Malfunction, Rev. 29 SC.OP-AB.ZZ-0003, Component Fouling, Rev. 12 SC.OP-SO.ZZ-0003, Component Biofouling, Rev. 7 Notification 20400594 Other Document SG-091 1, Simulator Training Scenario -Biofouling, AB-CHEM, AB-RC-1, LOCA-1 & 2, Rev 1 Section 1R12: Maintenance Effectiveness Procedures S1.OP-AB.115-0003, Loss of 1C 115V Vital Instrument Bus, Rev.

15 S2.OP-AB.115-0003, Loss of 2C 115V Vital Instrument Bus, Rev. 13 MA-AA-716-210-1001, Performance Centered Maintenance (PCM Templates), Rev. 8 MA-AA-716-210, Performance Centered Maintenance (PCM) Process, Rev. 5 SC.MD-PM.

115-0001, 10/12 kVA Vital Instrument Bus Inverter Preventive Maintenance, Rev. 10 S2.OP-SO.1 15-0013, 2C Vital Instrument Bus UPS System Operation, Rev. 9 51 .RA-ST.AF-0007, Inservice Testing Auxiliary Feedwater System Mode 3 Acceptance Criteria, Rev. 5 S2.RA-ST.AF-0007, Inservice Testing Auxiliary Feedwater System Mode 3 Acceptance Criteria, Rev. 7 S1.OP-ST.AF-0007, Inservice Testing Auxiliary Feedwater Valves Mode 3, Rev. 18 ER-SA-310-1009, System Function Level Maintenance Rule Scoping vs. Risk Reference, Rev. 0 Drawings 610575 601241 601242 211370 601402 203007 211370 218681 Notifications 20399813 20399787 20398811 20398049 203966605 20396663 20402348 20405548 20259635 20365475 20401620 20349198 Orders 60077309 60080560 70093360 70094138 70037915Other Documents Maplewood Testing Services Fuse Failure Analysis, 2B & 2C Vital Bus Inverters, dated January 30, 2009 UCI Power Supply Logic Assembly Failure Report, dated March 3, 2009 Attachment A-4 eSHIP Quarterly System Health Reports for Salem Units I and 2 115 VAC systems Salem Maintenance Rule Status & Projections dated March 4, 2009 Salem 1OCFR 50.65(a)(3)

Report for the period 5/1/2005 to 5/1/2007 PCM Template for Inverters

> 5 kVA Salem Inservice Testing Program Basis for 11 SW223, Rev. 4 AIAA-2000-2933, Impact of Failure of Uninterruptible Power Supplies on Nuclear Power Generating Stations VTD 309945, One Line Diagram 10 kVA Vital Bus UPS, Rev.

E VTD 311353, Cyberex 10 kVA Vital Uninterruptible Power Supply, Rev. 9 S-C-AF-MDC-0445, Auxiliary Feedwater Hydraulic Analysis, Rev. 2 S-C-AF-MDC-0445, Auxiliary Feedwater Hydraulic Analysis, Rev. 3 Section 1R13: Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control Procedures OP-AA-101-112-1002, On-Line Risk Assessment, Rev. 3 ER-AA-321, Administrative Requirements for Inservice Testing, Rev. 9 Notifications 20402831 20402620 20401620 20402450 20402443 20402257 20400695 20400979 20400868 Orders 60081623 30130092 80097872 Other Documents Protected Equipment/Heightened Awareness Log dated February 25, 2009 S-C-SW-MDC-1 350, Service Water System MODE OPS Analysis, Rev.

8 Protected Equipment/Heightened Awareness Log dated February 20, 2009 Protected Equipment/Heightened Awareness Log dated January 19, 2009 SGS Unit 2 PRA Risk Evaluation Form for work week 904 (January 18 to 24, 2009)Salem Inservice Testing Program Basis for 22AF40 OP-AA-101-112-1002, On-Line Risk Assessment, Rev. 3 Section 1R15: Operability Evaluations Procedures OP-AA-101-112-1002, On-Line Risk Assessment, Rev. 3 ER-AA-321, Administrative Requirements for Inservice Testing, Rev. 9 51.OP-ST.SSP-0009, Engineered Safety Features SSPS Slave Relays Test -Train "A", Rev. 32 S1.OP-SO.CBV-0001, Containment Ventilation Operation, Rev. 25 S1.OP-AR.ZZ-0003, Overhead Annunciators Window C, Rev. 15 S1.OP-SO.RC-0004, Identifying and Measuring Leakage, Rev. 13 SI.OP-AB.ANN-0001, Loss of Overhead Annunciators, Rev. 24 Si.OP-AR.7Z-0001, Overhead Annunciators Window A, Rev. 45 MA-AA-716-003, Tool Pouch / Minor Maintenance, Rev. 4 MA-AA-716-010, Maintenance Planning Process, Rev. 12 MA-AA-716,234, FIN Team, Rev. 2 MA-AA-716-004, Conduct of Troubleshooting, Rev. 8 Attachment A-5 Drawings232306 205227 207634 220061 901167 604567 205234 211661 ABV-B2-40-0002 Notifications 20402831 20402620 20401620 20402450 20402443 20402257 20401854 20399081 20398760 20398486 20398893 20401670 20401722 20399001 20398208 20394550 20397453 Orders 30130092 80097872, 70094059 30167370 30174094 70086275 30159545 Other Documents S-C-SW-MDC-1 350, Service Water System MODE OPS Analysis, Rev. 8 MPR Associates Failure Analysis of Salem Unit 2 Annunciator Verification System, Rev. 0 Tagging Work List 4238897, 12CS2 Containment Integrity, dated January 9, 2009 Section 1R18: Plant Modifications Procedures Sl.OP-ST.SSP-0009, Engineered Safety Features SSPS Slave Relays Test -Train "A", Rev. 33 MA-AA-716-100-, Maintenance Alterations Process, Rev. 9 LS-AA-104, Exelon 50.59 Review Process, Rev. 5 CC-AA-112, Temporary Configuration Changes, Rev. 11 CC-AA-1 12-1001, Temporary Configuration Change Implementation T&RM, Rev. 1 MA-AA-716-004, Conduct of Troubleshooting, Revs. 7 and 8 CC-AA-309-101, Engineering Technical Evaluations, Rev. 9 MA-AA-716-011, Work Execution and Close Out, Rev. 10 Drawing 232011 Notifications 20402554 20407440 20402869 20402937 20402881 Orders 60081697 70094842Other Document HU-AA-1211, HLA/IPA Briefing Worksheet, Rev. 6 Section 1 R1 9: Post-Maintenance Testing Procedures NC.NA-AP/TS.77-0005, SC.MD-EU.SW-0002, Johnston Service Water Pump Removal and Installation, Rev. 18 S2.OP-ST.SW-0006, Inservice Testing -26 Service Water Pump, Rev. 28 Attachment A-6 S2.OP-ST.DG-0006, 2A Diesel Generator Auxiliaries

-Air Start Valve Test, Rev. 9 S2.OP-ST.AF-0003, Inservice Testing -23 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump, Rev. 44 S2.IC-ZZ.AF-0018, Woodward Governor Removal, Replacement and Linkage Adjustment 23 Aux Feedwater Pump, Rev. 7 CC-AA-309-101, Past Operability of the 13 Aux Feed Pump with Governor Oscillations, Rev. 9 S1.OP-ST.AF-0003, Inservice Testing -13 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump, Rev. 35 S2.OP-ST.CH-0004, Chilled Water System -Chillers, Rev. 16 Notifications 20394073 20406640 Orders 60079798 30095033 50118591 30060411 60081911 50119380 70094466 Section 1R22: Surveillance Testing Procedures S2.IC-CC.RCP-0028, 2FT-512 #21 Steam Generator Steam Flow Protection Channel I, Rev. 30 SC.OP-PT.CA-0001, SBO Diesel Control Air Compressor Test, Rev. 12 S2.OP-ST.AF-0003, Inservice Testing -23 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump, Rev. 44 S2.OP-SO.CVC-0023, CVCS Cross-Connect Alignment to Unit 1, Rev. 8 S2.OP-ST.CVC-0007, Inservice Testing Chemical and Volume Control Valves Modes 5-6, Rev. 18 S2.OP-SO.CVC-0001, Charging, Letdown, and Seal Injection, Rev. 32 S2.OP-SO.CVC-0002, Charging Pump Operation, Rev. 37 S2.OP-ST.CVC-0006, Inservice Testing Chemical and Volume Control Valves Modes 1-6, Rev. 22 S1.OP-ST.DG-0003, 1C Diesel Generator Surveillance Test, Rev. 42 ER-AA-321, Administrative Requirements for Inservice Testing, Rev. 9 Drawincqs 205228 205325 205234 205334 205328 205342 Notifications 20399040 20406205 20406540 20403776 20403807 20403772 20403730 20403654 20382308 20403653 Orders 30174749 50118220 80094814 70088618 Other Documents VTD 108170, Rockwell Right Angle Stem Valve, Rev. 0 VTD 324339, Anchor/Darling Glove Valve, Rev. 1 VTD 325191, Velan Bolted Cover Swing Check Valve, Rev. 1 VTD 325188, Velan Bolted Bonnet Gate Valve, Rev. I NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-17, NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, "Technical Specifications," Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings During Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels Attachment A-7 Section 1EP6: Drill Evaluation Procedure Salem Event Classification Guide Notifications 20403765 20397972 20406179 20406199 20406179 Other Documents PSEG Nuclear Salem -Drill (03/17/09)

Scenario Synopsis PSEG Nuclear Salem -Drill (03/17/09)

Major Events Timeline Section 20S2: ALARA Planning and Controls Other Documents$1R19 Outage Dose & Time Performance Salem Unit 2 16 th Refueling Outage & Steam Generator Replacement Project Radiological Performance Report Section 20S3: Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation Procedure RP-AA-825, Rev 2, Maintenance, Care and Inspection of, Respiratory Protective Equipment Other Documents Eberline Gamma Calibrator S-783 Source Check Readings, 3/7/07 3 Ci Source # 7001 Certification, 11/10/08 400 Ci Source # 9038 Certification, 8/6/08 100 mCi Source Certification, 9/4/08 K&S Associates Calibration Report, 10/26/07 Municipal Emergency Services Scot PosiChek3 visual/functional test results 11/27/08 & 12/4/08 Lesson Plans: NRP1009BDO5, Inspect/Repair Respiratory Protection Equipment NRP2007BG02, Refill SCBA Bottles NRP3010BA12, Operate Portable Breathing Air Systems Section IEP2: Alert and Notification System (ANS) Evaluation American Signal Corporation Final REP-10 Design Review Report, PSEG Salem and HopeCreek Generating Stations EP-AA-121, Emergency Response Facilities and Equipment Readiness, Revision 0 EP-AA-121-1002, PSEG Alert Notification System (ANS) Program, Revision 0 EP-AA-121-1004, PSEG ANS Corrective Maintenance, Revision 0 EP-AA-121-1005, PSEG ANS Preventive Maintenance Program, Revision 1 EP-AA-121-1006, PSEG ANS Siren Monitoring, Troubleshooting, and Testing, Revision 0 ANS-related Condition Reports, dated January 2008 -March 2009 Section 1EP3: Emergency Response Organization (ERO) Staffing and Augmentation System PSEG Nuclear LLC Emergency Plan, Revision 62 Attachment A-8 EP-AA-121-1001, Automated Call-Out System Maintenance NC.EP-AP.ZZ-1 011 (Z), Maintenance of Emergency Response Organization, Revision 9 EPIP 204S, Emergency Response Callout/Personnel Recall, Revision 70 EPIP 204H, Emergency Response Callout/Personnel Recall, Revision 70 January Monthly Callout Check (pagers)February Monthly Callout Check (pagers)ERO Roster ERO AssignmentERO Qualifications Section 1 EP4: Emergency Action Level (EAL) and Emer-gency Plan Changes PSEG Nuclear LLC Emergency Plan, Revision 62 EP-AA-120, Emergency Plan Administration, Revision 0 EP-AA-120-1001, 10CFR50.54(q)

Change Evaluation, Revision 0 EP-AA-120-1003, Emergency Preparedness Document Processing, Revision 0 EP-AA- 120-1005, Emergency Plan and: Event Classification Guide Content/Format, Revision 1 EP-AA-124, Inventories and Surveillances, Revision 0 EP-AA-124-1001, Facilities Inventories and Equipment Tests, Revision 0 LS-AA-104, Exelon 50.59 Review Process, Revision 5 LS-AA-104-1000, 50.59 Resource Manual, Revision 4 LS-AA-104-1007, Emergency Plan Guidance for Salem and Hope Creek Stations, Revision 0 Emergency Preparedness 1OCFR50.54(q) screenings performed between May 2008 -March 2009 Section IEP5: Correction of Emergency Preparedness Weaknesses LS-AA-120, Issue Identification and Screening Process, Revision 8 LS-AA-125, Corrective Action Program (CAP) Procedure, Revision 12 EP-AA-122, Drills and Exercises, Revision 0 EP-AA-122-1001-F1O, Drill and Exercise Post Event Critique and Report Development Guidance, Revision 0 EP-AA-121-1001, Automated Call-Out System Maintenance, Revision 0 Nuclear Oversight Audits: NOSA-HPC-08-02 NOSA-HPC-07-04 NOSA-HPC-06-03 Event Follow-up Report for the Hope Creek August 2008 Unusual Event Declaration ERO Common Cause Analysis Report ERO Common Cause Analysis Report, 'Revision 1 Emergency Preparedness Drill Reports, dated January 2008 -March 2009 Emergency Preparedness-related Condition Reports, dated January 2008 -March 2009 Section 40A1: Performance Indicator VerificationOther Documents Safety System Functional Failures (PWR), 4th Quarter/2008 Reactor Coolant System Activity (PWR), 4th Quarter/2008 LS-AA-2001, Collecting and Reporting of NRC Performance Indicator Data, Revision 10 LS-AA-2001, Qualification of NRC PI Data Steward, Attachment 2, Revision 10 Attachment A-9 EP-AA-125-1001, EP Performance Indicator Guidance, Revision 0 DEP PI data, April 2008 -December 2008 ERO Drill Participation PI data, April 2008 -December 2008 ANS Reliability PI data, April 2008 -December 2008 Section 40A5: Other Activities Procedures CY-AA-170-400, Rev 3, Radiological Ground Water Protection Program ER-AA-5400, Rev 1, Buried Piping Program Guide ER-AA-5400-1002, Rev 1, Buried Piping Examination Guide SH.RA-IS.ZZ-0109(Q), Rev 4, Storage Tank Integrity Testing OP-SH-111-101-1001, Rev 1, Use and Development of Operating Logs LS-AA-125, Rev 12, Corrective Action Program Procedure CY-AA-170-4000, Rev 6, Radiological Ground Water Protection Program Implementation CY-AA-170-4160, Rev 1, Station RGPP Controlled Sample Point Parameters Maplewood Testing Services, Work Instruction HBLF-68, Groundwater Sampling Procedure CY-AA-170-000, Rev 3, Radioactive Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs RP-AA-228, Rev 0, 1OCFR50.75(G) and 1OCFR72.30(D)

Documentation Requirements NC.CH-AP.ZZ-801 1(Q), Rev 1, Unplanned Radiological Effluent Releases Notifications 20399501 20399800 20399730 20399061 20397273 20398952 Other Documents Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation Work Plan -Salem Generating Station, April 2006 Site Investigation Report, Salem Generating Station, July 2006 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.4 -Hydrology American Nuclear Insurers Nuclear Liability Insurance Inspection

-Report L071108.230, Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant, July 23, 2008 Memorandum from E. Keating to J. Shelton, March 6, 2009,

Subject:

NEI 07-07 Objective 2.1.a and 2.1.b Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual, Rev 21 CY-AA-170-100, Rev 2, Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Check-In Self-Assessment, Tritium Ground Water, SAP Order # 70087553LA-AA-126-1005, Rev 3, Check-In Self-Assessment Attachment A-10 LIST OF ACRONYMS AFW Auxiliary Feedwater AFWST Auxiliary Feedwater Storage TankANS Alert and Notification System ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers AVS Annunciator Verification System CCHX Component Cooling Heat Exchanger CFR Code of Federal Regulations CS Containment Spray DEP Drill and Exercise Performance EAL Emergency Action Level EDGs Emergency Diesel Generators EOF Emergency Offsite Facility EP Emergency Preparedness EPIP Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure ERO Emergency Response Organization GPI Ground Water Protection Initiative IMC Inspection Manual Chapter IR Incident Report LER Licensee Event Report NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PARS Publicly Available Records PI Performance Indicator PORV Power Operated Relief Valve PS Planning Standard PSEG Public Service Enterprise Group Nuclear LLC PWST Pure Water Storage Tank RCS Reactor Coolant System RWST Refueling Water Storage Tank SCBA Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus SSPS Solid State Protection System SW Service WaterSWP Service Water Pump TI Temporary InstructionTS Technical Specification TSC Technical Support Center WANO World Association of Nuclear Operations WO Work Order Attachment Salem/ Hope Creek Environmental Audit -Post-Audit Information Question #: ENV-92 Category:

Water / Groundwater Statement of Question:

Please provide the following documents that were made available during the Salem and HCGS License Renewal Environmental Audit.A Copy of Most recently available Diesel Fuel Oil remediation report B Copy of Diesel Fuel Oil remediation action work plan Response:

The documents requested are being provided.List Attachments Provided: A Letter from PSEG Nuclear LLC (M. Pyle) to NJDEP (L. Range)(with enclosures) regarding "Semi-Annual Diesel Remedial Action Progress Report, July 2009 through December 2009, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Salem Generating Station, NJDEP Case 04-08-02-2350-16" (concerning a diesel fuel release first observed on August 2, 2004). March 2010.B Arcadis G&M, Inc. Remedial Investigation and Interim Remedial Action Report, Incident No. 04-08-02-2350-16.

Prepared for PSEG Services Corporation.

June 2005.

PSEG NuclearL.L.C.

RO. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08302 ANw 'ear L. L C.SCH 10-035 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ARTICLE NUMBERT7008 0150 0000 5749 3867 New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionDivision of Remediation Management and Response Southern Bureau of Field Operations P.O. Box 407 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0407 Attention:

Ms. Linda S. Range SEMI-ANNUAL DIESEL REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRESS REPORT, JULY 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 2009, PSEG NUCLEAR LLC, SALEM GENERATING STATION, NJDEP CASE 04-08-02-2350-16

Dear Ms. Range:

Please find enclosed the Semi-Annual Remedial Action Progress Report (RAPR) that covers groundwater remediation activities completed at Salem Generating Station between July 2009 ýand December 2009 for :NJDEP Case Number 04-08-02-2350-1 6.PSEG proposes the following new actions for the upcoming reporting period January -June 2010.: PSEG will continue to collect groundwater samples on a semiannual basis with the.next event to be conducted -in June 2010. Groundwater monitoring will continue to consist of the collection and analysis of groundwater samples from those wells not indicating the presence of separate phase product. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs to evaluate the extent, :if any,:of dissolved phase constituents of concern. In addition, product recovery.efforts will remain ongoing.Semiannual Remedial Action Progress Reports will continue to be prepared to update the NJDEP with'the status of product recovery efforts and groundwater analytical

results; Division of Remediation Management 2 and 'Response SCH10-035 Following completion of the product recovery efforts (i.e., measurable separate phase product is no longer detected) eight consecutive rounds of quarterly sampling will be completed (assuming concentrations of constituents of concern are above applicable GWQC) as required by the Mann-Whitney U-Test. The analytical results from these sampling events will be evaluated to determine if there are decreasing analytical trends; and, Following completion of the eight consecutive rounds of quarterly sampling, PSEG will either: 1) propose no further action for groundwater if groundwater analytical results continue to be below applicable GWQC; or, 2) establish a classification exception area and prepare a Remedial Action Work Plan that proposes a groundwater remediation strategy.Refer to the attached report for details.If you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact Luis Cataldo of my staff at (856) 339-2307.Sincerely, Mark Pyle Chemistry, Radwaste & Environmental Manager Salem Generating Station PSEG Nuclear, LLC\wgb Enclosures (1 original report binder and 2 copies)

Division of Remediation Management and Response SCH10-035 3 CC: Richard Blackman Ed Eilola Helen Gregory Edward Keating Christine Neely Eric Svensen John Valeri Jr.File 8.1.4 T17 S05 N21 N21 N21 T1 7A T5C with attached copy of report binder with attached copy of report binder with attached copy of report binder with attached copy of report binder with attached copy of report binder with attached copy of report binder with attached copy of report binder EXTERNAL Peter Milionis, ARCADIS w/o attachments

• Bradley Pierce, ARCADIS w/o attachments Scott Potter, PhD., ARCADIS w/o attachments Infrastructure environment, buildings Imagine the resultRemedial Action Progress Report July through December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Incident No. 04-08-02-2350-16 March 2010

/ ARCADIS/Glenn C. Palmer Staff Scientist Remedial Action Progress July through December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Incident No. 04-08-02-2350-16 Prepared for: PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Alloway Creek Neck Road Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 08038 (Bradley D. Pierce Project Manager Prepared by: ARCADIS U.S., Inc.6 Terry Drive Suite 300 Newtown Pennsylvania 18940 Tel 267.685.1800 Fax 267.685.1801 Our Ref.: NP000603.0007 Date: March 2010 This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt fromdisclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited.

Table of Contents ARCADIS 1. Introduction I 2. Project Background 1 3. December 2009 Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring 3 3.1 Water Level and Separate-Phase Product Measurements 4 3.2 Monitoring Well Sampling 4 3.3 Analytical Results 5 4. Ongoing Product Recovery 5 5. Product Recovery at Well Al 6 6. Fuel Handling Investigation 6 7. Proposed Actions 7 8. Groundwater Monitoring Program Details and Schedule 8 Tables Table 1 Groundwater Monitoring Event Details Table 2 Monitoring Well Construction Details Table 3 Groundwater Elevations and Product Thickness Table 4 Summary of VOC Groundwater Analytical Results Table 5 Summary of SVOC Groundwater Analytical Results Table 6 Summary of Soil Analytical Results Figures Figure 1 Station Location Figure 2 Station Layout Figure 3 Results of Groundwater Monitoring Activities Figure 4 Results of Soil Investigation

-Test Pits Table of Contents ARCADIS Appendices A Low-flow Groundwater Sampling Logs B Laboratory Analytical Data (Groundwater -December 2009) and Electronic Data Deliverable C Laboratory Analytical Data (Soil -September 2009)ii Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 1. Introduction ARCADIS U.S., Inc. (ARCADIS), on behalf of PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG), has prepared this Remedial Action Progress Report (RAPR) to present the details and results of ongoing groundwater monitoring and product recovery activities being conducted at the PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station (the Station).

The Station is located on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The Station location and layout are depicted on Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

Groundwater monitoring and product recovery activities are being conducted in accordance with the scope of work proposed in the Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) that was submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in June 2005. The remedial investigation was conducted to determine the extent of constituents of concern in soil and groundwater associated with a release of diesel fuel (Incident Number 04-08-02-2350-16).This RAPR includes activities completed at the Station from July 2009 through December 2009 including the completion of the semiannual groundwater monitoring activities conducted in December 2009 and the ongoing operation of the separate phase product recovery systems in Wells AU and AW. Additionally described is a September 2009 soil sampling event used to horizontally delineate separate phase product in the vicinity of the Fuel Handling Building.

These activities are discussed in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, followed by the proposed schedule for subsequent reporting periods.2. Project Background On August 2, 2004, PSEG personnel observed a diesel fuel odor in a catch basin associated with the storm water collection system just to the south of the Salem Unit 1 Auxiliary Building.

Investigation of the catch basin, which is identified as "Catch Basin 27" on Figure 2, revealed the presence of a'red-dyed diesel fuel (the red-dye is more typical of a recent release of diesel fuel). At this time, PSEG notified the NJDEP through its spill hotline.Investigations into the source of the diesel fuel focused on the underground piping adjacent to Catch Basin 27 that supplies diesel fuel from the bulk storage tanks to diesel/generator storage tanks located within the Auxiliary Building and to the service water and circulating water boilers. The location of the underground piping is shown on Figure 2. PSEG performed a pressure test on this underground piping. The results revealed the leak was in an approximate 300-foot section of the piping extending south 1 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey from the Auxiliary Building.

To pinpoint the location of the leak along this 300-foot section of piping, PSEG subcontracted Praxair Services, Inc. to perform a "Tracer Tight" gas analysis.

The results of this test showed that the location of the leak was directly adjacent to Catch Basin 27. The results of the Tracer Tight gas analysis indicated that there were no other leaks along the 300-foot section of piping.

Excavation in the area of the leaking underground piping was initiated on August 23, 2004 by PSEG with the support of Clean Harbors, Inc. to repair the piping. During the excavation process, residual diesel fuel was observed on soil excavated from below the piping (approximately six feet below ground surface (bgs)). Separate-phase diesel fuel was observed on standing water within the excavation.

Prior to backfilling, approximately 150 gallons of diesel fuel were recovered from the excavation.

In November 2004, PSEG initiated remedial investigation and interim product recoveryactivities. As presented in the Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) submitted to the NJDEP in January 2005, soil borings were advanced at locations down gradient of the source area to delineate the horizontal extent of diesel related constituents of concern in soil. Due to the presence of extensive, facility-critical infrastructure within the area of investigation, the boring locations were limited. Soil samples collected from the borings were submitted for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) analysis.Analytical results of the soil samples did not indicate concentrations of TPHC above laboratory detection limits. Results of the soil investigation indicatedthat the release of diesel fuel had not migrated a significant distance beyond the source area and that diesel related constituents of concern in soil were likely limited to the source area and the "smear-zone" where separate phase diesel had migrated.The soil borings were converted to monitoring/product recovery wells to facilitate the collection of groundwater samples and for the recovery of separate-phase diesel, if present. Water-level and product gauging and groundwater sampling were completed following installation of the wells. These activities utilized six monitoring wells (the five newly installed wells, and one previously existing monitoring well). The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2. Water-level and product measurements indicated that the extent of measurable product is limited to the area of Well AU,located at the source area, and Well AW, located down gradient of the source area along the service water pipes. Measurable product was detected during a single gauging event in Well AZ. In April 2009, separate phase product was also observed in Well Al. This well is not sampled as part of the diesel remediation and investigation program. Investigation and recovery activities are further discussed in Section 4.2 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey The extent to which product has migrated is controlled by the significant facility-related subsurface infrastructure.

The foundation for the primary water storage tank located to the west of Well AU has prevented the migration of separate phase product in this direction.

The service water piping that runs to the south from Well AU provided a preferential pathway for the migration of separate phase product towards Well AW. To delineate the extent of separate phase product to the south of Well AW along the service water piping, an additional monitoring well, Well BV, was installed in December 2006, as required by the NJDEP. Product recovery efforts completed to date have included the installation of a Spill Buster Unit in Wells AU and/or AW, the installationand operation of a passive skimmer in Well AW, and the installation of sorbent socks within Wells AZ and AU. Details regarding the ongoing product recovery efforts are presented in Section 4.Groundwater monitoring activities have been completed on a quarterly basis since the installation of the monitoring wells through December 2007. However, in the Remedial Action Progress Report dated February 2008 PSEG recommended moving from quarterly groundwater sampling to semiannual sampling.

In a March 24, 2008 letter, NJDEP approved reducing groundwater monitoring to semi-annual events, completed in June and December.

During the sampling events, groundwater samples are collected from wells that do not indicate the presence of separate phase product. The groundwater samples are submitted to a laboratory and are analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The details of groundwater monitoring activities completed during the reporting period andthe results of groundwater monitoring activities completed to date are presented in Section 3 and Section 4.3. December 2009 Semiannual Groundwater Monitoring On December 8, 2009, semi-annual groundwater monitoring activities were conducted.

Details regarding the sampling activities are presented in Table 1. The monitoring well network associated with the semi-annual gauging and sampling activities consists of the following seven monitoring wells: Well X, Well AU, Well AV, Well AW, Well AY, Well AZ, and Well BV. A summary table of well construction details for these wells is presented in Table 2. Semiannual groundwater monitoring activities consist of the gauging of groundwater and separate-phase product levels and the collection and analysis of groundwater samples from those wells that do not contain separate-phase product. The following sections provide the details and results of the gauging and sampling activities.

3 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLCSalem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 3.1 Water Level and Separate-Phase Product Measurements Prior to the initiation of groundwater sampling activities, water-level and separate phase product measurements were obtained from each monitoring well using an electronic oil/water interface probe. Water-level and separate phase product measurements were also collected during routine maintenance of the product recovery systems. A summary of historic product gauging and groundwater elevation data is presented in Table 3. With the exception of a onetime detection of product in Well AZ and a recent detection in Well Al (Section 4), measurable product is limited to the area of Well AU and down gradient towards Well AW, consistent with the previous reporting period. The extent to which product has migrated to date has been generally controlled by the subsurface infrastructure located within the investigation area. With the repair of the diesel fuel underground piping, the ongoing product recovery efforts being conducted in Well AU and Well AW, when in operation (see Section 4), are successfully preventing further migration of product. Separate phase product measurements obtained from Well AY, located to the south and down gradient of Well AW along the service water pipes, provide delineation of the extent of separate phase product.3.2 Monitoring Well Sampling As discussed above, semiannual groundwater monitoring activities were completed in December 2009. During this sampling event, groundwater samples were only collected from monitoring wells that did not indicate a measurable thickness (i.e., greater than 0.01 feet) of separate-phase product. For this reason, Wells AU and AW were not sampled during the reporting period. Well AV was not sampled this period because it was inaccessible due to site operation related construction activities occurring adjacent to the monitoring well.Due to the nature of the analytes being monitored and to ensure the quality of the groundwater data, groundwater samples are collected utilizing low-flow sampling methodology. Due to insufficient water in the wells and slow recharge rates, select wells need to be sampled with a disposable bailer to enable collection of sufficient sample volumes. Wells AY and X were sampled with a bailer during the December 2009 event. Sample collection procedures, as well as quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) sampling requirements, were completed in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) presented in the January 2005 RIWP. Groundwater sampling logs for the samples collected during the reporting period are included in Appendix A. Groundwater samples were submitted to Accutest Laboratories of 4 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Dayton, New Jersey. The groundwater samples were analyzed for priority pollutant list VOCs and SVOCs including a library search. Laboratory reports and HazSite deliverables for the groundwater monitoring events are included as Appendix B.Analytical results of the groundwater samples collected during the reporting period, as well as analytical results of groundwater samples collected since the initiation of investigation activities, are discussed in the following section.3.3 Analytical Results Table 4 and 5 presents groundwater analytical results for VOCs and SVOCs obtained since December 2004 from monitoring wells utilize in the diesel investigation.

Figure 3 shows all constituent detections during the December 2009 sampling event. The following summary compares analytical results to the NJDEP Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS) listed at New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.)

7:9C.Analytical results of these samples indicate the following:

• Concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in Wells AZ, AY and BV.* Concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs consistent with a diesel release were detected in Well X at concentrations above laboratory detection limits, but below GWQS." Analytical results for groundwater monitoring activities completed to date continue to indicate that impacts associated with the release of diesel fuel from the bulk storage tanks are limited to the area of separate phase product, which extends down gradient from the source area to Well AW.4. Ongoing Product Recovery Separate phase product recovery continues at Well AU, installed within the source area, and Well AW, installed immediately down gradient of the source area along the service water piping. Separate phase product recovery includes the operation and maintenance of the Spill Buster@ product recovery system, the operation of a passive skimmer, and the use of sorbent socks. Use of these methods has resulted in the recovery of approximately 705.9 gallons of separate phase product to date. During the reporting period, approximately 6.2 gallons of separate-phase product were recovered.

5 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 5. Product Recovery at Well Al During routine monitoring of the tritium well system in April 2009, separate phase product was observed in Well Al. The presence of separate phase product in this well is attributed to the pumping activity at Well AO, associated with the tritium investigationand remediation.

Over the six month period of Well AO pumping, a gradient was created for separate phase product to flow, causing the diesel product to be pulled in the direction of Well AO and flowing into Well Al. On May 28, 2009, separate phase product recovery was initiated at Well Al. Subsequent monitoring events have shown a decrease of observable separate phase product. Since June 2009, separate phase product has not been observed in Well Al. PSEG continues to monitor Well Al for separate phase product during monthly recovery activities.

6. Fuel Handling Investigation During construction activities for an unrelated project, a soft dig crew was employing vacuum extraction within the immediate area of the diesel project location (Figure 2).Their task was to soft dig a trench on either side of the asphalt from the Salem #1 Fuel Handling Building to a depth of 5 feet bgs. During their activities, soil was encountered that had an odor and groundwater was observed in the trench with a noticeable sheen.On June 12, 2009, ARCADIS was contacted to assist with sample collection activities from the trench. Results of the June 2009 sampling event were reported in Remedial Action Progress Report January through June 2009 (ARCADIS 2009).On September 22, 2009, ARCADIS was contacted to assist with additional sampling associated with the trenching activities.

Samples were collected to characterize soil in three test pits where soils expected of containing diesel related constituents were encountered.

Figure 4 identifies the location of the three test pits (TP-1 0, TP-1 1 and TP-12) and analytical results from samples collected from-the test pits. Test pits were advanced to 2.5 feet bgs. ARCADIS screened excavated soil using a photoionization detector (PID). Soil samples were biased to areas showing the highest PID readings.Analytical results of the soil samples collected from the perimeter of the test pits indicate that the concentrations are below the applicable NJDEP Unrestricted Use (residential)

Soil Remedial Standards.

Samples were collected for analysis of diesel range organic (DRO) extractable hydrocarbons (EPH) and contingent samples for SVOC analysis via USEPA SW846 Method 8015.6 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Analytical data in Table 5 indicate that detected concentrations of DRO EPH range between 3,710 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) at TP-10 to 12.4 mg/kg at TP-12.Additionally, detections of SVOCs in contingency sample TP-10 were not detected or detected at concentrations less than the NJDEP Unrestricted Use (residential)

Soil Remedial Standards.

7. Proposed Actions Based on the results of investigation activities and interim remedial actions completed to date, the following actions are proposed for the upcoming reporting period, January 2010 through June 2010:* PSEG will continue to collect groundwater samples on a semiannual basis with the next event to be conducted in June 2010. Groundwater monitoring will continue to consist of the collection and analysis of groundwater samples from those wells not indicating the presence of separate phase product. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs to evaluate the extent, if any, of dissolved phase constituents of concern. In addition, product recovery efforts will remain ongoing.* Semiannual Remedial Action Progress Reports will continue to be prepared toupdate the NJDEP with the status of product recovery efforts and groundwater analytical results;" Following completion of the product recovery efforts (i.e., measurable separate phase product is no longer detected) eight consecutive rounds of quarterly sampling will be completed (assuming concentrations of constituents of concern are above applicable GWQC) as required by the Mann-Whitney U-Test. The analytical results from these sampling events will be evaluated to determine if there are decreasing analytical trends; and," Following completion of theeight consecutive rounds of quarterly sampling, PSEG will either: 1) propose no further action for groundwater if groundwater analytical results continue to be below applicable GWQC; or, 2) establish a classification exception area and prepare a Remedial Action Work Plan that proposes a groundwater remediation strategy.7 Remedial Action Progress Report July through ARCADIS December 2009 PSEG Nuclear, LLC Salem Generating Station Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 8. Groundwater Monitoring Program Details and Schedule Following completion of the next semiannual, groundwater monitoring event, currently scheduled for June 2010, groundwater analytical results and the results of product recovery efforts will be reported in Remedial Action Progress Report January through June 2010. The anticipated schedule for the groundwater monitoring program through the next reporting period is summarized below.Groundwater Monitoring:

Semiannual event (VOCs and SVOCs) June 2010 Reporting:

Remedial Action Progress Report January 2010 through June 2010 September 31, 2010 a Table 01. Summary of Sampling Activities Completed During the Reporting Period (Semiannual, December 2009), PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Sampling Event Wells Sampled* Wells Not Sampled December-09 MW-AY MW-AU MW-AZ MW-AW MW-BV MW-AV MW-X Groundwater samples were submitted to laboratory for VOCs and SVOC analysis using methods 8260b and 8270c, respectively.

Notes 1 of I Table 02.Well Construction Details, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Installation Well Well Construction Diameter GS MP Northing Easting Total Depth Monitoring Monitoring Well ID Date Permit Purpose Materials (inches) Elevation Elevation (NAD 83) (NAD 83) (feet bgs)

Interval Interval Number (feet amsl) (feet amsl) (feet bgs) (feet amsl)Well X 06/11/03 3400007018 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 1.0 9.47 12.00 230,851 199,547 10.0 2.0 to 10.0 7.5 to -0.5 Well AU 11/09/04 3400007375 Product Recovery Sch-40 PVC 6.0 9.44 8.46 230,868 199,525 7.0 4.0 to 7.0 5.4 to 2.4 Well AV 11/08/04 3400007370 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 4.0 9.17 8.82 230,831 199,469 10.0 3.0 to 10.0 6.2 to -0.8Well AW 11/08/04 3400007372 Product Recovery Sch-40,PVC 4.0 9.48 9.16 230,837 199,516 9.0 3.0 to 9.0 6.5 to 0.5 Well AY 11/08/04 3400007373 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 4.0 9.40 9.04 230,805 199,521 8.0 3.0 to 8.0 6.4 to 1.4 Well AZ 11/08/04 3400007374 Monitoring "Sch-40 PVC 4.0 9.33 8.66 230,764 199,551 9.0 3.0 to 9.0 6.3 to .0.3 Well BV 12/05/06 3400007816 Monitoring Sch-40 PVC 4.0 9.32 8.85 230,768 199,526 10.0 3.0 to 10.0 6.3 to -0.7 Notes: GS Ground Surface MP Measuring Point bgs Below ground surface amsl Feet above mean sea level (NAVD88) 1 of 5 Table 03, Groundwater Elevations and Product Thickness, PSEG Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, Well Date of Reference Point Depth to Depth to Product Water-Level Connected Wateridentification Measurement Elevation Product, Water Thickness Elevation Level Elevation (NGVD 1988) (f btoc) (I btoc) (feet) (ft a-sl) (ft amsl)WelIX 12107104 12.00 716 -48412110104 12.00 6.36 -564 12J13/04 12.00 6.68 -5.32 12/22104 1200 NM NM NM NM NM 1/13/05 12.00 7.66 -4.34 -1/27/05 1200 8.11 -3.89 -2/10/05 1200 7.70 -4.30 -2/23/05 12.00 Sheen 7.47 00.01 4.53 -3/24/05 12.00 -7.81 -4.19 -4/8/05 12.W -6.78 -5.22 -4/26/05 12.00 -7.65 -4.35 -68105 12.00 -8,57 -3,43 -7120/05 1200 -8.01 -3.99 -8/17o05 12.00 -7.60 -440 -9/13/05 12.00 -8.45 -3.55 -10/3/05 12.00 -9.46 -2.54 -12115/05 12.00 -9.28 -2.72 -3128/06 12.00 Dry Dry --9126/06 12.00 -8.74 -3.26 -12/4106 12.00 -8.09 -3.91 -3/6107 12.00 -8.81 -3.19 -6/12/07 12.00 -8.16 -384 -9125/07 12.00 -9.98 -2.02 -12f10/07 12.00 -9.08 -2S2 -6/26/08 12.0 -7.88 -4.12 -125/068 f200 -8.20 -380 -611109 1200 -8.02 -3.98 -12/7/09 1200 -677 -5.23 -WellAU 12107/04 8.46 NM NM NM NM NM 12110/04 8.46 1.84 2.29 045 6.17 6.50 12113/04 8.46 2.84 3.35 0.51 5.11 549 12/22104 846 4.22 5.45 1.23 3.01 3.92 1/13/05 846 3.68 544 1.76 3.02 4.32 1/17/05- 9.81 4.15 4.40 0.25 5.41 5.60 1124/05 9.81 5.40 5.50 0.10 4.31 4.38 1126/05 9.81 4.90 5.10 0.20 4.71 4.86 1127/05 9.61 5.50 5.69 0.19 4.12 4.26 1131/05 9.81 545 5.50 0.05 4.31 4.35 214105 9.81 540 5.60 020 4.21 4.36 2/8/05 9.81 5.15 5.40 0.25 4.41 4.60 2110/05 9.81 5.34 5.68 0.34 4.13 4.38 2/1/05 9.81 3.90 4.30 0.40 5.51 5.81 2122105 9.81 4.60 4.80 0.20 5.01 5.16 2/23/05 9.81 4.96 512 0.16 4.69 4.81 2/28/05 9.81 460 4.78 0.18 .503 5.16 3/7/05 9.81 4.74 5.00 0.26 4.81 5.00 3/14/05 9.81 5.16 5.48 0.32 4.33 4.57 3121105 9.81 540 5.70 0.30 4.11 4.33 3124105 9.81 3.41 3.42 0.01 6.39 6.40 3129/05 9.81 3.10 3.70 0.60 6.11 655 415105 9.81 4.00 4.10 010 5.71 5.78 4/8/05 9081 2.87 2.91 0.04 6.90 6.93 4/26/05 9.81 4.35 4.55 0.20 5.26 541 6/28/05 9881 5.66 5.74 0.08 4.07 4.13 718/05 881 1.10 1.20 0.10 8.61 868 7/20/05 9.81 5.25 5.60 0.35 4.21 4.47 7125/05 9.81 4.78 5.05 0.27 4.76 4.96 7/28/05 9.81 3.08 355 0.47 6.26 6.61 8/1/05 9.81 5.08 5.30 0.22 4.51 4.67 815105 9.81 5.50 5.85 0.35 3.96 4.22 8/6105 9.81 5.35 5.60 0.25 4.21 4.40 5/12105 9.81 4.75 4.85 0.10 4.98 503 8/1605 0.81 4.60 4.70 0.10 511 5.16 Notes: See Last Page for Notes.

2 of STable 03. Groundwater Elivations and Product Thickness, PSEG Salem Generafing Station, Hancock's Brdge, New Jersey.Well AU (continued) 8/17/05 9.81 3.36 338 0.02 643 6.44 8119/08 981 4.05 4.20 0.15 5.61 5.72 8/22/05 9.81 5.65 5,85 0.20 3.96 4.11 8/26/05 9.81 5.35 555 0.20 4.26 4.41 8/29/05 9.81 4.75 5.15 0.40 4.66 4.96 9/2/05 9.81 4.75 510 0.35 4.71 4.97 9/6/05 9,81 5.50 5.75 0.25 4.06 4.25 9/9/05 9.81 5.55 5.65 0.10 4.16 4.23 9112/05 9.81 5.70 6.00 0.30 3.81 4.03 10/3/05 981 6.34 NA NA NA NA 1010/05 9.81 3.35 4.70 1.35 511 611 10114/05 9,81 3.05 3.35 0.30 8486 6.68 10728/05 9.81 4.00 4.20 0.20 561 5.761M019/05 9.81 4.86 565 0.79 4.16 4.74 10/31105 9.81 4.60 5.20 0.60 4.61 5.05 11/4/05 9.81 5.45 5.55 0.10 4.26 4.33 11/7/05 9.81 5.90 6.15 0.25 366 3.85 11111/05 9.81 601 6.58 0.87 3.23 3.65 11/15/05 9.81 6830 NA NA NA NA 1 1/10/05 9.81 5.58 6.40 0.82 341 4.02 1112=/05 9.81 5.8 6.45 0.59 3.36 3.80.12/2/05 9.81 4.20 5.60 1.40 4.21 5.25 12/5/05 9.81 540 5.50 0.10 4.31 4.38 12/8/05 9.81 6.05 6.58 0.53 3.23 362 12/12/05 9.81 5.20 6.58 1.38 3.23 4.25 12/15105 9.81 599 606 0.07 3.75 380 12/16/05 9.81 320 6.58 3.38 3.23 5.73 12723/05 9.81 595 6.58 0.63 3.23 3.70 12/27/05 9.81 585 6.58 0.73 323 3.77 12/30/05 9.81 4.10 4.25 0.15 5.56 5.67 1/3/09 9.81 3.35 3.45 0.10 6.36 6843 1/6/06 9.81 4.55 4.75 0.20 5.06 5.21 1/10106 9.81 5.90 6.05 0.15 3.76 387 1/12/09 9.81 5.95 6.00 0.05 381 385 1/16/06 9.81 580 6.25 0.45 3.56 3.89 1/16106 9.81 615 6.25 0.10 3.56 3.63 1/19/06 9.81 4.25 4.30 0.05 0.51 5.55 1U23/06 9.81 2.20 2.40 0.20 7.41 7.56 1/30/06 9.81 5.15 5.25 0.10 4.56 4.63 2/3/06 9.81 5.75 5.85 0.10 3.96 4.03 2/8/06 9.81 5.45 5.55 0.10 4.26 4.33 2/0/06 9.81 5.95 6.05 0.10 3.76 3.83 2/13106 9.81 4.50 5.20 0.70 461 5.13 2/17/06 9.81 4.70 4.90 0.20 4.91 5.06 2721/06 9.81 5.60 5.75 0.15 4.06 4.17 2724/06 9.81 5.95 6.05 0.10 3.76 3.83 2/27/06 9.81 6.20 6.35 0.15 346 3157 3/3/06 9.81 6.30 6.55 0.25 3.26 345 3/6/06 9.81 6.4 NA NA NA NA 3/10/06 9.81 653 NA NA NA NA 3113/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 3/20/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 3/24/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 3M28/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 3/29/06 9.81 0r, Dry Dry D,/ Dry Notes See Last Page for Notes.

3 ofr5Table 03. Groundwater Elevations and Product Thickness, PSEG Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well AU (continued) 414/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 4/10/06 9.81 6.38 6.40 0.02 3.41 3.42 4117/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 4/24/06 9.81 3.15 3.60 045 6.21 6.54 4/28/06 981 4.70 4.80 0.10 501 5.08 5/1/06 9.81 5.85 5.90 0.05 3.91 3.95 5/5/06 9.81 6.10 6.20 0.10 3.61 3.68 5/9/06 9.81 6.28 NA NA NA NA 5/12/06 9.81 5.44 615 0.71 3.66 4.19 5/12/06 9.81 5,92 6.00 0.08 3.81 3.87 5115/06 981 4,60 4.70 0.10 511 5.18 5/19/06 9A1 5.80 5.90 0.10 3.91 3.98 5/22/06 9.81 6.25 6.38 0.13 343 3.53 5/30/06 9.81 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 6/6/06 9.81 4.30 4.90 0.60 4.91 5.35 6116/96 9.81 5.10 5.25 0.15 4.56 4.67 6/22/06 9.81 5.50 5.70 0.20 4.11 4.26 6/23/06 9.1 5.70 5.80 0.10 4.01 4.08 6/30/06 9.81 3.08 3.15 0.07 6.66 6.71 7/5/06 9.81 2.25 2.35 0.10 746 7.53 7/10/06 9.81 3.40 3.50 0.10 6.31 638 7/14/06 9.81 3.65 3.75 0.10 6.06 613 7/17/06 9.81 4.07 4.25 0.18 5.56 5.69 7/21/06 981 4.35 4.50 0815 5.31 8.42 7/24/06 9.81 2.55 2.70 0.15 7.11 7.22 7/28/06 9.1 3.35 3,45 0.10 6.36 6.43 7/31/06 9.81 3.55 3.60 0.05 6.21 6.25 8/3106 9.81 3.70 375 0.05 6.06 6.10 6/7/06 9.81 4.20 4.25 0.05 5.56 5.60 8/11/96 9.81 4.55 4.60 9.05 5.21 5.25 8/14/06 9.81 5.00 5.05 0605 4.76 4.80 8/18/06 9.81 5.45 5.55 0.10 4.26 4.33 8/21/06 9.81 5.45 5.55 0.10 4.26 4,33 8/28106 9.81 3,15 3.20 0.05 6.61 6.65 8/31/06 9.81 3.90 3.95 0.05 5.86 5.0 9/5106 9.81 355 3.60 0.05 6.21 6.25 9/8/06 9.81 3.75 3.80 0.05 6.01 6.05 9/11/06 981 4.40 4,45 0.05 5.36 5.40 9/14/06 9.81 4.90 495 0.05 4.86 4.90 9/22/06 9.81 4.40 445 0.05 5.36 540 9/25/06 9.81 4.60 4.65 0.05 5.16 5.20 10/2/06 9.81 4.50 4.65 0.15 5.16 527 10/5/06 9.81 505 5.10 0.05 4.71 4.75 10/9/06 9.81 380 3.90 0.10 5.91 5.98 10112/06 9.81 2.65 2.70 0.05 7.11 7.15 101171/6 9.81 4.35 4.40 0.05 541 545 10/20106 9.81 1.85 1.90 0.05 7.91 7.95 10/23/96 9081 3.85 3.90 0.05 5.91 5.95 10/31/06 9681 3.80 3.85 0.05 5.96 6.00 11/6/06 9.81 545 5.50 0.05 4.31 4.35 11/10/06 9.81 3.25 3.30 0.05 6.51 6.55 11/13/06 9.81 2.60 2.65 0.05 7.16 7.20 11/20106 9.81 3.65 3.70 0.05 6.11 6.15 11/27/06 9.81 4.10 4.15 0.05 5.66 5.70 12/4/06 9.81 5.05 5.18 0.05 4.71 4.75 12/8/06 9.81 5.80 5.85 0.05 3.96 4.00 12/11/06 9081 6.00 6.05 0.05 3.76 3.80 9/25/07 9.81 -5.15 -4.66 -12/10/07 981 3.75 4.02 0.27 5.79 5.99 6/25/08 9.81 346 3.62 0.16 6.19 6.31 7/21/08 9.81 3.50 3.62 0.12 6.19 6.28 8/15/08 9.81 3.25 342 0.17 6.39 6.52 9/11/08 9.81 3.05 3.20 0.15 6.61 6.72 10/8/08 9.81 4.21 4.45 0.24 5.36 5.54 11/4/08 9.81 4.36 5.30 0.94 4.51 5.21 12/15/008 981 3.31 3.90 0.59 5.91 6.35 1/14/09 9.81 615 6.24 0.09 3857 3.64 2112/09 9.81 5.81 5.83 0.02 3.98 3.99 3/9/09 9.81 -7.20 -261 -3/30/09 9.81 6.78 6.80 0.02 3.01 3.02 5/28/09 9.81 5.55 5.90 0.35 3.91 4.17 6/1/89 9.81 4.76 4.81 0.05 5.00 5.04 6/30/09 9.81 4.65 4.67 0.02 5.14 5.15 7/26/09 9.81 5.65 5.71 0.06 4.10 414 8/24/09 9.81 3.23 3.24 0.01 6.57 6.58 9/17/09 9.81 4.25 4.27 0.02 5.54 5.55 10/13/09 9.81 6.17 6.20 0.03 361 3.63 11/6/09 8.81 5.07 846 0.39 4.35 4.64 lr,/t0 eR 4 55 4.61 0.06 520 524 Notes: See Last Page for Notes.

4 of 5Table 03. Groundwater Elevations and Product Thickness, PSEG Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Well AV 12/M7/04 8,82 -4.85 -3.39 -12110)04 8,62 -4.60 -4.22 -12113/04 8.82 -4.55 -4.27 -12122104 882 -5.11 -3.71 -1/13105 882 -5.09 -373 -2/10/05 8.82 -4.86 -3.96 -2/23/05 882 -4.69 -4.13 -3/24/05 882 -4.83 -3.99 -4/8/05 882 -4.20 -4.62 -4/26/105 8.82 -4.72 -4.10 -M/28/05 8.82 -5.07 -3.75 -7/20105 8.82 -4.81 -4.01 -8/17/05 8.82 -5.10 -3.72 -9/13/05 8.82 -5.21 -3.61 -103/05 8.82 -5.89 -293 -12115/05 8.82 -614 -2.68 -3W28/06 8.82 -7.04 -1.79 -8/22/06 8.82 -5.86 -2.96 -9/26/06 8.82 -544 -3.38 -12/41/6 8.82 -5.28 -354 -3/8/07 8.82 -6.07 -2.75 -6/12/07 8.82 -4.0 -3.92 -9/25107 8.82 -621 -2.61 -12/10/07 8.82 -588 -2.94 -6/26/08 8.82 -4.63 -4.19 -12/15/08 8.82 -5.17 -3.65 -6/1/09 882 -4.67 -4.15 -12/7/09 8.82 -3.70 -5.12 -Well AW 12107/04 9816 4.14 4.17 0.03 4.99 5.01 12M11/04 9.16 3.71 5.83 2.12 3.33 4.90 12113104 9.16 3.99 7.06 3.07 2.10 4.37 12/22/04o 10.10 6.06 6.16 0.10 3.94 4.,0 12/2714" 10.10 6870 6.75 0.05 3.35 3.39 1/1/05- 10.10 6.30 6.50 0.20 3.60 3.75 1/10/05" 1010 5890 6.00 0.10 4.10 4.17 1/13/05" 10.10 6895 7.01 0.06 3.09 3.13 1/27/05 9.16 5.37 612 0.75 3.04 3.60 2/10/05 9.16 5.11 6.11 1.00 3.05 3.79 2/23/05 9.16 4.78 8.11 1.33 3.05 4.03 3/24/05 9.16 4.44 6.25 1.81 2.91 4.25 4/8/05 9816 3.66 6.05 2.39 311 4.88 4/26105 9.16 4.72 6.85 2.13 2.31 3.89 6/28/05 9.16 5.31 .7.29 1.98 1.87 3.34 7/20105 9.16 4.78 6.84 2.06 232 384 8/17/05 9.16 4.69 633 1.64 2.83 4.04 9/8/05 9.16 5.40 7.20 1.80 1.88 3.29 9/13105 9816 5.57 7.41 1.84 1.75 3.11 10/3/05 9.16 6.12 7.49 1.37 1.67 2.68 12112/05 9816 5.90 6.90 1.00 2.26 301 12115/005 9.16 5.92 6.7 1.05 219 2.97 2/17/06 9.16 5.70 5.90 0.20 3.26 341 3/2/06 9.16 6.25 7.00 0.75 2.16 2.72 3/10/06 9.18 6.40 7.05 0.65 2.11 2.59 3/28/06 9.16 7.01 7.65 0.64 1.51 1,98 5//1506 9.16 7.50 7.85 0.35 1.31 1.57 6/22/06 9.16 5.90 6.15 0.25 3.01 3.20 8/21/106 9.16 5.80 6.45 6.65 2.71 3.19 1214/06 916 5.97 6.41 0.44 2.75 3.08 3/0/07 9.16 7.00 7.02 0.02 2.14 2.15 6/12/07 9.16 6.13 6.51 0.38 2.65 2.93 9/25/07 9.16 6.72 6.87 0.15 2.29 2.40 12110/07 9.16 6.30 6.40 0.10 2.76 2.83 6/25108 9.16 5.61 6861 1.00 2.55 3.29 7/21/88 9.16 68.5 7.71 1.06 1.45 2.23 8/15/08 9.16 6.35 7.25 0.90 1.91 2.58 9/11/08 9.16 6.08 6.81 0.73 2.35 2.89 10/8/08 9.16 6.78 6.90 0.12 2.26 2.35 11/4/08 9.16 7.16 7.21 0.05 1.95 1.99 12115/08 9.16 6.42 6.45 0.03 2.71 2.73 1/14/09 9.16 5.70 5.80 0.10 3.36 343 2112109 9.16 -6.71 -2.45 -3/9/09 9.16 6.85 -2.31 -3/30/09 9816 -6.81 -2.35 -5/28109 9.16 5.54 5.75 0.21 3.41 3.57 6/1/09 9.16 5.51 5.62 0.11 3.54 3.62 8/80/09 9.16 4.81 5.25 044 3.91 4.24 9/17/09 9.16 4.22 4.41 0.19 4.75 4.89 10/13/09 9.16 5.36 6.19 0.83 2.97 3.58 11/6/09 9.16 5.00 5.65 0.65 3.51 3.99 12/7/09 9.16 4.15 4.70 055 446 4.87 Notes: See Last Page for Notes.

505O Table 03, Groundwater Elevations and Product Thickness, PSEG Salem Generating Staton, Hancock's Bddge. New Jersey.Well AY 12/07/04 12/10/04 12/1/04 12/22104 1/13/05 1127/05 2/23/05 3124105 4/8/05 4/26105 6/28/05 7120105 8/17/05 9113105 10/3105 12115/05 3128/06 6123/06 9126/06 1214106 3/6/07 6/12/07 9/25/07 12110107 6/26108 12/15/08 6/1109 12`7109 904 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 904 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 4.68 4.35 4,43 5.13 5.08 5.29 4.62 4.82 4.03 4.77 551 5.04 5.10 5.57 6.18 6.12 6.76 5.97 5.58 5.35 6.04 5.32 6.51 6.34 6.95 6.57 5.5 4.07 4.36 4.69 4.61 3.91 3.96 3.75 4.22 4.22 5.01 4.27 3.S3 4.00 3.94 347 2.86 2.92 2.26 3.07 3.46 3.69 2.20 3.72 2.53 2.70 2.09 2.47 3.09 4.97 IWell AZ 12107/04 12110/04 12112/04 12/22/04 1/13105 1127/05 2110/05 2123/05 3124/20050 418105 4126105 6U28/05 7/20/05 8/17/05 9113/05 10/3/05 12115/05 3128/06 612212006 9/26/2006 12/412006 11212007 31/6107 6112/07 9125/07 12/10/07 6126106 1211508 6/1/09 12/7/09 8.66 8.66 86S6 8666 8.66 8.66 8666 866.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 9.66 6.66 8.66 8.66 8.66 8666 8666 8.66 866 866 666 8.66 8.66 8.66 4.66 445 4.09 4.08 4.69 4.70 4.91 4.69 4.46 4.75 3.76 4,74 5.42 510 541 546 6.11 6.05 6.59 599 5.66 5.21 5.51 6.09 5.20 6.31 6.50 4.62 5.16 4.85 423 0.09 4.21 4.57 4.58 3.97 3.96 3.75 397 4.20 3.91 4.88 3.92 3.24 3.56 325 320 2.55 2.61 2.07 2.67 3.00 3,45 3.15 2.57 3.46 2.35 2.16 4.04 3.50 3.81 4.43 3.98 Well BV 310107 8685 -5.95 -2.90 -6112107 8.85 -5.12 -3.73 -9/25107 885 -6.23 -2.62 -12110/07 8.85 -6.00 -2.85 -6126108 8685 -4.66 -4.19 -12115/08 8685 -5.33 -3.52 -6/1109 8.85 -4.74 -4.11 -12/7/09 8.85 -4.21 -4.64-Sepanats-phase product was not detected in well at time of measurement.NM Measurement not coilected NAVD 1988 North American Vertical Datum established in 1988.f btoc Feet below the top of the well casing.

ft amsl Feet above mean sea level (NAVD 1988).A PVC dser was added to top of wellhead to faciliate installation of Spllbuster unt, accounting for change in wellhead elevaeonDue to the operation of a groundwater exraction well (Well AO) in the vicinity of Well AZ, separate-phase product migrated in thedirecton of this well. Following me detection of separate-phase product in Well AZ, groundwater extractionT om Well AG was discontinued.

Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/13/2004 3/15/2005 8/17/2005 10/4/2005 3/28/2006 6/22/2006 Sample Type Code N FD N FD N N FD N FD N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 <IU <1U <IU <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 <IU < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1U <1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 <IU <1U <1 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <IU <1U <1 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) ---1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <IU < 1U <1 U <1U <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU 2-Butanone(MEK) 300 <l10 U < lU < lU <lO. <10U <10U

<10U <10U 7.9J 7.9J 2-Hexanone

--- <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Acetone 6000 < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <10U <l101U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U 11.8 8.1 J Benzene 1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <IU <1U < 1U <1U <1U Bromodichloromethane 1 <1U <IU <IU <1U <IU <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU Bromoform 4 <4U <4U <4 U <4U <4U <4U <4U <4 U <4U <4U Bromomethane 10 <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbontetrachloride 1 <1U <1U <1 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U Chlorobenzene 50 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1U < 1U <1U <1U Chloroethane

--- < 1 U <1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U < 1U .< 1U <1U <lU Chloroform 70 <1U <1U <1 U <lU <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <lU Chloromethane

--- <1U <1U <IU <1 U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 <1U < 1U <1 U <1 U < 1U <1U <IU < 1 U <1 U < 1 U cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 1 <IU < 1U < 1 U <1 U < 1U <1U <1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U Dibromochloromethane 1 <1U <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <1U <IU <IU <IU Ethylbenzene 700 <IU <IU <1 U <IU <IU <IU <1U <IU <IU <IU Methylene chloride 3 <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Styrene 100 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U Tetrachloroethene 1 <IU <IU <1 U <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <IU <IU Toluene 1000 <1U <IU <1 U <IU <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <IU trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U Trichloroethene 1 <1U <IU <1U <1 U <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <IU Vinyl chloride 1 <1U <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <1U <IU <IU <IU Xylene(total) 1000 <1U <1U <IU <1 U <IU <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 4 1 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV Constituent of Concern Sample Date 9/27/2006 12/412006 9/26/2007 12/11/2007 6/26/2008 Sample Type Code FD N FD N FD N FD N FD N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <1 <1 <1 '<1 <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) --- < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1U <1U <IU <1U <IU <1U 2-Butanone (MEK) 300 < 10 < 10 <10 < 10 < lU < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U 2-Hexanone

--- < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Acetone 6000 <10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <10U < lU Benzene 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <IU <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U Bromodichloromethane 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Bromoform 4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4U <4U <4U <4 U <4U <4U Bromomethane 10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <<2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 0.26 J 0.25 J < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbontetrachloride 1 <1 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <1U <1U Chlorobenzene 50 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <1U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U Chloroethane

--- <1 <1 <1 <1 <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U Chloroform 70 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <1U Chloromethane

--- <1 <1 <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 <1 1< < 1 < 1 < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Dibromochloromethane 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Ethylbenzene 700 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U Methylene chloride 3 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Styrene 100 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U Tetrachloroethene 1 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <1 U <1U <1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U Toluene 1000 <1 <! <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U

<1U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < I U Trichloroethene 1 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U Vinyl chloride 1 <1 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U <1U <1 U Xylene(total) 1000 <1 <1 <1 0.43 < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <IU <IU Notes: (see last page) 3/2/2010 Table 4 2 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV WELL-AY Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/16/2008 6/2/2009 12/13/2004 7/21/2005 10/4/2005 3/29/2006 6/23/2006 9/27/2006 Sample Type Code N FD FD N N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 <1 U <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 <1 U <1U < 1U <1U < 1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <IU <1U <1U <1U

<1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) --- < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <1 U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1 2-Butanone (MEK) 300 < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <10U < 10 U <l101U < 10 U < 10 2-Hexanone

--- <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U

<5U <5U <5U <5U <5 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U <.5 Acetone 6000 <10U < 10U <10U <10U

<10U <10U <10U <10U <10U

<10 Benzene 1 <1 U <1U <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1 Bromodichloromethane 1 <1 U <1U <1U <1U

<1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <1 Bromoform 4 <4 U < 4 U < 4 U <4 U < 4 U <4 U < 4 U < 4 U < 4 U < 4 Bromomethane 10 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 Carbontetrachloride 1 <1 U <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1 Chlorobenzene 50 <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <IU < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 Chloroethane

--- <1 U < 1U < 1 U <IU < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 Chloroform 70 <1 U <IU <IU <IU

< I U <1 U < 1 U < 1U <1 U < 1 Chloromethane

--- <1 U < IU <1 U <1U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <IU < 1 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < i cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 Dibromochloromethane 1 <1 U < 1U < 1U <1U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 Ethylbenzene 700 <1 U <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U 2 <IU <1 Methylene chloride 3 <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2 Styrene 100 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5 Tetrachloroethene 1 <1U <1U <1U <1U

<IU <IU <IU <1U <lU <1 Toluene 1000 <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 Trichloroethene 1 <1U <1U <1U

<1U <IU <1U <1U <1 U <1U <1 Vinyl chloride 1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <1 Xylene(total) 1000 <1U <1U <1U

<1U <1U <1U <1U 1.2 <IU <1 Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 4 3 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AY WELL-AZSample Date 12/5/2006 9/27/2007 12/12/2007 6/27/2008 12/17/2008 6/3/2009 12/8/2009 12/8/2009 12/10/2004 8/17/2005 10/4/2005 Constituent of Concern Sample Type Code N N N N N N FD N N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 <1 < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < IU <1 U 1,1,2,2-Teirachloroethane 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 <1 < 1 U < 1U <1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 <1 < 1U <1U <1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <IU <1 U < 1 U <IU 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 <1 < 1U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U < 1U <1 U <IU < 1 U <IU 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <1 <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <IU <1U 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) --- < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <1 < 1 U < 1U <1 U <1 U <IU < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U 2-Butanone (MEK) 300 < 10 < 1OU < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <IOU < 10 U <IOU < 10 U < IOU 2-Hexanone

--- <5 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U 4-Methyf-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Acetone 6000 <10 <10U <10U <IOU <10U <IOU <10U <10U <10U <10U <10U Benzene 1 <1 < 1U < 1 U <IU < 1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <1 U <I U <1 U Bromodichloromethane 1 <1 <1U <1U <IU <IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <lU <1U Bromoform 4 < 4 < 4 U < 4 U < 4 U < 4 U < 4 U < 4 U < 4 U <4 U < 4 U < 4 U Bromomethane 10 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbontetrachloride 1 <1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <1 U <1U Chlorobenzene 50 <1 <IU <1U <IU 1IU <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U Chloroethane

--- <1 < 1 U < 1 U <1U <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U Chloroform 70 <1 < 1 U < 1U <1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <IU <1 U Chloromethane

--- <1 <IU <IU <IU <IU <1U <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 1 <1 <IU < 1 U <1 U < IU < 1 U <1U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <1 U Dibromochloromethane 1 <1 <1U < 1 U <IU < 1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <1U < IU <1 U Ethylbenzene 700 <1 < 1 U 2 <1U 1.2 <1U <1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U Methylene chloride 3 <2 <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Styrene 100 <5 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U Tetrachloroethene 1 <1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <IU <IU Toluene 1000 <1 <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U trans-l,2-Dichloroethene 100 <1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Trichloroethene 1 <1 < 1 U < 1 U <1U < 1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U Vinyl chloride 1 <1 < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U < I U <1 U <1 U <1 U Xylene (total) 1000 <1 <IU 2.7 <IU 2.5 <lIU <1U <1U <1U <IU <IU Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 4 4 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AZ Constituent of Concern Sample Date 3/28/2006 6/22/2006 9/27/2006 12/5/2006 9/26/2007 12/11/2007 6/26/2008 12/16/2008 6/2/2009 6/2/2009 Sample Type Code N N N N N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 <1 U <IU <1 <1 <IU <1U <1U <1U

<1U <1U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 <IU <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U

<1U <1U 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <1U <1U <1 < 1 <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) --- < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U 2-Butanone (MEK) 300 < 10 U < 10 U <10 < 10 <10U <10U < 10 U <10U < 10 U < 10 U 2-Hexanone

--- <5U <5U <5 <5 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Acetone 6000 < 10 U < 10 U <10 < 10 < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <l101U < 10 U Benzene 1 <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U 0.42J <1U <1U Bromodichloromethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Bromoform 4 <4 U <4U <4 <4 <4U <4U <4U <4U <4U <4U Bromomethane 10 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbontetrachloride 1 <1U <1U <1 <1 <IU <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U Chlorobenzene 50 <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <IU <IU <1U <1U Chloroethane

--- <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U Chloroform 70 <IU <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U

<1U Chloromethane

--- <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Dibromochloromethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Ethylbenzene 700 <1 U <IU <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <lU <1U <IU Methylene chloride 3 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Styrene 100 <5U <5U <5 <5 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U Tetrachloroethene 1 <IU <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1IU Toluene 1000 <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Trichloroethene 1 <1U <1U <1 <1 <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U

<1U Vinylchloride 1 <1U <IU <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U

<1U Xylene(total) 1000 <1U <1U <1 <1 <IU <1U <IU <1U <IU <IU Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 4 5 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-BV WELL-X Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/8/2009 12/12/2007 6/26/2008 12/17/2008 6/2/2009 12/13/2004 3/15/2005 Sample Type Code N N N N N FD N N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <IU <1 U <1 U 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) --- < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1 U <1 U <1U < 1 U 2-Butanone (MEK) 300 <10U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <10IU <10U < 10 U 2-Hexanone

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Acetone 6000 <10U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <10U < 10 U Benzene 1 <1 U <1U < 1U <1 U < 1U <1U < 1U < 1U Bromodichloromethane 1 < I U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Bromoform 4 <4U <4 U <4U <4 U <4 U <4U <4U <4U Bromomethane 10 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbontetrachloride 1 <1U <IU <1U <IU <IU <IU <1U <1U Chlorobenzene 50 <IU <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU <1U Chloroethane

--- <1 U < 1 U <1U <1 U <1 U < 1 U <1U < 1 U Chloroform 70 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U Chloromethane

--- < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Dibromochloromethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Ethylbenzene 700 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 0.83 JMethylene chioride 3 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Styrene 100 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U Tetrachloroethene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 0.87 J < 1 U Toluene 1000 <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU <1U <1U <1U trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U Trichloroethene 1 <1 U < 1 U <IU < 1 U < 1 U <1 U <1U < 1U Vinyl chloride 1 <1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <1 U < 1U <IU Xylene(total) 1000 <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU <IU Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 4 6 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-X Constituent of Concern Sample Date 7/21/2005 10/4/2005 9/27/2006 12/5/2006 12/12/2007 6/27/2008 12/16/2008 6/3/2009 12/8/2009 Sample Type Code N N N N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,1,1-Trichloroethane 30 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < I U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 50 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 <IU <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <IU 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) --- < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 1,2-Dichloropropane 1 <IU <1 U < 1 <1 <1U <1 U < 1U < 1 U <1 U 2-Butanone (MEK) 300 <1OU < 10 U < 10 < 10 <1OU <1OU

< 10 U < 1OU < 10 U 2-Hexanone

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

--- < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Acetone 6000 <l10OU < 10 U < 10 < 10 <101U 44.8 < 10 U 15.2 < 10 U Benzene 1 >2.3 < I U 1j02 0.92 J < 1 U 0.38 J < 1 U Bromodichloromethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U

< 1 < I < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U

< 1 U Bromoform 4 <4U <4 U <4 <4 <4U <4U <4U <4U <4U Bromomethane 10 <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Carbon disulfide 700 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 1.2 J < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbontetrachloride 1 <1U <IU <1 <1 <IU <IU <1U <IU <1U Chlorobenzene 50 <1U <IU <1 <1 <1U <IU <1U <1U <IU Chloroethane

--- <1U <IU <1 <1 <IU <1U <IU <1U <1U Chloroform 70 <1U <IU <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U Chloromethane

--- <IU <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < I U < 1 U < 1 U Dibromochloromethane 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Ethylbenzene 700 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 0.58 0.94 J <1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U Methylene chloride 3 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Styrene 100 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U Tetrachloroethene 1 <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U <1U <1U <1U <1U Toluene 1000 <1U <1U <1 <1 <1U 0.41 J <1U <1U <IU trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < I U Trichloroethene 1 <1 U < 1 U < 1 < 1 <1 U <1 U < 1 U < 1 U <IU Vinyl chloride 1 <1U <IU <1 <1 <IU <1U <IU <IU <IU Xylene (total) 1000 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 1 1.4 < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U 0.54 J Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 4 7 of 8 Table 4. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Notes: GWQC New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria for Class IIA aquifers ug/L Micrograms per liter (equivalent to parts per billion)2.3 Bold value indicates concentration is above the method detection limit.23 Bold and shaded concentrations are above the applicable New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria for Class IIA aquifers.U The compound was not detected at the indicated concentration.

J Data indicates the presence of a compound that meets the identification criteria.

The result is less than the quantitation limit but greater than zero. The concentration given is an approximate value.-- No standard published NA Not analyzed N Normal environmental sampleFD Blind field duplicate 3/2/2010 Table 4 Notes 8 of 8 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/13/2004 3/15/2005 8/17/2005 10/4/2005 1/3/2006 Sample Type Code N FD N FD N N N GWQC (ugIL)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.2 U < 2 U <21U <21U <2U <2U < 2 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <21U <2U < 2 U <2U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 < 2.2 U <21U <21U <2U <2U < 2 U < 2 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 < 5.6 U <51U <5U <51U < 5.1 U <5U <5U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 < 5.6 U <51U <5U <51U < 5.1 U <51U <5U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 < 5.6 U <5U <5U <5U < 5.1 U <51U <5U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 < 5.6 U <51U <5U <51U < 5.1 U <5U < 5 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <2U < 2 U < 2 U <21U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.2 U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U < 2 U <21U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 < 5.6 U <5U <51U <5U < 5.1 U <5U <5U 2-Chlorophenol 40 < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U < 5.1 U <51U < 5 U 2-Methylnaphthalene

--- 1.8 J 2.3 2 7.6 8 4.6 2 2-Methylphenol

-- < 5.6 U < 5 U <51U <5U < 5.1 U <5U < 5 U 2-Nitroaniline

-< 5.6 U <51U <51U <5U < 5.1 U <51U < 5 U 2-Nitrophenol

-- < 5.6 U <51U <51U <5U < 5.1 U <5U < 5 U 3&4-Methylphenol

-- < 5.6 U <5U <51U <5U < 5.1 U <5U <51U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U < 5.1 U <5U <5U 3-Nitroaniline

-< 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U < 5.1 U <5U < 5 U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

-< 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether -< 2.2 U <21U <21U <21U

<2U < 2 U < 2 U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol --- < 5.6 U <5U <5U <51U < 5.1 U <5U <51U 4-Chloroaniline 30 < 5.6 U <5U <5U <5U < 5.1 U <51U <51U 4-Chtorophenyl phenyl ether -< 2.2 U <2U < 2 U <21U <2U < 2 U < 2 U 4-Nitroaniline

-< 5.6 U <5U <5U <51U < 5.1 U <5U <51U 4-Nitrophenol

-< 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U Acenaphthene 400 0.64 J 5.1 5 1.7 J 1.8 J 1.5 J 1.1 J Acenaphthylene

-< 2.2 U < 2 U <21U <21U <21U <21U

<2U Anthracene 2000 < 2.2 U 0.97 J 0.95 J < 2 U <2 U 0.54 J 0.53 J Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 2.2 U <2U <21U <2U <2U <2U < 2 U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 2.2 U < 2 U <21U <2U <21U <21U <2U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 2.2 U < 2 U <21U <2U <21U < 2 U < 2 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

-< 2.2 U <2U <21U <21U <2U <21U <2U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 < 2.2 U <21U <21U <2U <2U <21U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-- < 2.2 U < 2 U <21U <2U <2U <2U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2.2 U <2U <2U <21U <21U

<2U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2.2 U <21U <2U < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 < 2.2 U <2U <2U <21U <21U <2U 1 J Butyl benzyl phthalate

.100 < 2.2 U <21U <2U <21U <2U <2U < 2 U Carbazole

-- < 2.2 U 10 9.9 < 2 U <21U <21U

<21U Chrysene 5 <2.2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2 U <2U < 2 U < 2 U <2U Dibenzofuran

-- 0.71 J 2.7 J 2.7 J 2.1 J 2.2 J 1.3 J 1.1 J Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2.2 U <2U <21U <2U < 2 U < 2 U <2U Dimethyl phthalate

-< 2.2 U <2U <21U <2U <2U < 2 U <2U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 < 2.2 U <2U <21U <21U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2.2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Fluoranthene 300 1 J 1.4 J 1.4 J 0.84 J 0.86 J 1.2 J 0.96 J Fluorene 300 1.4 J 4.7 4.4 3.3 3.5 2.4 2 Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2.2 U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U <2U <2U.Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 2.2 U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U <2U <21U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 < 5.6 U <51U <51U <5U < 5.1 U < 5 U <51U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 < 2.2 U <2U <21U <2U <21U <21U

<21U Isophorone 40 < 2.2 U <21U <2U <2U <2U <21U < 2 U Naphthalene 300 3.9 4.6 4.3 5.5 5.6 3.1 2.3 Nitrobenzene 6 < 2.2 U <21U <2U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 <2.2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 < 5.6 U <51U <51U <51U < 5.1 U <51U <51U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 < 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U Phenanthrene

-< 2.2 U 5.6 5.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 1 J Phenol 2000 < 5.6 U <5U <51U <51U < 5.1 U < 5 U <51U Pyrene 200 0.96 J 0:97 J 0.94 J 0.74 J 0.74 J 1 J I J Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 1 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV Constituent of Concern Sample Date 3/28/2006 6/22/2006 9/27/2006 12141 Sample Type Code FD N FD H F N FD GWQC (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 <2U < 2 U < 2 U 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2.1 U < 2 <2 < 2 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 <21U <21U <21U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 <51U <5U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 <51U < 5 U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 <51U <5U < 5 U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <5U <5U <5U <5.2U <5 <5 <5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 21 U < 20 < 20 < 20 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U <21U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2 <2 <2 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 <5U <5U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 5 2-Chlorophenol 40 <51U < 5 U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 2-Methylnaphthalene

-- 1.2 J 0.84 J <2 U < 2.1 U 2.7 2.2 1.2 2-Methylphenol

--- <5U <5U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 2-Nitroaniline

-<5U <51U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 2-Nitrophenol

<5U <5U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 3&4-Methylphenol

--- <5U <5U < 5 U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 < 5 U <51U <51U 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 3-Nitroaniline

-<5U <51U <51U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

-- 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 < 20 < 20 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether --- <2U <2U <21U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol <5U <5U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 4-Chloroaniline 30 <51U <5U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 4-Chlorophenyl phehyl ether -<21U < 2 U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 4-Nitroaniline

<51U <51U <5U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 4-Nitrophenol

--- < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 < 20 < 20 Acenaphthene 400 3.3 2.4 2.5 2.3 1.3 1.1 0.93 Acenaphthylene

-< 2 U <21U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Anthracene 2000 1.1 J 0.92 J 0.62 J 0.5 J 0.54 0.44 < 2 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 <2U <2U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 <21U < 2 U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 <21U < 2 U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

-- <2U < 2 U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 <2U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2 <2 <2 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-- <2 U <2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2 U <21U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2 U <2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 < 2 U 1.1 J <2 U < 2:1 U < 2 < 2 1.1 Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 <2U <2U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Carbazole

-- 1.2 J 0.87 J <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Chrysene 5 <2U <2U <2U <2.1U <2 <2 <2 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 <21U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2, < 2 Dibenzofuran

--- 2 J 1.7 J 2 J 1.8J < 5 < 5 0.97 Diethyl phthalate 6000 <2U < 2 U < 2 U 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Dimethyl phthalate

-<2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 <2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2 <2 <2 Fluoranthene 300 1.1 J 1.1 J 1.2 J 1.2 J 1.1 1.1 0.88 Fluorene 300 3 2.4 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.3 Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 <2U <21U 1 <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Hexachlorobutadiene 1 .< 2 U <2U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 < 20 < 20 Hexachloroethane 7 <5U <5U <51U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 <2U <21U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Isophorone 40 <2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 Naphthalene 300 1.3 J 1.2 J 1.8 J 1.6 J 2.5 2.1 1.9 Nitrobenzene 6 <2U <2U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 < 2 < 2 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 <2 U <2 U <2 U <2.1 U <2 <2 <2 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 <51U < 5 U < 5 U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 Pentachlorophenol 0.3 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 < 20 < 20 Phenanthrene

-1.9 J 1.7 J 1.3 J 1.2 J 0.86 0.75 0.68 Phenol, 2000 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5.2 U < 5 < 5 < 5 Pyrene 200 10.64 J 0.65 J 1.4 J 1.3 J 0.99 1 0.63 Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 2 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV Constituent of Concern Sample Date 2006 9/26/2007 12/11/2007 6/26/2008 Sample Type Code N FD N FD N FD N GWQC (ugiL)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 < 2 < 2 U <2U <21U <21U <21U

<21U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2 < 2 U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U <21U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2 <21U <21U <2U <21U <21U <21U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 < 2 <21U <21U <21U <21U

< 2 U < 2 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 < 5 <5U <51U <51U <51U

<51U <51U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 < 5 <5U <51U <51U <51U <51U <51U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 < 5 <51U <51U <51U <51U <51U < 5 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <5 <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U <5U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2 < 2 U <21U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U <21U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 U <2U <2U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 < 5 <51U <5U <51U < 5 U <51U <51U 2-Chlorophenol 40 < 5 <51U <51U < 5 U < 5 U <51U <51U 2-Methylnaphthalene

-1.3 < 2 U <2U <21U <21U <21U J 2-Methylphenol

-- < 5 <5U <51U <51U <51U < 2 U <21U 2-Nitroaniline

-< 5 <51U <51U <5U < 5 U <51U <51U 2-NitrophenOl

-- < 5 <5U <51U <5U <51U <51U <51U 3&4-Methylphenol

-< 5 <5U <51U <51U <51U 6.7 9.1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 < 5 <51U <51U <51U <51U <51U <51U 3-Nitroaniline

--- < 5 <5U <51U <51U <51U <51U <51U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

-< 20 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether < 2 <2U <21U <2U <21U <2U <21U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol -- < 5 <51U <51U < 5 U <51U <51U <51U 4-Chloroaniline 30 < 5 <5U <5U <5U <51U <51U < 5 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -< 2 <21U < 2 U <2U < 2 U <21U <21U 4-Nitroaniline

-- < 5 <51U <51U <5U < 5 U <51U <51U 4-Nitrophenol

-- < 20 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U Acenaphthene 400 1.1 1.1 J 1.1 J <2 U <2 U 0.62 J 0.44 J Acenaphthylene

-< 2 <2U < 2 U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U Anthracene 2000 < 2 0.61J < 2 U <2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 0.43, < 2 U <21U < 2 U < 2 U <21U <2U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 <12 < 2 U <21U <21U <21U <21U <21U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 2 < 2 U <21U <21U <2U <21U <21U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

--- < 2 <21U <21U <21U <2U < 2 U <21U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U <21U <21U <2U <21U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-< 2 <2U < 2 U <2U <21U <2U <21U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2 <2U < 2 U <21U <2U <2U <2U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2 <2 U < 2 U <2 U <2 U <2 U .< 2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 <2 <21U <21U <21U <21U <21U 1.8 J Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 < 2 < 2 U <21U <21U < 2 U <2U < 2 U Carbazole

-- < 2 < 2 U <21U <21U <21U <2U < 2 U Chrysene 5 0.42 <21U <21U <21U <21U < 2 U < 2 U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 < 2 < 2 U <21U <21U < 2 U < 2 U <21U Dibenzofuran

-0.93 0.97 J 0.95 J 0.66 J 0.56 J 0.89 J 0.76 J Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2 <21U < 2 U <21U <21U <2U <21U Dimethyl phthalate

--- < 2 <21U < 2 U <21U <21U <21U <21U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 < 2 < 2 U <2U <21U <21U < 2 U < 2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 < 2 <21U <2U <21U <21U <21U <21U Fluoranthene 300 1.1 2.7 3 <21U <21U <21U 0.36 J Fluorene 300 2 2.3 2 0.99 J 0.81 J 1.6 J 1.6 J Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2 <21U < 2 U <2U <2U <21U <21U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 2 <2U <2U <2U <21U <21U <21U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 < 5 <51U <51U <51U < 5 U <5U <51U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 < 2 <21U < 2 U < 2 U <21U <21U <21U Isophorone 40 <2 <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U <2U Naphthalene 300 2 0.44 J <2 U 0.68 J 0.61 J 0.89 J 1.3 J NitrobenzenO 6 < 2 <21U <21U. <2U <2U <2U <2U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 < 2 <21U < 2 U <21U <21U <2U <2U N-Nitrosodiplienylamine 10 < 5 <5U <51U <5U < 5 U <51U < 5 U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 < 20 < 20 U < 20U < 20 U < 20 U < 10 U < 10 U Phenanthrene

-0.69 < 2 U <2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U 0.62 J Phenol 2000 < 5 <51U <5U <51U <51U < 2 U <2U Pyrene 200 0.86 2.1 2.4 0.42 J 0.41 J <2 U 0.46 J Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 3 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AV WEL Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/16/2008 612/2009 12/13/200 3/15/2005 7/21/2005]

Sample Type Code N FD FD N N N GWQC (ug/L) N 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 <2.1 U <2.1 U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U < 2.1 U <21U <2U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U < 2.1 U <2U <2U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 <2.1 U <2.1 U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <5U <5U < 5.3 U <51U <51U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U <51U

< 5.3 U <5U <51U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <5U <5U < 5.3 U <5U < 5 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <5.2U <5.3U <5U <5U <5.3U <5U <5U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 21 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U <2U <21U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <5U <51U < 5.3 U < 5 U <5U 2-Chlorophenol 40 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U <5U < 5.3 U <5U <5U 2-Methylnaphthalene

--- <2.1 U <2.1 U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U 2-Methylphenol

-< 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 5.3 U <5U <5U 2-Nitroaniline

-- < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <5U <5U < 5.3 U <5U <51U 2-Nitrophenol

-< 5.2 U < 5.3 U <5U <51U < 5.3 U <5U <5U 3&4-Methylphenol

-< 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U < 5.3 U <51U <5U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U <5U < 5.3 U < 5 U <5U 3-Nitroaniline

-- < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U <5U < 5.3 U <51U < 5 U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

< 21 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 7- < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U < 2.1 U <2U <2U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol -< 5.2 U < 5.3 U <5U < 5 U < 5.3 U <5U < 5 U 4-Chloroaniline 30 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U < 5 U < 5.3 U <5U <51U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -< 2.1 U < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U 4-Nitroaniline

--- < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U <5U < 5.3 U <5U <5U 4-Nitrophenol

--- <10U <11U <10U <10U <21U <20U

<20U Acenaphthene 400 <I U <1.1 U 0.58J 0.4J <2.1 U <2U <2U Acenaphthylene

-< 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Anthracene 2000 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <2U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <2U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Benzo(g,h,i)perytene

--- < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-< 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <2U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U <2 U <2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 < 2.1 U 1.4 J <2 U <2 U < 2.1 U <2 U <2 U Butyl benzyl phthafate 100 <2.1 U <2.1 U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U Carbazole

--- < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2.1 U <21U <2U Chrysene 5 <1U <1.1U <1U <IU <2.1U <2U <2U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U Dibenzofuran

-< 5.2 U < 5.3 U 0.64 J 0.45 J < 5.3 U <51U <51U Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U < 2.1 U <21U <2U Dimethyl phthalate

-- < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2.1 U <21U <21U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U < 2.1 U <2U <21U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2.1 U <2.1 U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U Fluoranthene 300 < 1 U < 1.1 U 0.39 J < 1 U < 2.1 U <2U <21U Fluorene 300 < 1 U < 1.1 U 1.2 0.88 J < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 <21 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 < 5.2 U < 5.3 U <51U <5U < 5.3 U <5U <5U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Isophorone 40 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Naphthalene 300 < 1 U < 1.1 U 0.67 J 0.56J < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U Nitrobenzene 6 < 2.1 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 <2.1 U <2.1 U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 <5.2U <5.3U <5U <5U <5.3U <5U <5U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 <10U <11 U <10U <l10U <21 U <20U <20U Phenanthrene

--- < 1 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Phenol 2000 <2.1U <2.1U <2U <2U <5.3U <5U <5U Pyrene 200 <1U <1.1U 0.47J <1U <2.1U <2U <2U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 4 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID L-AY WELL-AY Constituent of Concem Sample Date 10/4/2005 3/29/2006 6/23/2006 9/27/2006 12/5/2006 9/27/2007 112/12/2007 Sample Type Code N N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 <21U <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 <21U < 2 U <2U < 2 < 2 <21.U < 2.2 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 <21U < 2 U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 <5 U <5 U <5 U < 5.1 < 5 <5 U < 5.5 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 <51U <5U <51U < 5.1 < 5 <51U < 5.5 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 <51U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <51U < 5.5 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <51U <5U <51U < 5.1 < 5 <51U < 5.5 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 22 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 <21U <2U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U <2U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 <5U <51U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 2-Chlorophenol 40 <5U <51U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <51U < 5.5 U 2-Methylnaphthalene

-<21U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U 2-Methyiphenol

-<5U <51U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 2-Nitroaniline

-<5U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 2-Nitrophenol

-<5U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 3&4-Methylphenol

-- <5U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 <5U <51U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 3-Nitroaniline

-<5U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

--- < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 22 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether -<2U <2U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol -- <5U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 4-Chloroaniline 30 <5U <5U <51U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -<2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2.2 U 4-Nitroaniline

-- <5U <5U <5U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U 4-Nitrophenol --- < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 22 U Acenaphthene 400 <2U <2U <2U <2 <2

<,2U <2.2U Acenaphthylene

-<21U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2.2 U Anthracene 2000 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2.2 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

-<21U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

--- < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2 U <2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 <2 U < 2.2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 2.7 1.3 J <2 U 2.2 < 2 <2 U < 2.2 U Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 <21U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 2U < 2.2 U Carbazole

-< 2 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Chrysene 5 <2U <2U <2U

<2 <2 <2U <2.2U Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 0.3 <2U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Dibenzofuran

--- <51U <51U <51U

< 5.1 < 5 <51U < 5.5 U Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Dimethyl phthalate

-- <21U <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 <2 <21U < 2.2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U Fluoranthene 300 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U Fluorene 300 <21U <21U

<2U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 22 U Hexachloroethane 7 <51U <5U <51U < 5.1 < 5 <5U < 5.5 U lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 <2U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U Isophorone 40 <2U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U Naphthalene 300 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U Nitrobenzene 6 < 2 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2.2 U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 < 2 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2.2 U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 <5U <5U <5U <5.1 <5 <5U <5.5U Pentachtorophenol 0.3 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 22 U Phenanthrene

--- < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2.2 U Phenol 2000 < 5 U <51U <51U < 5.1 < 5 <51U < 5.5 U Pyrene 200 < 2 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 < 2 U <2.2U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 5of12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AY I WELL-AZ Constituent of Concern Sample Date 6/27/2008 12/17/2008 6/3/2009 12/8/1009 112/08/1009 12/10/2004 8117/2005 Sample Type Code N N N FD N N N GWQC (ug/L) I [ I 1 I 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 <21U <21U <21U <21U

< 2.1 U <2U <21U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2 U <2U <21U <2U < 2.1 U <2U < 2 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2 U <21U <21U <21U

< 2.1 U <21U <2U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 < 2 U <2U <2U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 <51U <5U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 <51U <51U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 <5U <5U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <51.U <51U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U < 5 U < 5.1 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 <21U <2U <2U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U <2U <2U <2U

<2.1 U <2U <2U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 <5U <51U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 2-Chlorophenol 40 <5U <5U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 2-Methylnaphthalene

--- < 2 U <2U <21U <21U

< 2.1 U <2U <21U 2-Methylphenol

-<2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U <5U < 5.1 U 2-Nitroaniline

-<5U <5U < 5.1 U <5U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 2-Nitrophenol

-- <5U <5U <5.1U <5U <5.3U <5U <5.1U 3&4-Methylphenol

--- <21U < 2 U < 2 U <21U < 2.1 U <51U < 5.1 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 <51U <51U

< 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 3-Nitroaniline

--- <ý 5 U <51U < 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

--- < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether -< 2 U <2U <2U <2U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol --- <51U <51U < 5.1 U <5U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 4-Chloroaniline 30 <51U <51U

< 5.1 U <51U < 5.3 U <51U < 5,1 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether --- <2U <21U <21U <21U

< 2.1 U <2U <2U 4-Nitroaniline

--- <5U < 5 U < 5.1 U <5U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U 4-Nitrophenol

--- <20U <10U <10U <10U <11U <20U

<20U Acenaphthene 400 <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <21U < 2 U Acenaphthylene

-<2U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <21U <21U Anthracene 2000 < 2 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <21U <21U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 2 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <21U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 2 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U < 2 U <2U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U

< 1.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

--- <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <

1.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U

< 1.1 U < 2 U <21U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-- <21U <21U <21U

< 2 U < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 '<<2U <2U <2U <2U <2.1 U <2U <2U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2 U <2 U <2 U <2 U < 2.1 U < 2 U <2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 < 2 U <2U <2U < 2 U < 2.1 U <2U <2U Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 <2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Carbazole

-- <2U <2U <2U <2U

<2.1U <2U <2U Chrysene 5 <2U <1U <1U <1U

<1.1U <2U <2U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U <

1.1 U <21U <21U Dibenzofuran

-- < 5 U <5U < 5.1 U < 5 U < 5.3 U <51U < 5.1 U Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2 U <21U <2U <2U < 2.1 U <2U <21U Dimethyl phthalate

-- <21U <21U 2.4 < 2 U < 2.1 U <21U <2U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 <2U < 2 U < 2 U < 2 U < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2U < 2 U < 2 U <21U < 2.1 U <21U <21U Fluoranthene 300 <2U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U < 2 U < 2 U Fluorene 300 <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <21U <21U Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2 U <2U <21U <21U

< 2.1 U <2U <21U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 2 U < 1 U < 1 U

< 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U-lexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 <5U < 5 U < 5.1 U <5U < 5.3 U < 5 U < 5.1 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 <21U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U

< 1.1 U <21U <21U Isophorone 40 <21U <21U <21U <21U

< 2.1 U <21U < 2U Naphthalene 300 < 2 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U Nitrobenzene 6 < 2 U <2U <2U <21U < 2.1 U <2U < 2 U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 < 2 U <21U <2U <21U < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 <5U <5U <5.1 U <5U <5.3U <5U <5.1 U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 <lOU <10U <10U <10U

<11 U <20U <20U Phenanthrene

-<2U < 1 U < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U < 2 U <21U Phenol 2000 <2U <2U <2U1- <2 <2.1U <5U <5.1U!Pyrene 200 <2U <lU <1U <IU <1.1U <2U <2U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 6 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-AZ Constituent of Concern Sample Date 10/4/2005 3/28/2006 6/22/2006 9/27/2006 12/5/2006 9/26/2007 12/11/2007 Sample Type Code N N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U <2U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U <21U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 < 5.2 U <5 U <5 U < 5 < 5 <5 U < 5.1 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 < 5.2 U <51U <51U

< 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 < 5.2 U <51U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <5.2U <5U <5U <5

<5 <5U <5.1 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <2U <21U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U <21U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 < 5.2 U <51U <51U

< 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5.1 U 2-Chlorophenol 40 < 5.2 U <51U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 2-Methylnaphthalene

-- < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U 2-Methylphenol

-< 5.2 U < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 2-Nitroaniline

-< 5.2 U <51U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 2-Nitrophenol

-< 5.2 U <51U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 3&4-Methylphenol

-< 5.2 U <5U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 < 5.2 U <51U <51U

< 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 3-Nitroaniline

-< 5.2 U <51U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

< 21 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol --- < 5.2 U <5U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 4-Chloroaniline 30 < 5.2 U <51U <51U

< 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -< 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U <21U 4-Nitroaniline

-< 5.2 U <51U <51U

< 5 < 5 <51U < 5.1 U 4-Nitrophenol

-< 21 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U Acenaphthene 400 < 2.1 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U Acenaphthylene

-< 2.1 U <21U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U <2U Anthracene 2000 < 2.1 U < 2 U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 2.1 U <21U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 2.1 0 <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 21U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

-- < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-< 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2.1 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U <2U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2.1 U < 2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 <2 U <2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 < 2.1 U <2 U <2 U 1.3 < 2 <2 U <2 U Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 <.2 <21U <21U Carbazole

-<2.1U <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U Chrysene 5 <2.1 U <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 < 2.1 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2 U Dibenzofuran

-<5.2U <5U <5U <5 <5 <5U <5.1U Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2.1 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <21U Dimethyl phthalate

-< 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 < 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2.1 U <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U Fluoranthene 300 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U Fluorene 300 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U < 2 U Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2 U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 < 2 U <21U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 21 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 < 5.2 U <51U <51U

< 5 < 5 <5U < 5.1 U lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 < 2.1 U <2U <21U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <21U Isophorone 40 < 2.1 U <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U Naphthalene 300 < 2.1 U <21U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U Nitrobenzene 6 < 2.1 U <21U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U <21U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 < 2.1 U <2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 <2 U <2 U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 < 5.2 U <51U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U < 5.1 U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 < 21 U <20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U Phenanthrene

-< 2.1 U <21U <21U

< 2 < 2 <21U < 2 U Phenol 2000 < 5.2 U <51U <51U < 5 < 5 <5U < 5.1 U Pyrene 200 <2.1U <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 7 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-A Z W ELL-BV Constituent of Concern Sample Date 6/26/2008 12/16/2008 6/2/2009 12/8/2009 9/27/2007 12/12/2007 6/26/2008 Sample Type Code N N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L) I I 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 < 2 U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <21U < 2 U <2U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 <2U < 2.2 U <21U < 2.2 U <2U < 2 U <2U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 <2U < 2.2 U <21U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2 U <2U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <21U <2U .<2U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <5U <5U <5U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <5 U <5U <5U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 20 U < 22 U < 20 U < 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2 U <2U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U < 2 U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <5U <5U < 5 U 2-Chlorophenol 40 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U 5U <5U <5U 2-Methylnaphthalene

--- <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <2U <2U <2U 2-Methylphenol

--- <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <5 U < 5 U <21U 2-Nitroaniline

-< 5 U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U 5U <5U <5U 2-Nitrophenol

-<5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U < 5 U <5U <5U 3&4-Methylphenol

--- <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U <51U <5U < 2 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U 3-Nitroaniline

--- <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

< 20 U < 22 U < 20 U < 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether < <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U "< 2 U <2U <2U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol --- <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <51U <51U <5U 4-Chloroaniline 30 <5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <51U <5U <5U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -<2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <2U 4-Nitroaniline

<5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <5U <5U <5U 4-Nitrophenol

--- <20U <11 U <lOU <11 U <20U <20U <20U Acenaphthene 400 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U < 2 U <2U Acenaphthylene

-- <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Anthracene 2000 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U < 2 U < 2 U <2U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U < 2 U <2U <21U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 2 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <21U <2U < 2 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

-< 2 U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U < 2 U <2U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <21U <2U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-<2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2 U <2U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 <21U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <2U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 <2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2 U < 2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 <2 U 1.4 J < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2 U 2 Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U <21U <21U < 2 U Carbazole

-<2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2 U <2U Chrysene 5 <2U <1.1U <1U <1.1U <2U

<2U <2U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U < 2 U < 2 U <2U Dibenzofuran

-<5U < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <5U <5U <5U Diethyl phthalate 6000 <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <21U Dimethyl phthalate

-<2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U < 2 U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 .<2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U <2U <2U < 2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U < 2 U Fluoranthene 300 <2U <1.1 U <I U <1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Fluorene 300 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U < 2 U Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <21U <2U <2U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 20 U < 22 U < 20 U < 22 U < 20 U < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 <SU < 5.4 U < 5.1 U < 5.6 U <5U <5U <5U lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U < 2 U Isophorone 40 < 2 U < 2.2 U <21U < 2.2 U <2U <2U <2U Naphthalene 300 <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Nitrobenzene 6 <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U < 2 U <2U <2U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 <2 U < 2.2 U <2 U < 2.2 U <2 U <2 U <2 U N-Nitrosodiphenylarnine 10 <5U <5.4U <5.1 U <5.6U <5U <5U <5U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 <lOU <11 U <10U <11 U <20U <20U <10U Phenanthrene

-- <2U < 1.1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Phenol 2000 <2U < 2.2 U <2U < 2.2 U <5U <5U <2U Pyrene 200 <2U <1.1 U <1 U <1.1 U <2U <2U <2U Notes: (see last page)312/2010Table 5 8 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-BV WELL-X Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/17/2008 6/2/2009 12/8/2009 12/13/2004 3/15/2005 Sample Type Code N N N FD N N GWQC (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol

2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methyiphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3&4-Methylphenol 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-O-cresol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,hl,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzyl phthalate Carbazole Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol 9 600 600 75 700 20 20 100 40 10 10 600 40 30 30 400 2000 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 7 300 3 100 5 0.3 6000 700 100 300 300 0.02 1 40 7.2 40 300 6 10 10 0.3 2000 200<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<21 U< 2.1 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<21 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<10 U<1 U<1 U<1 U<I U<IU<1 U<1 U<1 U<2.1 U<2U <2.2U <2U<2U <2.2U <2U<2U I <2.2U <2U<2U<2U<2U<2U'2U<2U<2U<5U<5U<5U

<5U<20 U<2U<2U<5U<5U<2U<2U<5U<5U<2U<5U<5U<20 U<2U<5U

<5U<2U<5U<10 U<IU<I U<1 U<1 U<1 U<1 U<1 U<I U<2U<2.2 U<5.6 U<5.6 U<5.6 U<5.6 U<22 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<5.6 U<5.6 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<5.6 U<5.6 U<2.2 U<5.6 U<5.6 U<22 U<2.2 U ,<5.6 U<5.6 U<2.2 U<5.6 U<11 U<1.1 U<1.1 U<1.1 U<1.1 U<1.1 U<1.1 U< 1.1 U<1.1 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<1.1 U<1.1 U<5.6 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<1.1 U< 1.1 U<2.2 U<1.1 U<22 U<5.6 U<1.1 U<2.2 U<1.1 U<2.2 U<2.2 U<5.6 U<11 U<1.1 U<2.2 U<1.1 U<2U<5U<5U<5U<5U<20 U<2U<2U<5U<5U<2U<5U<5U<5U<5U<5U<5U<20 U<2U<5U<5U<2U<5U<20 U<2U<2U

<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<5U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U

<2U<2U<20 U<5U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<5U<20 U<2U<5U<2U<2U<5U<5U<5U<5U< 20 U<2U<2U<5U<5U<2U<5U<5U<5U<5U<5U<5U<20 U<2U<5U<5U<2U<5U<20 U<2U<2U<2U<2U

<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<5U<2U<2U

<2U<2U< 2U<2U<2U-2U<20 U<5U<2U

<2U<2U<2U<2U<5U<20 U<2U

<5U<2U<2U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<20 U<2U<2U<5.1 U<5.1U<2U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<5.1 U<20 U<2U<5.1 U<5.1 U<2U<5.1 U<20 U<2U<2U<2U<2U

<2U<2U<2U<2U'2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<5.1 U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<20 U<5.1 U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<5.1 U<20U<2U<5.1 U<2U<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<1 U<1 U<5.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<2.1 U<1 U<1 U<2.1 U<1 U<21 U<5.1 U<1IU<2.1 U<IU<2.1 U<2.1 U<5.1 U<10 U<1IU<2.1 U<1 U<2U<2U<2U<2U<2U<1 U<1 U<5U<2U<2U<2U<2U 0.24 J<1 U<2U<1 U<20 U<5U<1 U<2U<1 U<2U<2U<5U<10 U<1 U<2U 0.25 J Pvrene Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 59 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location I0 WELL-X Constituent of Concern Sample Date 7/21/2005 10/4/2005 9/27/2006 12/5/2006 12/12/2007 6/27/2008 Sample Type Code N N N N N N GWQC (ug/L) L_1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <21U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <21U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 700 <5U <5U < 5 < 5 < 5 U <5U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U <5U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 <5U <5U < 5 < 5 <51U <51U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 <51U <5U < 5 < 5 <5U <5U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 <5U <5U <5 < 5 <5U <5U 2-Chlorophenol 40 <5U <51U < 5 < 5 <5U < 5 U 2-Methylnaphthalene

-<2U <2U < 2 < 2 1.7 J < 2 U 2-Methylphenol

--- <5U <51U < 5 < 5 <51U < 2 U 2-Nitroaniline

-< 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 <5U <5U 2-Nitrophenol

-<5U < 5 U < 5 < 5 <5U <5U 3&4-Methylphenol

-<5 U <5 U < 5 < 5 4.4 J 25.4 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 <5U <5U < 5 < 5 <5U <51U 3-Nitroaniline

--- <5U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U <51U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

< 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether <2U < 2 U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol --- <5U < 5 U < 5 < 5 <5U < 5 U 4-Chloroaniline 30 <51U <5U < 5 < 5 <51U <51U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -<2U <21U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <2U 4-Nitroaniline

<5U <5U < 5 < 5 <51U <51U 4-Nitrophenol

-< 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U Acenaphthene 400 <2U <21U < 2 1.6 < 2 U < 2 U Acenaphthylene

-- <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U <2U Anthracene 2000 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <21U Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <2U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 2 U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <21U <21U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

--- <2U <2U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <2U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 <2U <21U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-- <2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 <2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 <2 U <2 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 <2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <2 U Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U Carbazole

--- < 2 U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U Chrysene 5 <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 <2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 <2 U <2 U Dibenzofuran

-<5U <5U < 5 < 5 <51U <51U Diethyl phthalate 6000 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 < 2 U <2U Dimethyl phthalate

--- <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U < 2 U Di-n-butyl phthalate 700 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U Fluoranthene 300 <2U <2U <2 <2 <2U <2U Fluorene 300 <21U 0.74 J < 2 < 2 0.38 J <2U Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <2U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 20 U Hexachloroethane 7 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 <5U <5U lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <21U <2U Isophorone 40 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <21U Naphthalene 300 <2U <21U < 2 1.5 0.85 J < 2 U Nitrobenzene 6 <2U <2U < 2 < 2 <2U <21U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 < 2 U <2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 <51U < 5 U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 < 20 U < 20 U < 20 < 20 < 20 U < 10 U Phenanthrene

-< 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U < 2 U Phenol 2000 < 5 U < 5 U < 5 < 5 < 5 U <2U Pyrene 200 < 2 U < 2 U < 2 < 2 < 2 U 1 2 U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 10 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID WELL-X Constituent of Concern Sample Date 12/16/2008 6/3/2009 12/8/2009 Sample Type Code N N N GWQC (ug/L)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 2,4,5-Trichiorophenol 700 < 5.2 U < 5 U < 5.3 U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 20 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 20 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 100 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 40 < 21 U < 20 U < 21 U 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 2-Chloronaphthalene 600 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 2-Chlorophenol 40 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 2-Methylnaphthalene

-< 2.1 U <2 U 1.9 J 2-Methylphenol

-< 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 2-Nitroaniline

-< 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 2-Nitrophenol

-< 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 3&4-Methylphenol

-- < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 30 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 3-Nitroaniline

-< 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

< 21 U < 20 U < 21 U 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether -< 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol -- < 5.2 U < 5 U < 5.3 U 4-Chloroaniline 30 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether -< 2.1 U < 2 U < 2.1 U 4-Nitroaniline

-< 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U 4-Nitrophenol

-< 10 U < 10 U < 11 U Acenaphthene 400 < 1 U < 1 U 0.64 J Acenaphthylene

-< 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Anthracene 2000 < 1 U < 1 U 0.73 J Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1,1 U Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

-< 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

-< 2.1 U < 2 U < 2.1 U bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 7 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 300 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 2 J <2 U < 2.1 U Butyl benzyl phthalate 100 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U Carbazole

--- < 2.1 U <2 U 0.51 J Chrysene 5 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.3 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Dibenzofuran

-< 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U Diethyl phthalate 6000 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U Dimethyl phthalate

-< 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U Di-n-butyl phthaiate 700 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U Di-n-octyl phthalate 100 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U Fluoranthene 300 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Fluorene 300 < 1 U 0.42 J 0.81 J Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2.1 U Hexachlorobutadiene 1 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 < 21 U < 20 U < 21 U Hexachloroethane 7 < 5.2 U <S5 U < 5.3 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

.2 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Isophorone 40 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U Naphthalene 300 < 1 U 0.89 J < 1.1 U Nitrobenzene 6 < 2.1 U < 2 U < 2.1 U N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 < 2.1 U <2 U < 2.1 U N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 < 5.2 U <5 U < 5.3 U Pentachlorophenol 0.3 <10 U <I10U < 11 U Phenanthrene

-< 1 U < 1 U 1.3 Phenol 2000 < 2.1 U <2 U 3.2 Pyrene 200 < 1 U < 1 U < 1.1 U Notes: (see last page)3/2/2010 Table 5 11 of 12 Table 5. Summary of Historic Groundwater Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Notes:GWQC New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria for Class IIA aquifers.ug/L Micrograms per liter (equivalent to parts per billion)5.0 Bold value indicates concentration is above the method detection limit.27O 3Bold and shaded concentrations are above the applicable New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria for Class I IA aquifers.U The compound was not detected at the indicated concentration.

J Data indicates the presence of a compound that meets the identification criteria.

The result is less than the quantitation limit but greater than zero. The concentration given is an approximate value.-- No standard published N Normal environmental sample FD Blind field duplicate 3/2/2010 Table 5 Notes 12 of 12 Table 6. Summary of Soil Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC,Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Table 06. Summary of Soil Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Location ID TP-10 TP-11 TP-12 Constituent of Concern Sample Date 9/22/2009 9/22/2009 9/22/2009 Depth Interval 2 -2.5 2- 2.5 1 -1.5 Sample Type Code N N N to 2008 Residential 2008 Non-Residential Groundwater Direct Contact Direct Contact SRS SRS (mg/kg) SRS (mg/kg) (mg/kg)Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH-DRO --- 5100 5100 3710 2620 12.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.4 73 820 < 0.06 U NA NA 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 11 5300 59000 < 0.06 U NA NA 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 12 5300 59000 < 0.06 U NA NA 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 5 13 < 0.06 U NA NA 2,4-Dinitrotoluene

--- 0.7 3 < 0.06 U NA NA 2,6-Dinitrotoluene

--- 0.7 3 < 0.06 U NA NA 2-Chloronaphthalene

--- --- --- < 0.06 U NA NA 2-Methylnaphthalene 5 230 2400 1.66 NA NA 2-Nitroaniline

--- 39 23000 < 0.15 U NA NA 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.2 1 4 < 0.15 U NA NA 3-Nitroaniline

--- --- --- < 0.15 U NA NA 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ..--- --- < 0.06 U NA NA 4-Chloroaniline

--- --- --- < 0.15 U NA NA 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ---......

< 0.06 U NA NA 4-Nitroaniline

--- --- --- < 0.15 U NA NA Acenaphthene 74 3400 37000 0.162 NA NA Acenaphthylene

--- --- 300000 < 0.03 U NA NA Anthracene

--- 17000 30000 < 0.03 U NA NA Benzo(a)anthracene

--- 0.6 2 < 0.03 U NA NA Benzo(a)pyrene

--- 0.2 0.2 < 0.03 U NA NA Benzo(b)fluoranthene

--- 0.6 2 < 0.03 U NA NA Benzo(g,hi)perylene

--- 380000 30000 < 0.03 U NA NA Benzo(k)fluoranthene

--- 6 23 < 0.03 U NA NA bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

--- --- --- < 0.06 U NA NA bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 0.2 0.4 2 < 0.06 U NA NA bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 3 23 67 < 0.06 U NA NA bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

--- 35 140 < 0.06 U NA NA Butyl benzyl phthalate

--- 1200 14000 < 0.06 U NA NA Carbazole

--- 24 96 < 0.06 U NA NA Chrysene --- 62 230 < 0.03 U NA NA Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

--- 0.2' 0.2 < 0.03 U NA NA Dibenzofuran

--- --- --- 0.128 NA NA Diethyl phthalate 57 49000 550000 < 0.06 U NA NA Dimethyl phthalate

--- --- --- < 0.06 U NA NA Di-n-butyl phthalate

--- 6100 68000 < 0.06 U NA NA Di-n-octyl phthalate

--- 2400 27000 < 0.06 U NA NA Fluoranthene

--- 2300 24000 0.0187 J NA NA Fluorene 110 2300 24000 0.373 NA NA Hexachlorobenzene

--- 0.3 1 < 0.06 U NA NA Hexachlorobutadiene

--- 6 25 < 0.03 U NA NA Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

--- 45 110 < 0.6 U NA NA Hexachloroethane 0.2 35 140 < 0.15 U NA NA lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

--- 0.6 2 < 0.03 U NA NA Isophorone 0.2 510 2000 < 0.06 U NA NA Naphthalene 16 6 17 0.257 NA NA Nitrobenzene 0.2 31 340 < 0.06 U NA NA N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 0.2 0.2 0.3 < 0.06 U NA NA N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.2 99 390 < 0.15 U NA NA Phenanthrene

--- 300000 0.7 NA NA Pyrene --- 1700 18000 0.107 NA NA 3/2/2010 Table 6 1 of.2 Table 6. Summary of Soil Analytical Results, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds PSEG Nuclear, LLC,Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey Location ID TP-10 TP-11 TP-12 Constituent of Concern Sample Date 9/22/2009 9/22/2009 9/22/2009 Depth Interval 2- 2.5 2- 2.5 1 -1.5 Sample Type Code N N N to 2008 Residential 2008 Non-Residential Groundwater Direct Contact Direct Contact SRS SRS (mg/kg) SRS (mg/kg) (mg/kg)Semivolatile Organic Compounds

-Tentatively identified Compounds (TICs)alkane_7.52

--- --- --- 6.1 J NA NA alkane_8.35

--- --- --- 5.6 J NA NA alkane 8.75 --- --- --- 8.5 J NA NA alkane 9.58 --- --- --- 5.5 J NA NA alkane_9.91

--- --- --- 9.1 J NA NA alkane_10.52

--- --- --- 3.9 J NA NA alkane_1 1 --- --- -- 9 J NA NA alkane_12.03

--- --- --- 8.9 J NA NA alkane_ 1244 .-- --- --- 5 J NA NA alkane_ 3.02 -.--- --- 29 J NA NA alkane_ 3.94 --- --- --- 22 J NA NA alkane_14.81

--- --- --- 13 J NA NA alkane_ 5.58 --- --- --- 10 J NA NA alkane_16.24

--- --- --- 7.5 J NA NA Naphthalene trimethyl

.-- --- --- 4 J NA NA Total TIC, Semi-Volatile

.........

147 J NA NA Notes: SRS New Jersey Soil Remediation Standards mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram (equivalent to parts per million)5.0 Bold value indicates concentration is above the method detection limit.':17.0 Bold and shaded concentrations are above the applicable New Jersey Impact to Groundwater SRS.Bold and boxed concentrations are above the applicable New Jersey Residential Direct Contact SRS.

5.0 Bold and italics concentrations are above the applicable New Jersey Non-Residential Direct Contact SRS.U The compound was not detected at the indicated concentration.

J Data indicates the presence of a compound that meets the identification criteria. The result is less than the quantitation limit but greater than zero. The concentration given is an approximate value.--- No standard published N Normal environmental sampleFD Blind field duplicate NA Not analyzed 3/2/2010 Table 6 2 of 2

.i6 g g z g 0 r 8 I.,*.(~~/'.,.~0- ".'(4 K,.'* ~9{444.0-.A ITELOCATION, A;-y Cll'wl E 40,.,,-40~~0 H'1'~'~~~* ~ 4.401;CA ~ R o I%, SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1.5 1 KILOMETER I z 0-R!CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 oz, PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION SALEM, NEW JERSEY REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRESS REPORT SITE LOCATIONQUADRANGLE LOCATION xSOURCE: USGS 7.5 MIN. TOPOGRAPHICAL OUADRANGLE TAYLORS BRIDGE, DEL-N.J. 1948, PHOTOREVISED 1981.'07il,ý` ARCADIS FIGURE Pt ".K rL7 /s!..Vx. /+:-4 ~4-AU'.7.'~.

AREA OF---INVESTIGATION C I LUMITS OF S COFFERDA 7 1 %SITE LAYOUT S 3w: -O/ I\/ '~ ~11/2\ (7, (Kx ~< / 4'V NJ In 4.1 WELL-AZO MONITORING WELL UTIUZED IN THE DIESEL INVESTIGATION AND SCREENED ACROSS THE WATER TABLE.HýlL MT MONITORING WELL UTIUZED IN A SEPARATE INvEIGATION AND SCREENED BELOW THE WATER TABLE.DIESEL FUEL UNOERGROUNO PIPINGPROPERTY BOUNDARYBLOW DOWN PIPING LIQUID HHADO WASTE LINESERVICE WATER PIPING S:.:.:.::'::

CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING.. CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING--i-- -STORM SEWER PIPING o CATCH BASIN o MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)JfLJ SHEET PILE AFSE FEEDWATER STORAGE TANK PWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK\!///R. OLE: WELL AS IS A PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL UTILIZED IN, IASEPARATE INVESTIGATION.

O 20 20 SCAULL 1".H TN.. P W !;.. ... ..S -- 444\; WELL-WV 0' 1- II I K-4 -~I4 /! ' //.. .... ... .. .. ... .....

/LEGEND SCALE: 1 "=,o WELL-AZIO MONITORING WELL UTILIZED IN THE DIESEL INVESTIGATION AND SCREENED ACROSS THE WATER TABLE.

WEIL. AGS MONIORING WELL UTIUZED IN A SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONAND SCREENED BELOW THE WATER TABLE.,APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF SEPERATE -PHASE DIESSEL FUELDIESEL FUEL UNDERGROUND PIPING PROPERTY BOUNDARY..... D.BLOW DOWN PIPING

.-. ..LIQUID "RAD" WASTE UNE:TIT1TTT:

SERVCEE WATER PIPING C:: GIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING

---=- -STORM SEWER PIPING 0 CATCH BASIN 0 MANHOLE (STORM SEWER)SHEET PILEAFST AUXILLIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANK PWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK GWOC NEW JERSEY GROUND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR CLASS IA AQUIFERS ND NOT SAMPLEDJ ESTIMATED VALUE Miii.=. BOLD AND GRAY-SHADED VALUES ARE ABOVE THEIR RESPECTNE rWOC,-- NO GROUNDWATER DUAUDY CRITERI AVAILABLE WELL D F NEW JERSEY GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR CLASS IIA AQUIFER C.NSTITUENT OF A.NAL.I .AL RESULT CONCERN SAMPLE DATE NOTES: 1. PRIOR TO INITIATING GROUNDWATER SAMPLE COLLECTION, DEPTH-TO-WATER AND SEPARATE PHASE PRODUCT THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS WERE COLLECTED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL WELLS USING AN ELECTRONIC OIL-WATER INTERFACE PROBE.2. MONITORING WELLS NOT INDICATING A MEASURABLE THICKNESS OF SEPARATE PRODUCT (IE.. GREATER THAN 001 FEET) WERE SAMPLED UTIUZING LOW-FLOW DAMPENG METHODS.3. GROUNDWATER SAMPLES WERE ANALYZED FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT SEMI-VOLATILE AND VOLATILE ORGANICS INCLUDING A UBRARY SEARCH.4. UNITS ARE IN .R/I -MICROGRAMS PER UTER (EOUIVALENT TA PARTS PER BILLION) CONCENTRATIONS ARE ONLY SHOWN FOR THOSE CONSnTUENTS DETECTEDABOVE THE LABORTORY DETECTION UMITS.5. WELL AD IS A PUMPING EXTRACTION WELL UTILIZED IN A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION.--7-7 N%'N>I (4--3/4- -V:-r -/'(4 I-4 /-WAA, IPSEG NUCLEAR.

LLC SALEM GENERATING STATION SALEM.

NEWLJERSEYREMEDIAL ACTION PROGRESS REPORT GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTSDECEMBER 2009 0 20 20 SCALE: 1'-DO'0 ARCADIS o o SITE LAYOUT SCALE. 1 .500" WELL -AZ 0 WELL WOOS TP-19DIESEL MONITORING WELLTROEUM MONITORING/EXERACTION WELLSOIL BORING (JUNE 2009)

SOIL BOIRNG (SEPTEMBER 2009)DIESEL FUEL UNDERGROUND PIPINGPROPERTY BOUNDARY

/ 17 REFST 11 17/ / / CATCH BASIN 27 IV5 5 7A/ 1 7 1A~s1.- 1 10 0.3AMN 512.... ............U AO...i S -o 777 125 M 12.12.5.2...L AB .. A L -= -..............

.W -A APRU .....T' LMT O 051"7 "U ............ -. 2 2, 2 LiLB S..........LSDO J a.O7 J" PIM --- 512 522 5

..--A sl .....C FFXERA MLIMIS .OF -- -.... ...... (U 00 ( (/ K17 17 .. 7 .-..I,,, _ /.2.... \ 2 .1, .M. ... a 4.' 1TO 2 /':: / " /i ~PSES NUCLEAR, ULL SALEM GENERATING STATION SALEM. NEWVJERSEY REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRESS REPORT NBLOW DOWN PIPING UOUID 'RAD0 WASTE LINE:.TTTTTTIT. SERVICE WATER PIPING:.:.:::..:.

CIRCULATING WATER OUTLET PIPING 1:::1 CIRCULATING WATER INLET PIPING--STORM SEWER PIPING CATCH BASINMANHOLE (STORM SEWER)SHEET PILE AFST AUXILIARY FEEDWATER STORAGE TANK PWST PRIMARY WATER STORAGE TANK J ESTIMATED VALUE f(f.uZ BOLD AND GRAY-SANDED VALUES AREABOVE TREIR RESPECTWE SOIL REMEDIATION STANDARDK = 2 EXCAVATED TRENCHESSOIL BORING IOD CONSTITUENT OF LAITI RESULE CONCERN SAMPLE DATESOIL SAMPLING RESULTS SEPTEMBER 2009 D .0 20 S-AE- 2 DRAFT ARCADIS ARCADIS Appendix A Low-flow Groundwater Sampling Logs ARCADIS Groundwater Sampling Form Project No.NP000603.0006.00002 Well ID AZ ocF ULA Iaf.L, D ;AI~yPage 1 of 1 Date 12/8/2009 Weather Cloudy, 40 Well Material X PVC SS Project Name/Location ancoc s r ge, Measuring Pt. Screen Description Top-of-Casing Setting (ft-bmp)Casing Diameter (in.) 4 3-9 Static Water Level (ft-brnp)MP Elevation 4.30 Total Depth (ft-bmp) 9 Water Column/Gallons in Well Pump Intake (ft-bmp)Pump On/Off 1100/1115 Volumes Purged Sample Time: Label 1140 Replicate/

Start 1140 Code No.End 1146 7.5 Purge Method (mark one): Centrifugal Submersible X Bailer Other F Sample Method Low Flow Sampled by F. Straker PID Reading (wellhead)

'ID Reading (background)

Time Minutes Rate Depth to Gallons pH Cond. Turbidity Dissolved Temp. Redox Appearance Elapsed (gpm) Water Purged (pMhos) Oxygen (*C)(mUmin) (ft) (mS/cm) (NTU) (mg/L) (*F) (mVQ Color Odor 1105 5 350 4.45 7.63 0.652 29.4 7.43 16.74 110.8 none none 1110 10 350 4.46 7.16 0.663 26.1 7.18 16.86 121.2 none none 1115 15 350 4.46 7.40 0.666 20.1 7.13 16.68 125.3 none none 1120 20 350 4.46 7.36 0.662 20.7 7.01 16.73 129.4 none none 1125 25 350 4.46 7.33 0.661 18.9 6.99 16.71 132.1 none none 1130 30 350 4.46 7.32 0.661 18.9 6.98 16.71 136.5 none none 1135 35 350 4.46 7.32 0.664 18.5 6.98 16.78 135.5 none none Notes:____ ____ ______________

NR -Not Recorded Constituents Sampled Container Number Preservative VOC 40 ML VOA 3 HCL SVOC 1 L Amber Glass 2 None Well Casing Volumes Gallons/Ioot 1 = 0.04 1.5" = 0.09 2.5" 0.26 3.5" = 0.50 6" = 1.47 1.25" = 0.05 2" = 0.16 3" = 0.37 4" = 0.65 Well Information Well Location:

Well Locked at Arrival: YesCondition of Well: Well Locked at Departure:

Yes Well Completion:

Flush Mount Key Number To Well: Not Applicable G ARCADIS Groundwater Sampling Form Project No.NP000603.0006.00002 Well ID BV DatePage 1 of 1 12/8/2009 Cloudy, 40 Project Name/Location PSEG / Hancock's Bridae, NJ Weather Measuring Pt. Screen Description Top-of-Casing Setting (ft-bmp)Static Water Level (ft-bmp) 4.23 Total Depth (ft-bmj MP Elevation Pump Intake (ft-bn Pump On/Off 1200/1255 Volumes Purged Sample Time: Label 1245 Replicate/

Start 1245 Code No.End 1250 3-10 p) 10 Casing Diameter (in.)Well Material X PVC SS 4 Water Column/Gallons in Well N/A np) 7,5 Purge Method (mark one): Centrifugal N/A Submersible X Bailer Other N/A F Sample MethodLow Flow Sampled by F. Straker PID Reading (wellhead)

'ID Reading (background)

Time Minutes Rate Depth to Gallons pH Cond. Turbidity Dissolved Temp. Redox Appearance Elapsed (gpm) Water Purged (pMhos) Oxygen (*C)(mL/min) (ift) (uS/cm) (NTU) (mg/L) (*F) (mV) Color Odor 1205 5 350 4.40 8.73 0.096 201 13.43 14.05 91.0 cloudy none 1210 10 350 4.41 8.62 0.099 210 13.51 14.10 89.2 cloudy none 1215 15 350 4.41 9.11 0.089 98.5 9.63 14.06 109.2 cloudy none 1220 20 350 4.41 9.17 0.088 68.9 9.19 13.99 107.9 cloudy none 1225 25 350 4.41 8.96 0.087 57.2 9.22 13.99 108.6 cloudy none 1230 30 350 4.41 9.27 0.086 44.2 8.76 13.95 108.5 cloudy none 1235 35 350 4.41 9.27 0.086 45.7 8.66 13.99 109.7 none none 1240 40 350 4.41 9.30 0.086 40.9 8.67 13.97 109.6 none none Notes: _NR -Not Recorded Constituents Sampled Container Number Preservative VOC 40 ML VOA 3 HCL SVOC 1 L Amber Glass 2 None Well Casing Volumes Gallons/Foot 1" = 0.04 1.5" = 0.09 2.5" = 0.26 3.5" = 0.50 6" = 1.47 1.25" = 0.06 2" = 0.16 3"= 0.37 4" = 0.65 Well Information Well Location:

Well Locked at Arrival: Condition of Well: Well Locked at Departure:

Well Completion:

Key Number To Well:

ARCADIS Appendix B Groundwater Analytical Results (December 2009) e-Hardcopy

2. 0 Automated Report New Jersey Q 12/30/09Technical Report for ArcadisPSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ NP000603.0007 Accutest Job Number: JA34700 Sampling Date: 12/08/09 Report to: Arcadis 6 Terry Drive Newtown, PA 18940 Jonathan.

Shafer@arcadis-us.com ATTN: Jonathan Shafer Total number of pages in report: 162 T7, tP iti ACC04o 4Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.

David N. SpeisVP Ops, Laboratory Director Client Service contact: Marie Meidhof 732-329-0200 Certifications: NJ(12129), NY(10983), CA, CT, DE, FL, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MT, NC, PA,RI, SC, TN, VA, WVThis report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of Accutest Laboratories.

Test results relate only to samples analyzed.New Jersey -2235 Route 130 -Dayton, NJ 08810 tel: 732-329-0200

• fax: 732-329-3499 .o http://www:accutest.com Accutest Laboratories is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to thisdocument. Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.

E 1 of 162 JA34700 L !Uý%:

Table of Contents Section 1: Sam ple Sum m ary ...................................................................................................

Section 2: Case Narrative/Conform ance Sum m ary ..............................................................

Section 3: Sam p e Results ....................................................................................................

,11: JA 34700-1:

AZ .............................................................................................................

31 2: JA 34700-2: BV .............................................................................................................

3,3: JA 34700-3: X ................................................................................................................3,4: JA 34700-4:

AY .............................................................................................................

3.5. JA 34700-5: FB-1282009

..............................................................................................

1 6: JA 34700-6: YY .............................................................................................................

J.7: JA 34700-7:

TRIP BLAN K ............................................................................................

Section 4: M isc. Form s .....................................................................................................

4.1: Chain of Custody ...........................................................................................................

4.2: Sam ple Tracking Chronicle

...........................................................................................

4.3: Internal Chain of Custody ..............................................................................................

Section 5: GCUMS Volatiles

-QC Data Summaries

..............................................................

5.1: M ethod Blank Sum m ary ...............................................................................................

5.2: Blank Spike Sum m ary ...................................................................................................

5.3: M atrix Spike Sum m ary ..................................................................................................

5.4: Duplicate Sum m ary .......................................................................................................

5.5: Instrum ent Perform ance Checks (BFB) .........................................................................

5.6: Internal Standard Area Sum m aries ................................................................................

5.7: Surrogate Recovery Sum m aries .....................................................................................

5.8: Initial and Continuing Calibration Sum m aries ..............................................................

Section 6: GCU M S V olatiles -Raw Data ................................................................................

6.1: Sam ples ..........................................................................................................................

6.2: M ethod Blanks ...............................................................................................................

Section 7: GC/MS Semi-volatiles

-QC Data Summaries

.....................................................

7.1: M ethod Blank Sum m ary ................................................................................................

7.2: Blank Spike Sum m ary ...................................................................................................

7.3: M atrix Spike/M atrix Spike Duplicate Sum m ary ...........................................................

7.4: Instrum ent Perform ance Checks (DFTPP) ....................................................................

7.5: Internal Standard Area Sum m aries ................................................................................

7.6: Surrogate Recovery Summaries

.....................................

7.7: Initial and Continuing Calibration Sum m aries ..............................................................

Section 8: G C/M S Sem i-volatiles

-R aw D ata ........................................................................

8.1: Sam ples ..........................................................................................................................

8.2: M ethod Blanks ...............................................................................................................

Sections: 3 4 6 16 21 26 31 36.38 39 41 42 45 46 48 50 52 54 56 57 58 67 68 84 86 87 90 93 96 105 109 110 144 145 161 JA34700 L. U z:,I,,ýi Accutest Laboratories Sample Summary ArcadisPSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Project No: NP000603.0007 Sample N Number Date Time By Received C JA34700-1 12/08/09 11:40 FS 12/08/09 P JA34700-2;.

12/08/09 12:45 FS 12/08/09 A JA34.700-3:

12/08/09 13:30 FS 12/08/09 P JA347.04;1 4. 12/08/09 14:00 FS 12/08/09 A:JA34700-5 12/08/09 14:20 FS 12/08/09 A 12/08/09 14:45 FS 12/08/09 JA34700-7 12/08/09 14:45 FS 12/08/09 Job No: JA34700 latrix ode Type kQ Ground Water XQ Ground Water XQ Ground Water XQ Ground Water XQ Field Blank Water XQ Ground Water XQ Trip Blank Water Client Sample ID AZ BV x AY, TB-4282009.YY TRIP BLANK An 3 of 162 JA34700 L L a b-o a at c r i e s CASE NARRATIVE

/ CONFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Client: Arcadis Job No JA34 700 Site: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Report Date 12/30/2009 11:46:55 A On 12/08/2009, 5 Sample(s), I Trip Blank(s) and 1 Field Blank(s) were received at Accutest Laboratories at a temperature of 1.1 C.Samples were intact and properly preserved, unless noted below. An Accutest Job Number of JA34700 was assigned to the project.Laboratory sample ID, client sample ID and dates of sample collection are detailed in the report's Results Summary Section.Specified quality control criteria were achieved for this job except as noted below.

For more information, please refer to the analytical results and QC summary pages.Volatiles by GCMS By Method SW846 8260B Matrix AQ Batch ID: V1A3576 M All samples were analyzed within the recommended method holding time.a All method blanks for this batch meet method specific criteria.M Sample(s)

JA34700-IMS, JA34700-2DUP were used as the QC samples indicated.

Extractables by GCMS By Method SW846 8270C Matrix AQ Batch ID: OP41361 a All samples were extracted within the recommended method holding time.W All method blanks for this batch meet method specific criteria.a Sample(s)

JA34586-IMS, JA34586-IMSD were used as the QC samples indicated.

a RPD(s) for MSD for 4-Nitrophenol are outside control limits for sample OP41361-MSD.

Probable cause due to sample homogeneity.

a OP41361-MSD for Phenol-d5:

Outside of in house control limits, but within reasonable method recovery limits.f OP41361-MSD for 4-Nitrophenol:

Outside control limits due to matrix interference.

a OP41361-MS for Phenol-d5:

Outside of in house control limits, but within reasonable method recovery limits.Accutest certifies that data reported for samples received, listed on the associated custody chain or analytical task order, were produced to specifications meeting Accutest's Quality System precision, accuracy and completeness objectives except as noted.Estimated non-standard method measurement uncertainty data is available on request, based on quality control bias and implicit for standard methods. Acceptable uncertainty requires tested parameter quality control data to meet method criteria.Accutest Laboratories is not responsible for data quality assumptions if partial reports are used and recommends that this report be used in its entirety.

Data release is authorized by Accutest Laboratories indicated via signature on the report coverWednesday, December 30, 2009 Page 1 of I M 4 of 162 JA34700 -7i New Jersey.. .. ...........

.................

.. ......&sS tioI it Sample Results Report of Analysis fa 5 of 162 g1ACCUTESl JA34700 Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: AZ Lab Sample ID: JA34700-1 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 1A83955.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run#1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene

Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 1.2-Dichloroethane 1, 1 -Dichloroethene cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1, 2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1, 3-Dichloropropene trans-I, 3-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

Methylene chloride Styrene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane NDO.~ND ND~ND NID ND~ND!ND ND.ND ND ND ND ND~ND ND ND ND N, D ND\1ND ND ND ND ND ND N D N D N D N'D}ND i: 10 1.0 1.0 4.0:2.0:10.2.0 1.0 1.0:1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0:5.0.2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/I ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/I ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/I ug/1 ug/l ug/l ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound MO 6of 162 12ACCUTEST.

JA34700 T'L Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: AZ Lab Sample ID: JA34700-1 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA .TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)ND ND ND 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/l 0.44 ug/1 0.25 ug/l CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# I Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1080/:11 6%ý106%/94%:g iiii 76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound;Ml 7 of162 12AC:CUTEBT.

JA34700 vL. L Raw Data: NEMMIL-]Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page I of 3 Client Sample ID: AZ Lab Sample ID: JA34700-1 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 F85661.D 1 12/23/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4044 Run #2 Initial Volume Final Volume Run #1 900 ml 1.0Oml Run #2 ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-57-8 59-50-7 120-83-2 105-67-9 51-28-5 534-52-1 95-48-7 88-75-5 100-02-7 87-86-5 108-95-2 95-95-4 88-06-2 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 101-55-3 85-68-7 91-58-7 106-47-8 86-74-8 218-01-9 111-91-1 111-44-4 108-60-1 7005-72-3 2-Chlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 2, 4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 4, 6-Dinitro-o-cresol 2-Methylphenol

3&4-Methylphenol 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophenol Pentachlorophenol Phenol2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol 2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h, i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate 2-Chloronaphthalene 4-Chloroaniline Carbazole Chrysene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether-ND ND ND;ND-ND ND.ND N D N D ND N D.ND)ND)ND N D ND~ND ND~,ND.ND N D N D N D ND N D ND ND ND ND ND ND NP 5.": 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 22 22 2.2 2.2 5.6i 11*2.2 5.6 5.6 2.2l 151 121 11 2.2 2.2 5.6 5.6 2.2*1.1I 2.2 2.2 i:2.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 0.82 0.57 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.92 0.89 0.64 1.5 1.4 0.41 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.27 0.13 0.42 0.39 0.28 0.46 0.28 0.18 0.12 0.28 0.34 0.43 0.39 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration rangeJ Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound[ -DE 8 of162 gJACwrTEST JA34700 : L,!:, Ii';

Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: AZ Lab Sample ID: JA34700-1 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List (4 CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 121-14-2 606-20-2 91-94-1 53-70-3 132-64-9 84-74-2 117-84-0 84-66-2 131-11-3 117-81-7 206-44-0 86-73-7 118-74-1 87-68-3 77-47-4 67-72-1 193-39-5 78-59-1 91-57-6 88-74-4 99-09-2 100-01-6 91-20-3 98-95-3 621-64-7 86-30-6 85-01-8 129-00-0 120-82-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2, 4-Dinitrotoluene 2, 6-Dinitrotoluene 3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Di-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalate Diethyl phthalateDimethyl phthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Nitroaniline 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Phenanthrene Pyrene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND.N D ND NND N D ND 2ND N D.ND~N D N D N D ND-ND N DN D ND ND.N D:ND N D 2 ND.N D ND ND.ND ND N D ND g 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 5.6 1.1 5.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.1 22 5.6 1.1 2.2 2.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 1.1 2.2 2.2 5.6 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.47 0.40 0.43 0.24 0.36 0.33 0.17 0.34 0.21 0.44 0.18 0.25 0.36 0.19 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.75 0.29 0.15 0.28 0.73 0.26 0.32 0.20 0.47 0.28 0.49 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.48 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 367-12-4 4165-62-2 118-79-6 4165-60-0 321-60-8 2-Fluorophenol Phenol-d5 2,4, 6-Tribromophenol Nitrobenzene-d5 2-Fluorobiphenyl

412%:r: 100%75%,75%'13-68%10-49%37-130%25-112%31-106%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound Mfl 9 of 162 RACCL1TFEST JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: AZLab Sample ID: JA34700-1 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-d14 Run# I Run# 2 Limits:82%14-122%ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration rangeJ Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound Mfl10 of162 12AOCCUEST.

JA34700 i Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: BV Lab Sample ID: JA34700-2 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 1A83956.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run #1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List 3 CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4.108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone ND Benzene ND Bromodichloromethane ND Bromoform ND Bromomethane ND 2-Butanone (MEK) ND Carbon disulfide NDCarbon tetrachloride

'ND Chlorobenzene ND Chloroethane ND Chloroform ND Chloromethane

.4ND Dibromochloromethane ND 1, 1 -Dichloroethane ND 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1, 1 -Dichloroethene

'ND cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene ND'trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene ND': 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) NPD 1,2-Dichloropropane DND cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND trans- 1,3-Dichloropropene ND Ethylbenzene ND 2-Hexanone ND 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

'N D Methylene chloride ND Styrene ND 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

'ND Tetrachloroethene -ND Toluene ND1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane ND 1,1,2-Trichloroethane NDP'* 10 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0;1.0:1.0* 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0.:1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting LimitE = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 11 of162 JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: BV Lab Sample ID: JA34700-2 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)'ND ND 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/l 0.44 ug/l 0.25 ug/1 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 106%I117%o 103%94%76-120%64-135%76-117%

72-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound MM 12 of162 GASMCUTES1T.

JA34700 TLlc2at ,, i Raw Data:Raw Data:

B Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 3 Client Sample ID: BV Lab Sample ID: JA34700-2 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 F85662.D 1 12/23/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4044 Run #2 Initial Volume Final Volume Run #1 900 ml 1.0 ml Run #2 ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-57-8 59-50-7 120-83-2 105-67-9 51-28-5 534-52-1 95-48-7 88-75-5 100-02-7 87-86-5 108-95-2 95-95-4 88-06-2 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 101-55-3 85-68-7 91-58-7 106-47-8 86-74-8 218-01-9 111-91-1 111-44-4 108-60-1 7005-72-3 2-Chlorophenol

4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2, 4-Dinitrophenol 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 2-Methylphenol

3&4-Methylphenol 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophenol Pentachlorophenol Phenol 2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol 2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fl uoranthene Benzo(g, h, i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4-Broinophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate 2-Chloronaphthalene 4-Chloroaniline Carbazole Chrysene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND ND ND N D ND~ND N D'NJ)ND)N D N D N D ND'N D N D N D.ND ND ND ND N D N D ND N D N D N D ND ND N D N D:5.6 5.6 5.61 5.6 22 22 2.2 2.2 5.6:11:11 2.2 5.6 5.6 1.1 1.1 1.1.21.1.1 21.1.2.2 2.2 15.6 i5.6 i2.2:1.1 2.2:2.2:2.2.2.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 0.82 0.57 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.92 0.89 0.64 1.5 1.4 0.41 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.27 0.13 0.42 0.39 0.28 0.46 0.28 0.18 0.12 0.28 0.34 0.43 0.39 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound JA347.0 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of3 3 Client Sample ID: BV Lab Sample ID: JA34700-2 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate 84-66-2 Diethyl phthalate 131-11-3 Dimethyl phthalate 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 77-47-4 H1exachlorocyclopentadiene 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 78-59-1 Isophorone 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 91-20-3 Naphthalene 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 129-00-0 Pyrene 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 4165-62-2 Phenol-d5 118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl Result RL MDL Units Q 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 5.6 1.1 5.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.1 22 5.6 1.1 2.2 2.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 1.1 2.2 2.2 5.6 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.47 ug/l 0.40 ug/I 0.43 ug/1 0.24 ug/1 0.36 ug/l 0.33 ug/l 0.17 ug/1 0.34 ug/l 0.21 ug/1 0.44 ug/l 0.18 ug/l 0.25 ug/1 0.36 ug/1 0.19 ug/l 0.30 ug/l 0.41 ug/10.41 ug/1 0.75 ug/l 0.29 ug/1 0.15 ug/l 0.28 ug/1 0.73 ug/l 0.26 ug/l 0.32 ug/l 0.20 ug/1 0.47 ug/1 0.28 ug/1 0.49 ug/l 0.24 ug/l 0.23 ug/l 0.17 ug/1 0.48 ug/1 Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 13-68%10-49%37-130%25-112%31-106%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration rangeJ Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 14 of 162 JA34700 L Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 3 of3 3 Client Sample ID: BV Lab Sample ID: "JA34700-2 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List I CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4 Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 70%14-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 15of16*ACXMJr.ESt JA34700 Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: X Lab Sample ID: JA34700-3 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 IA83957.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run #1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane 1,1 -Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane1, 1 -Dichloroethene cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene trans-I,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1, 3-Dichloropropene trans- 1, 3-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

Methylene chloride Styrene 1,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND N'D ND ND ND ND N ND~ND ND ND ND N D ND ND N D ND ND ND~ND N D ND N D N D ND ND N D N D ND.ND N D N D 10 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0.1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 25.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0-1.0: : 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/1 ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blankN = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound M 16 of162 RACCUTES-l:

JA34700 -C ' tI' ýIi ,

Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: X Lab Sample ID: JA34700-3 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)ND ND i0.54 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/l 0.44 ug/l 0.25 ug/l J CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 117%>94%76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E:= Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound JA34700 Raw Data: M Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 3 Client Sample ID: X Lab Sample ID: JA34700-3 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3M16331.D 1 12/29/09 LP 12/10/09 OP41361 E3M719 Run #2 Initial Volume Final Volume jRun #1 950 ml 1.0 ml Run #2 ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol ND 5.3 1.1 ug/l 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol ND1) 5.3 1.1 ug/l 120-83-2 2,4-Dichloropheno]

N D 5.3 1.3 ug/l 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol

<ND 5.3 1.7 ug/l 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol

".ND 21 0.78 ug/l 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol N D) 21 0.54 ug/l 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol

ND 2.1 1.2 ug/I 3&4-Methylphenol

<ND 2.1 1.1 ug/I 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol

'ND 5.3 1.3 ug/l 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol ND 11 0.87 ug/1 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol ND 11 0.84 ug/1 108-95-2 Phenol 3. 2 2.1 0.61 ug/l 95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol N D D 5.3 1.4 ug/l 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 5.3 1.3 ug/l 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 0.64 1.1 0.39 ug/l J 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene ND 11 0.29 ug/l 120-12-7 Anthracene 0.73 1. 1 0.17 ug/l J 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 1.1 0.13 ug/l 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 1.1 0.10 ug/l 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 1.1 0.26 ug/l 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 1.1 0.13 ug/l 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 1.1 0.40 ug/l 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether N :D 2.1 0.37 ug/1 85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate ND 2.1 0.26 ug/l 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene IN D 5.3 0.44 ug/l 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline ND 5.3 0.27 ug/l 86-74-8 Carbazole 0:!0.51 2.1 0.17 ug/l J 218-01-9 Chrysene ND 1.1 0.11 ug/l 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND 2.1 0.26 ug/l 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ND 2.1 0.33 ug/1 108-60-1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether ND 2.1 0.41 ug/l 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND 2.1 0.37 ug/1 P L ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound JA34700 t Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: X Lab Sample ID: JA34700-3 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 121-14-2 606-20-2 91-94-1 53-70-3 132-64-9 84-74-2 117-84-0 84-66-2 131-1 1-3 117-81-7 206-44-0 86-73-7 118-74-1 87-68-3 77-47-4 67-72-1 193-39-5 78-59-1 91-57-6 88-74-4 99-09-2 100-01-6 91-20-3 98-95-3 621-64-7 86-30-6 85-01-8 129-00-0 120-82-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2, 4-Dinitrotoluene 2, 6-Dinitrotoluene 3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(l,.2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Nitroaniline 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Phenanthrene Pyrene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.81 ND ND ND NDND : ND 1.9~ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.3.ND NP 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1.2.1 5.3 1.1 5.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1:1.1 1.1 2. 1:1.1 21 5.3 1.1 2.1 2.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 1.1 2.1 2.1 5.3 1.1 1.1 2.1 0.44 0.38 0.41 0.23 0.34 0.31 0.16 0.32 0.20 0.42 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.18 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.71 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.69 0.25 0.30 0.19 0.45 0.27 0.46 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.46 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l J J CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# I Run# 2 Limits 367-12-4 4165-62-2 118-79-6 4165-60-0 321-60-8 2-Fluorophenol Phenol-d5 2,4, 6-Tribromophenol Nitrobenzene-d5 2-Fluorobiphenyl 32%16%.101%63%67%....13-68%10-49%37-130%25-112%31-106%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 05 19 of162 OAOCVULTEGT.

JA34700 7ý7 ý"r Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: X Lab Sample ID: JA34700-3 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4 Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 39%/14-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound E[B 20 of 162 GA==TEST"',ý Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: AYLab Sample ID: JA34700-4 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 1A83958.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run #1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List.CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane1, 1 -Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1, 1 -Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1, 2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1, 3-Dichloropropene trans- 1, 3-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

Methylene chloride Styrene 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND, ND ND...ND>~ND<ND ND ND ND..ND.ND ,ND ND ND ND N DN D N D.ND NDP N D N D N D N D N D N D N D ND:ND : 10 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration rangeJ Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound Ml21 of 162 RAccuTEs1:

JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: AYLab Sample ID: JA34700-4 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)ND NDýND 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/1 0.44 ug/1 0.25 ug/l CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1, 2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1i~05/o i115/oi 10 5 1/o 94%;76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound.M5 22 of162 GAccLrrTs1 JA34700 L i:t -::

Raw Data:Raw Data:

I Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 1 of 3 Client Sample ID: AY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-4 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3M16332.D 1 12/29/09 LP 12/10/09 OP41361 E3M719 Run #2 Initial Volume Final Volume Run #1 950 ml .ml~Run #2 ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol ND 5.3 1.1 ug/l 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 5.3 1.1 ug/l 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 5.3 1.3 ug/1 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 5.3 1.7 ug/l 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 21 0.78 ug/l 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ND 21 0.54 ug/1 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol ND 2.1 1.2 ug/1 3&4-Methylphenol ND , 2.1 1.1 ug/l 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol ND 5.3 1.3 ug/l 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol NND 11 0.87 ug/1 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol ND 11 0.84 ug/1 108-95-2 Phenol ND 2.1 0.61 ug/1 95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 5.3 1.4 ug/l 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol NtD 5.3 1.3 ug/l 83-32-9 Acenaphthene ND 1.1 0.39 ug/l 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene IND 1.1 0.29 ug/l 120-12-7 Anthracene ,ND ' 1.1 0.17 ug/l 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene ,ND 1.1 0.13 ug/l 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene NDi 1.1 0.10 ug/l 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 1.1 0.26 ug/1 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 1.1 0.13 ug/l 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 1.1 0.40 ug/l 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND 2.1 0.37 ug/l 85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate

'ND '7 2:1 0.26 ug/l 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene ND 5.3 0.44 ug/1 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline ND 5.3 0.27 ug/1 86-74-8 Carbazole ND 2.1 0. 17 ug/l 218-01-9 Chrysene ND 1.1 0.11 ug/1 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND : , 2.1 0.26 ug/l 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ND 2.1 0.33 ug/1 108-60-1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether ND 2.1 0.41 ug/l 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND, ' ., 2.1 0.37 ug/l ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit J Indicates an estimated value RL Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound23 of 162 JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: AY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-4 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 121-14-2 606-20-2 91-94-1 53-70-3 132-64-9 84-74-2 117-84-0 84-66-2 131-11-3 117-81-7 206-44-0 86-73-7 118-74-1 87-68-3 77-47-4 67-72-1 193-39-5 78-59-1 91-57-6 88-74-4 99-09-2 100-01-6 91-20-3 98-95-3 621-64-7 86-30-6 85-01-8 129-00-0 120-82-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2, 6-Dinitrotoluene 3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene DibenzofuranDi-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane lndeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Nitroaniline 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Phenanthrene Pyrene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Result ND ND f ND1 ND NTD'N D ND-ND N DN D N D N DN DN D.N D N D N D ND ND:)ND ND ND ND ND'ND : N D N D ND N D ND N DRL MDL Units Q 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 5.3 1.1 5.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.1 21 5.3 1.1 2.1 2.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 1.1 2.1 2.1 5.3 1.1 1.1 2.1 0.44 0.38 0.41 0.23 0.34 0.31 0.16 0.32 0.20 0.42 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.18 0.28 0.39 0.39 0.71 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.69 0.25 0.30 0.19 0.45 0.27 0.46 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.46 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/I ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# I Run# 2 Limits 367-12-4 4165-62-2 118-79-6 4165-60-0 321-60-8 2-Fluorophenol Phenol-d52,4, 6-Tribromophenol Nitrobenzene-d5 2-Fluorobiphenyl 20%12%:.46%'37%: 13-68%10-49%37-130%25-112%31-106%ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 24 of162~AccUEST JA34700 t ý,,ý.

Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 3 of3 3 .1 Client Sample ID: AY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-4 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Date Received:

12/08/09 Percent Solids: n/a ABN TCL List CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4 Run# I Run# 2 Limits 40%14-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration rangeJ Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound E 25 of162 JZACCUTEBT JA34700 ý ýIIý.

Raw Data: 'Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page I of 2 !Client Sample ID: FB-1282009 Lab Sample ID: JA34700-5 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Field Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 1A83959.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run #1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane1, 1 -Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1, 1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1, 3-Dichloropropene trans- 1, 3-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(M IBK)Methylene chloride Styrene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND N D ND ND N D ND ND ND ND N D N D N D ,ND'ND N D N D N D N D N D ND ND ND N D ND>N D ND ND ND ND N D ND;ND 1)10 1.0 1.0 4.0.2.0 10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0*1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ND RL E == Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit Reporting Limit Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound M126 of162 0AccJrrýs JA34700 ILIb t111`I Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: FB-1282009 Lab Sample ID: JA34700-5 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Field Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA TCL List P'CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)ND ND ND 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/1 0.44 ug/l 0.25 ug/l CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 109%118%I104%.76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound ME1 27 of 162 QA=cUE6-JA34700 lt- A11 Raw Data:Raw Data:

m Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 3 Client Sample ID: FB-1282009Lab Sample ID: JA34700-5 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Field Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3M16333.D 1 12/29/09 LP 12/10/09 OP41361 E3M719 Run #2 Initial Volume Final Volume Run #1 930 ml 1.0 ml Run #2 ABN TCL List P CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-57-8 59-50-7 120-83-2 105-67-9 51-28-5 534-52-1 95-48-7 88-75-5 100-02-7 87-86-5 108-95-2 95-95-4 88-06-2 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 101-55-3 85-68-7 91-58-7 106-47-8 86-74-8 218-01-9 111-91-1 111-44-4 108-60-1 7005-72-3 2-Chlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2, 4-Dinitrophenol 4, 6-Dinitro-o-cresol 2-M ethylphenol 3&4-Methylphenol 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophenol Pentachlorophenol Phenol 2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol 2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g, h, i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate 2-Chloronaphthalene 4-Chloroaniline Carbazole Chrysene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether iND'ND ND1):N D ND ND ND N D ND N D-ND N D'ND N D N DýND.N D N D N D ND.N D N D N D~ND N D N D N D ND~ND ND ND ND 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 22 22 2.2 2.2 5.4 11 11 2.2 5.4.5.4 21.2.2 5.4 5.4 2.2 1.1,: .:.11 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.8 0.79 0.55 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.89 0.86 0.62 1.4 1.3 0.39 0.29 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.41 0.38 0.27 0.45 0.27 0.18 0.12 0.27 0.33 0.42 0.38 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 28 of162 J3AhcCUT~ES-r JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: FB-1282009 Lab Sample ID: JA34700-5 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Field Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List (n CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 121-14-2 606-20-2 91-94-1 53-70-3 132-64-9 84-74-2 117-84-0 84-66-2 131-11-3 117-81-7 206-44-0 86-73-7 118-74-1 87-68-3 77-47-4 67-72-1 193-39-5 78-59-1 91-57-6 88-74-4 99-09-2 100-01-6 91-20-3 98-95-3 621-64-7 86-30-6 85-01-8 129-00-0 120-82-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2, 6-Dinitrotoluene 3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene DibenzofuranDi-n-butyl phthalate

Di-n-octyl phthalate Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Nitroaniline 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Phenanthrene Pyrene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND:ND ND ND ND ND ND N D ND N D N D ND NND ND 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 5.4 1.1 5.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 i 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.1 22 5.4 1.1 2.2 2.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 1.1 2.2 2.2 5.4 1.1...2.2 0.45 0.38 0.42 0.24 0.35 0.32 0.16 0.33 0.21 0.42 0.18 0.24 0.35 0.18 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.72 0.28 0.14 0.27 0.71 0.25 0.31 0.19 0.46 0.27 0.47 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.47 ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/I ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run#.2 Limits 367-12-4 4165-62-2 118-79-6 4165-60-0 321-60-8 2-Fluorophenol Phenol-d5 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Nitrobenzene-d5 2-Fluorobiphenyl 4 7%21%~103%80%.80%13-68%10-49%37-130%25-112%31-106%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound ME 29 of162 GJACCUTEST JA34700 1L.1 I '"IiL:

Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: FB-1282009 Lab Sample ID: JA34700-5 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Field Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List (.n CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-d14 Run# 1 Run# 2 Limitsý96%14-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 30of 162 JA34700 Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: YY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-6 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 IA83960.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run #1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon disulfideCarbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane 1,1 -Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1, 1 -Dichloroethene cis-l ,2-Dichloroethene trans-i ,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1, 3-Dichloropropene trans- 1,3-D ichloropropene Ethylbenzene 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

Methylene chloride Styrene 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND~ND ND ND'ND ND ND ND ND ND~ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND~ND ND ND ND.ND ND ND ND ND:T::':10 1.0 1.0.4.0:2.0 10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0* 1.0 1.0 1.0 f 5.0 5.0 2.0:5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/I ug/l ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound:M 3 f 6.. ... .. ... .. .. ..JA34700 :) :1 "

Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: YY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-6 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)ND!ND 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/1 0.44 ug/l 0.25 ug/l CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# I Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 105/o1" 1115%105%/96%i /76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound M132 of162 MACCUTEST.

JA34700 ,(. .,

Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page I of 3 Client Sample ID: YY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-6 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids:, n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3M16334.D 1 12/29/09 LP 12/10/09 OP41361 E3M719 Run #2[ Initial Volume Final Volume~Run #1 1000 ml] 1.0 ml]Run #2 ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 95-57-8 59-50-7 120-83-2 105-67-9 51-28-5 534-52-1 95-48-7 88-75-5 100-02-7 87-86-5 108-95-2 95-95-4 88-06-2 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 101-55-3 85-68-7 91-58-7 106-47-8 86-74-8 218-01-9 111-91-1 111-44-4 108-60-1 7005-72-3 2-Chlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 4, 6-Dinitro-o-cresol 2-Methylphenol 3&4-Methylphenol 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophenol Pentachlorophenol Phenol 2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol 2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g, h, i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate 2-Chloronaphthalene 4-Chloroaniline Carbazole Chrysene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND ND: ND ND.ND ND ND N.D ND ND~N'D N DN D N D N D ND ND N D ND ND N DN D,N D N D ND ND.,ND N D.N D N D ND ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20 20 2.0 2.0 5.0 10 10 2.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0*1.0 1.0 2.0*2.0 5.0 5.0:2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.7 0.74 0.51 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.83 0.80 0.58 1.3 1.2 0.37 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.095 0.25 0.12 0.38 0.35 0.25 0.42 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.31 0.39 0.35 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit JR, Reporting Limit B E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N Indicates an estimated value= Indicates analyte found in associated method blank= Indicates presumptive evidence of a compoundýOl 33 of162 QACXXUTEBT-!

JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: YY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-6 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Compound 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate 84-66-2 Diethyl phthalate 131-11-3 Dimethyl phthalate 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene 78-59-1 Isophorone 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 91-20-3 Naphthalene 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 129-00-0 Pyrene 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 4165-62-2 Phenol-d5 118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl Result RL MDL Units Q ND ND ND iND ND NID ND ND'ND-ND ND~ND~ND~ND:ND, ND ND~ND D ND.ND.ND ND ND ND ND : N DND: D iND ND.N D ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0:2.0 1.0 20 5.0 1.0 2.0!2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.42 ug/l 0.36 ug/l 0.39 ug/l 0.22 ug/l 0.33 ug/l 0.30 ug/I 0.15 ug/I 0.30 ug/l 0.19 ug/l 0.40 ug/l 0.17 ug/I 0.23 ug/l 0.33 ug/l 0.17 ug/I 0.27 ug/l 0.37 ug/l 0.37 ug/l 0.67 ug/l 0.26 ug/I 0.13 ug/l 0.25 ug/l 0.66 ug/l 0.24 ug/1 0.29 ug/l 0.18 ug/l 0.43 ug/l 0.25 ug/l 0.44 ug/I 0.22 ug/l 0.21 ug/l 0.16 ug/l 0.44 ug/l Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits!8:4%'60%'60%13-68%10-49%37-130%25-112%31-106%ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound ME2 34 of162 BACCLITEST.

JA34700 i't ,rIý.

Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: YY Lab Sample ID: JA34700-6 Date Sampled: 12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Ground Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ ABN TCL List CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4 Run# I Run# 2 Limits:74%14-122%ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 35 of162 L-ýACCUTES1:

JA34700 ILi I 11:

Raw Data: Accutest Laboratories Report of AnalysisPage 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: TRIP BLANK Lab Sample ID: JA34700-7 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Trip Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 1A83961.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 Run #2 Purge Volume Run #1 5.0 ml Run #2 VOA TCL List 5^1 4 CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 67-64-1 71-43-2 75-27-4 75-25-2 74-83-9 78-93-3 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 74-87-3 124-48-1 75-34-3 107-06-2 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 540-59-0 78-87-5 10061-01-5 10061-02-6 100-41-4 591-78-6 108-10-1 75-09-2 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 108-88-3 71-55-6 79-00-5 Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK)Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane Dibromochloromethane 1,1 -Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1, 1 -Dichloroethenecis-l ,2-Dichloroethene trans-I ,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1, 3-Dichloropropene trans- 1, 3-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

Methylene chloride Styrene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane ND ND IND::ND ND: ND:ND N D.ND ND ND N:D ND'ND1.ND ND N D N D ND NID ND ,ND NND ND ND ND N DýNDýND 10 1.0:71.0 4.0 2.0 10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 51.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.30 1.6 0.74 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.40 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.27 1.4 0.86 0.30 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.23 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/1 ug/1 ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound SO 3 o 6 GJACCUTEST.

JA34700 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: TRIP BLANK Lab Sample ID: JA34700-7 Date Sampled:

12/08/09 Matrix: AQ -Trip Blank Water Date Received:

12/08/09 Method: SW846 8260B Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ VOA TCL List CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 79-01-6 75-01-4 1330-20-7 Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Xylene (total)ND ND ND 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.24 ug/l 0.44 ug/l 0.25 ug/1 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# I Run# 2 Limits 1868-53-7 17060-07-0 2037-26-5 460-00-4 Dibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Toluene-D8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 109%119%106%/92%76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound MEi2 37 of 162 JA34700 t New Jersey: : ii .. ..... ....... .... ......................:;:!: :! : : ." .' : Section 4, Misc. Forms Custody Documents and Other Forms Includes the following where applicable: " Chain of Custody" Sample Tracking Chronicle" Internal Chain of Custody IB 38 of162 jRAcC.VTEB1 JA34700 CHAIN OF CUSTODY PAGE__ OF_________________

wwl. SO.55 LCa b o , 2235 I.t 130, DWyuoNJ G091Q TEL732.3290200 FAX: 732-329-349913490 MýaQ-..05...... V70,.nl ,-,-

g'ais Sel 2o7 liac Wonnuetion N... S..t .Imir. Co0es Elo

• SXil Piepd Wflllddr aS LIO.OZqi...... Me-" " Q'L GW / rýsoeý "Kw__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

OIOird FOO Fin1 -ALOAPint CCo0. on V-5 SW-Wimen-* iol Stee *ý LIQ -. o o LiquiSO oY Sow Cý~~ iý. QwN;, z wp z I 1I JAY I-to I).?.' I_ I A , I I ITas1,ay~O TeesrIm o esees, o S/al) '( Data De00era~b00fsimAlion Il) :5. L! Casimenis ISpecillsO 155 t5i5 *O ld. 15 O~elell p D, a e laa" Comnrolial (11M01) " NYASP Cegois A O I1D ay RUSHO_______

FOULTI I 1..i 00) (J 0101 Foe C] 5 lOS ___.UM__-,_-

NJ Rd.. .,i EDOF -,a __" ,_, S, Dpay EAEIGENCY

"_____________

Cossewssal c" otee 0 ,o "'. EAESGSZOy________

Cooval -Eer~a -R* 000 QC Soleley w & 5h VIA s adatable VI = r!su5 P C st"rnl. PFantal flawO01 k pla SCSI m--r- oe lb=o!e.ntod below each time saples chanp s, d1-ir A)1 2 3 44 I___ ___ by:_ ___p__c__-7

I C JA34700

Chain of Custody Page 1 of 2.39 of 162 JA34700L 12ACCUTEST, Accutest Laboratories Sample Receipt SummaryAccutest Job Number: JA34700 Date/ Time Received:

12/8/2009 Project: Client: Delivery Method: No. Coolers: Immediate Client Services Action Required: Client Service Action Required at Login: Airbill #s: No No Cooler Security Y 1. Custody Seals Present: W 2. Custody Seals Intact: 6a Cooler Tem peratu re 1. Temp criteria achieved: 2. Cooler temp verification:

3. Cooler media: Quality Control Preservatio

1. Trip Blank present/ cooler: 2. Trip Blank listed on COC: 3. Samples preserved properly: 4. VOCs headspace free: or N ci ci Y or N 3. COC Present: W 11 4. Smpl Dates/Time OK [Z 0 Y or N 6a 13 tnfared gun Ice (bag)Y or N N/A[] ci[] ci[] ci ci [] [Sample Integrity

-Documentation

1. Sample labels present on bottles: 2. Container labeling complete: 3. Sample container label / COC agree: Sample Integrity

-Condition 1. Sample racvd within HT: 2. All containers accounted for: 3. Condition of sample: Sample Integrity

-Instructions

1. Analysis requested is clear 2. Bottles received for unspecified tests 3. Sufficient volume recvd for analysis: 4. Compositing instructions clear: 5. Filtering instructions clear Y or N 9a ElW] 11 21 c Y or N[] []* Ci Intact Y or N N/A la ci El W2 El 0i 1 6a El El 2 Dayton, New Jersey wwwtaccutest.com Comments Accutest Laboratories V:732 329.02002235 US Highway 130F: 732.329.3499 JA34700: Chain of Custody Page 2 of 2 S40 of 162 JA34700 L --:1 t I I i .

Accutest Laboratories Internal Sample Tracking Chronicle Arcadis Job No: JA34700 PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Project No: NP000603.0007 Sample Number Method Analyzed By Prepped By Test Codes JA34700-1 SW846 8260B 16-DEC-09 01:00 TGE V8260TCL JA34700-1 SW846 8270C 23-DEC-09 17:09 NAP 10-DEC-09 AJ AB8270TCL JA34700-2 SW846 8260B 16-DEC-09 01:28 TGE V8260TCL JA34700-2 SW846 8270C 23-DEC-09 17:41 NAP 10-DEC-09 AJ AB8270TCL JA34700-3 SW846 8260B 16-DEC-09 01:57 TGE V8260TCL JA34700-3 SW846 8270C 29-DEC-09 01:23 LP 10-DEC-09 AJ AB8270TCL JA34700i-4 C11ect'ed:

08-DEC-09 14:00 yRý\ I )'d 08-DEC-09 By: MTPCN AY JA34700-4 SW846 8260B JA34700-4 SW846 8270C 16-DEC-09 02:27 TGE V8260TCL 29-DEC-09 01:50 LP 10-DEC-09 AJ AB8270TCL JA34700-5' Collected:

08-DIYC-09) 14:20( By: FS F-B-1282009

.Received:

0~8-DEC-09 By: MPCýJA34700-5 SW846 8260B JA34700-5 SW846 8270C 16-DEC-09 02:56 TGE 29-DEC-09 02:17 LP 10-DEC-09 AJ V8260TCL AB8270TCL JA34700-6 SW846 8260B 16-DEC-09 03:26 TGE V8260TCL JA34700-6 SW846 8270C 29-DEC-09 02:43 LP 10-DEC-09 AJ AB8270TCL JA34"700-7 Coý,,c 9DC(, 14:-45 k1)yF\S R~eceived 08-DEC-09' 135': MPK'(TRLI3BLANK>~

JA34700-7 SW846 8260B 16-DEC-09 03:55 TGE V8260TCL Page 1 of 1* 41 of162 gQACcuTEST.

JA34700 ` :-t: ,o,1Lý Accutest Internal Chain of Custody Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Received:

12/08/09 Page 1 of 3 Sample.Bottle Transfer Transfer Number FROM TO Date/Time Reason JA34700-1.1 Secured Storage JA34700-1.

1 Amce Joshi Amce Joshi 12/10/09 08:19 Retrieve from Storage 12/10/09 16:51 DepletedJA34700- 1. 1.

JA34700-1.

1.1 JA34700-1.

1.1 JA34700-1.

1.1JA34700- 1. 1.

JA34700-1.

1.1 JA34700-1.

1.1 JA34700-1.

1.1JA34700- 1.

1.1 JA34700-1.3 JA34700-1.3 JA34700-1.3 JA34700-1.3 JA34700-1.4 JA34700-1.4 JA34700-1.4 JA34700-1.4 Amce Joshi Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina PandyaExtract Freezer Nina PandyaSecured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina Pandya Extract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage12/10/09 08:20 12/10/09 16:52 12/10/09 16:52 12/16/09 09:43 12/16/09 09:43 12/17/09 11:05 12/17/09 11:05 12/23/09 14:13 12/23/09 14:13 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 Extract from JA34700-.

1 Extract from JA34700-1.1 Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage JA34700-2.1 Secured Storage JA34700-2.1 Amce Joshi Amce Joshi12/10/09 08:19 Retrieve from Storage 12/10/09 16:51 Depleted JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.

1.1 JA34700-2.3 JA34700-2.3 JA34700-2.3 JA34700-2.3 JA34700-2.4 JA34700-2.4 JA34700-2.4 Amce Joshi Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina PandyaExtract Freezer Nina PandyaSecured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. EspanaSecured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina PandyaExtract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF Tatiana G. Espana GCMS1A Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana12/10/09 08:20 12/10/09 16:52 12/10/09 16:5212/16/09 09:43 12/16/09 09:43 12/17/09 11:05 12/17/09 11:05 12/23/09 14:13 12/23/09 14:13 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 Extract from JA34700-2.1 Extract from JA34700-2.1 Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage 12/15/09 12/15/09 12/16/09 11:01 Retrieve from Storage 11:01 Load on Instrument 11:24 Unload from Instrument MIfl42 of162 GJACCUTE6T.

JA34700 L 'ýLýIIt 1 Accutest Internal Chain of Custody Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Received:

12/08/09 Page 2 of 3 Sample. Bottle Transfer Transfer Number FROM TO Date/Time Reason J~.C,)JA34700-2.4 Tatiana G. Espana JA34700-3.1 Secured Storage JA34700-3.

I Amce Joshi Secured Storage 12/16/09 11:24 Return to Storage12/10/09 08:19 Retrieve from Storage 12/10/09 16:51 Depleted Amce Joshi JA34700-3.

1.1JA34700-3. 1.1 JA34700-3.

1.1 JA34700-3.

1.1 JA34700-3.

1.1 JA34700-3.

1.1JA34700-3. 1.1JA34700-3. 1.1JA34700-3. 1.1JA34700-3. 1.1JA34700-3. 1.1 JA34700-3.4 JA34700-3.4 JA34700-3.4 JA34700-3.4 Amce Joshi Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina Pandya Extract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF Larisa Pejdah Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCM SIA Tatiana G. EspanaOrganics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina PandyaExtract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF Larisa Pejdah GCMSM Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage 12/10/09 08:20 12/10/09 16:52 12/10/09 16:52 12/16/09 09:43 12/16/09 09:43 12/17/09 11:05 12/17/09 11:05 12/23/09 14:13 12/23/09 14:13 12/29/09 00:36 12/29/09 00:36 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 Extract from JA34700-3.1 Extract from JA34700-3.1 Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Load on Instrument Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage JA34700-4.1 Secured StorageJA34700-4.1 Amce Joshi Amce Joshi12/10/09 08:19 Retrieve from Storage 12/10/09 16:51 Depleted JA34700-4.

1.1 JA34700-4.

1. 1 JA34700-4.

1.1 JA34700-4.

1. 1 JA34700-4.

1. 1 JA34700-4.

1.1 JA34700-4.

1. 1 JA34700-4.

1. 1 JA34700-4.

1. 1JA34700-4. 1.1JA34700-4. 1.1 JA34700-4.4 JA34700-4.4 JA34700-4.4 JA34700-4.4 Amce JoshiOrganics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina Pandya Extract Freezer Nina Pandya GCM SF Larisa Pejdah Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina PandyaExtract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF Larisa Pejdah GCMSM Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. EspanaSecured Storage 12/10/09 08:20 12/10/09 16:52 12/10/09 16:52 12/16/09 09:4312/16/09 09:43 12/17/09 11:05 12/17/09 11:05 12/23/09 14:13 12/23/09 14:13 12/29/09 00:36 12/29/09 00:36 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 Extract from JA34700-4.1 Extract from JA34700-4.1 Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Load on Instrument Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage JA34700-5.1 Secured StorageJA34700-5. l Amce Joshi ,Amce Joshi12/10/09 08:19 Retrieve from Storage 12/10/09 16:51 Depleted43 of 162 GJA3 CUTE9 JA34700 Accutest Internal Chain of Custody Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Received:

12/08/09 Page 3 of 3 Sample.Bottle Transfer Transfer Number FROM TO Date/Time Reason JA34700-5.

1.1 JA34700-5.

1.1JA34700-5. 1.1 JA34700-5.

1.1 JA34700-5.

1. 1 JA34700-5.

1.1JA34700-5. 1.1JA34700-5. 1.1 JA34700-5.

1.1 JA34700-5.

1.1 JA34700-5.

1.1 JA34700-5.4 JA34700-5.4 JA34700-5.4

JA34700-5.4 Amce Joshi Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina Pandya Extract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF'Larisa Pejdah Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina Pandya Extract Freezer Nina Pandya GCMSF Larisa Pejdah GCMSM Tatiana G. Espana GCMS1A Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage 12/10/09 08:20 12/10/09 16:52 12/10/09 16:52 12/16/09 09:43 12/16/09 09:43 12/17/09 11:05 12/17/09 11:05 12/23/09 14:13 12/23/09 14:13 12/29/09 00:36 12/29/09 00:36 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 Extract from JA34700-5.1 Extract from JA34700-5.1 Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Load on Instrument Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage JA34700-6.2 Secured Storage JA34700-6.2 Amce Joshi Amce Joshi12/10/09 08:19 Retrieve from Storage 12/10/09 16:51 Depleted JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1

JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.2.1 JA34700-6.4 JA34700-6.4 JA34700-6.4 JA34700-6.4 JA34700-7.4 JA34700-7.4 JA34700-7.4 JA34700-7.4 Amce Joshi Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina Pandya Extract FreezerLarisa Pejdah Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMSIA Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCMS1A Tatiana G. Espana Organics Prep Amce Joshi Extract Storage Nina Pandya GCMSF Nina PandyaExtract Freezer Larisa Pejdah GCMSM Tatiana G. Espana GCMSlA Tatiana G. EspanaSecured Storage Tatiana G. Espana GCM51A Tatiana G. Espana Secured Storage 12/10/09 08:20 12/10/09 16:52 12/10/09 16:52 12/16/09 09:43 12/16/09 09:43 12/17/09 11:05 12/17/09 11:05 12/29/09 00:36 12/29/09 00:36 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 12/15/09 11:01 12/15/09 11:01 12/16/09 11:24 12/16/09 11:24 Extract from JA34700-6.2 Extract from JA34700-6.2 Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage Retrieve from Storage Load on Instrument Unload from Instrument Return to Storage E 44 of162 QACw~rEBT.

JA34700 19 ...New Jersey:...... ... .... ... .... ... .... ... ....." 3. ! ' : " Section 5 GC/MS Volatiles QC Data Summaries Includes the following where applicable:

• Method Blank Summaries

• Blank Spike Summaries* Matrix Spike and Duplicate Summaries* Instrument Performance Checks (BFB)* Internal Standard Area Summaries* Surrogate Recovery SummariesInitial and Continuing Calibration Summaries JA34700 i. ;, ,I",,ý Raw Data: Method Blank Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch V1A3576-MB 1A83950.D 1 12/15/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 CAS No. Compound 67-64-1 Acetone 71-43-2 Benzene 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 75-25-2 Bromoform 74-83-9 Bromomethane 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK)75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 75-00-3 Chloroethane 67-66-3 Chloroform 74-87-3 Chloromethane 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 75-34-3 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 75-35-4 1, 1-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 trans- 1, 2-Dichloroethene 540-59-0 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 10061-01-5 cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 trans- 1, 3-Dichloropropene 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 591-78-6 2-Hexanone 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 75-09-2 Methylene chloride 100-42-5 Styrene 79-34-5 1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 108-88-3 Toluene Result RL MDL Units Q 10 1.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 10 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 ug/l 0.23 ug/l 0.22 ug/l 0.23 ug/l 0.30 ug/l 1.6 ug/l 0.74 ug/l 0.26 ug/l 0.39 ug/I 0.37 ug/l 0.23 ug/l 0.29 ug/l 0.22 ug/l 0.29 ug/l 0.33 ug/l 0.40 ug/l 0.22 ug/l 0.25 ug/I 0.22 ug/l 0.27 ug/l 0.25 ug/l0.21 ug/l 0.27 ug/11.4 ug/l 0.86 ug/l 0.30 ug/l 0.58 ug/l 0.24 ug/l 0.27 ug/l 0.30 ug/l 0.26 ug/l 0.23 ug/l 0.24 ug/h 0.44 ug/l 0.25 ug/l 71-55-6 1, 1. 1-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 79-01-6 Trichloroethene 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 1330-20-7 Xylene (total)ND 1.0 ND 1.0 ND 1.0 ND 1.0-ND 1.0 JA34700 Method Blank Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch V1A3576-MB 1A83950.D 1 12/15/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Limits U'1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 17060-07-0 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 105% ,'/11 51%1ý106%96%/o 76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%CAS No. Tentatively Identified Compounds R. T.Est. Conc. Units Q J.Total TIC, 'Volatile:0 ug/l MEl 47 of162 JA34700 Blank Spike Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 1 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch V1A3576-BS IA83951.D 1 12/15/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 CAS No. Compound Spike BSP BSP ug/I ug/I %67-64-1 Acetone 71-43-2 Benzene 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 75-25-2 Bromoform 74-83-9 Bromomethane 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK)75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 75-00-3 Chloroethane 67-66-3 Chloroform 74-87-3 Chloromethane 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 75-34-3 1, 1 -Dichloroethane 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 75-35-4 1, 1-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 cis- 1, 2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene 540-59-0 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 10061-01-5 cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 trans- 1,3-Dichloropropene 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 591-78-6 2-Hexanone 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 75-09-2 Methylene chloride 100-42-5 Styrene 79-34-5 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 108-88-3 Toluene 71-55-6 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 79-01-6 Trichloroethene 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 1330-20-7 Xylene (total)50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 43.8 46.5 57.6 55.3 48.9 46.8 43.9 56.6 51.9 47.7 52.3 49.1 53.3 49.3 56.9 45.3 50.7 46.2 97.0 50.5 51.9 53.6 48.9 44.5 44.2 45.3 49.9 46.1 52.0 48.2 56.3 51.4 52.6 47.0 88 93 115~:i1111 ?98 94 88 113 104 95 105~107, 99 114 91 101>92 97 10 1 104 107 98 89 91 100 92 104w 96'113 103<105 94 Limits51-151 75-122 77-128 67-141 53-152 64-130 59-140 75-148 76-124 54-147 77-124 46-144 76-132 72-124 66-150 61-132 71-119 71-123 71-121 75-120 77-124 75-132 77-124 58-136 63-135 69-122 78-126 66-125 70-136 76-126 77-136 75-123 79-126 56-146 150 152 101 77-125 M5 48 of162 QACCUrrEST JA34700 -L`:.t11i ,

Blank Spike Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch V1A3576-BS 1A83951.D 1 12/15/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 U'The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 17060-07-0 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene BSP 107%1 16%105%96%Limits 76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%MR 49 of162 QACUTE6rMT.

JA34700 L Matrix Spike SummaryJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch JA34700-1MS 1A83952.D 1 12/15/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 JA34700-1 1A83955.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 JA34700-1 Spike ug/l Q ug/l MS MS ug/! %CAS No. Compound Limits 67-64-1 Acetone ND 71-43-2 Benzene ND 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane ND 75-25-2 Bromoform ND 74-83-9 Bromomethane ND 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) ND 75-15-0 Carbon disulfide ND 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride ND 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene ND 75-00-3 Chloroethane ND 67-66-3 Chloroform ND 74-87-3 Chloromethane ND 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane ND 75-34-3 1, 1-Dichloroethane ND 107-06-2 1.2-Dichloroethane ND 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 156-60-5 trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene ND 540-59-0 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) ND 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 10061-01-5 cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene ND 10061-02-6 trans-, ,3-Dichloropropene ND 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 591-78-6 2-Hexanone ND 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

ND 75-09-2 Methylene chloride ND 100-42-5 Styrene ND 79-34-5 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene ND 108-88-3 Toluene ND 71-55-6 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane ND 79-00-5 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND 79-01-6 Trichloroethene ND 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride ND 1330-20-7 Xylene (total) ND 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 44.3 89 44-157 44.6 89 38-139 54.8 110 .70-135 51.1 102 53-139 41.0 82 44-150 50.4 101 58-140 36.8 .34-136 48.9 98 50-161 50.7 101 65-128 40.9 82 151 49.2 98 66-132 39.5 79¢: 35-149 52.5 105 67-134 46.5 93 59-132 57.6 59-153 38.7 77 41-144 47.6 95 57-131 43.4 87 55-131 91.0 91 56-131 49.6 i99 67-125 50.7 101 68-126 53.2 106..68-134 47.1 '94 : 37-143 46.0 92 53-145 48.6 :97.. .!57-141 43.9 88 59-129 48.0 96 60-135 47.8 96?62-126 49.0 98 48-145 46.4 93 44-141 50.2 '100 55-149 50.6 101 70-127 49.9 100 53-141 38.0 '76 34-151 144 36-144:B 50 of162 GJACCUTEST.

JA34700 C .i! ,L Matrix Spike Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch JA34700-IMS 1A83952.D 1 12/15/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 JA34700-1 1A83955.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 0w The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 17060-07-0 1, 2-Dichloroethane-D4 2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene MS 105%116%960/6 JA34700-1 Limits 108%116%106%/941%76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%51 of162 JA34700 Lt '

Duplicate Summary Page I of 2 Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch JA34700-2DUP 1A83954.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 JA34700-2 1A83956.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 JA34700-2 DUP CAS No. Compound ug/l Q ug/I Q RPD Limits 67-64-1 Acetone ND ND nic 11 71-43-2 Benzene ND ND inc 11 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane ND ND nic 10 75-25-2 Bromoform ND ND nc 10 74-83-9 Bromomethane ND ND 1nC 10 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) ND ND nc 10 75-15-0 Carbon disulfide ND ND nc -10 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride ND ND .Cnc : 10 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene ND ND nc 10 75-00-3 Chloroethane ND ND nc 10 67-66-3 Chloroform ND ND nc 10 74-87-3 Chloromethane ND ND ric 10 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane ND ND nc 10 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND nc 11 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND nc 10 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene ND ND n1c 10 156-59-2 cis-1, 2-Dichloroethene ND ND '_nc 17 156-60-5 trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND nci 10 540-59-0 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) ND ND nc 14 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND nc 10 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND nc 10 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND ND nc 10 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND ND nc 10 591-78-6 2-Hexanone ND ND nc 10 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK)

ND ND nc 10 75-09-2 Methylene chloride ND ND inc 10 100-42-5 Styrene ND ND n1c 10 79-34-5 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND nc 10 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene ND ND nc 10 108-88-3 Toluene ND ND nc 14 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND nc 10 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND ND nc 10 79-01-6 Trichloroethene ND ND nci 13 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride ND ND nC 15 1330-20-7 Xylene (total) ND ND .n1c 14 S 52 of 162 JA34700 Tt --t Duplicate SummaryJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch JA34700-2DUP 1A83954.1D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a VIA3576 JA34700-2 1A83956.D 1 12/16/09 TGE n/a n/a V1A3576 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8260B JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6, JA34700-7 U'CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 17060-07-0 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene DUP 114%105%~95%K/JA34700-2 Limits 11 :06%'I103%'.76-120%64-135%76-117%72-122%:M5 53 of162~Ahcixr.Ls JA34700 Instrument Performance Check (BFB)Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of I Sample: VIA3533-BFB Injection Date: 11/17/09 Lab File ID: IA82945.D Injection Time: 10:11 Instrument ID: GCMS1A Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 50 14.99 -40.0% of mass 95 20144 ::21.0 Pass 75 30.0 -60.0% of mass 95 45882 47.8 Pass 95 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 95968 100.0 Pass 96 5.0 -9.0% of mass 95 6101 6.4 Pass 173 Less than 2.0% of mass 174 0 0.0 (0.0) a Pass 174 50.0 -120.0% of mass 95 109322 113.9 Pass 175 5.0 -9.0% of mass 174 8642 9.0 (7.9) a Pass 176 95. 0- 101.0% of mass 174 106992 111.5 Pass 17.7 5.0 -9.0% of mass 176 7047 7.3 (6:6) b Pass (a) Value is % of mass 174 (b) Value is % of mass 176 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Sample ID Lab File ID Date Time Hours Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Client Sample ID V1A3533-1C3533 VIA3533-1C3533 V1A3533-1C3533 VIA3533-1C3533 V1A3533-1CC3533 VIA3533-1C3533 V1A3533-IC3533 V1A3533-IC3533 VIA3533-1CV3533 1A82946.D 1A82947.D lA82949.D I A82950. D IA82951I.D1 A82952. D IA82953.D lA82955.D IA82956.D 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 11/17/09 10:39 11:08 12:06 12:35 13:04 13:33 14:02 16:07 16:59 00:28 00:57 01:55 02:24 02:53 03:22 03:51 05:56 06:48 Initial cal 0.5 Initial cal I Initial cal 5 Initial cal 20 Initial cal 50 Initial cal 100 Initial cal 200 Initial cal 2 Initial cal verification 50:Gl 54 of162 MACCUTEST.

JA34700 I1 .L Instrument Performance Check (BFB) Page 1 of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: V1A3576-BFB Injection Date: 12/15/09 Lab File ID: 1A83947.D Injection Time: 20:38 Instrument ID: GCMS1A Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 50 15.0 -40.0% of mass 95 26706 25.0 Pass:75 30.0 -60.0% of mass 95 57906 54.2 Pass 95 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 106834 100.0 Pass 6 .5.0 -9.0% of mass 95 7076 i6.6, ; : Pass 173 Less than 2.0% of mass 174 0 0.0 Pass 174 50.0- 120.0% of mass 95 119952 112.3 Pass 175 5.0- 9.0% of mass 174 10484 9.8 (8.7) Pass 176 95.0- 101.0% of mass 174 116266 108.8 (96.9)a Pass ,177 5.0 -9.0% of mass 176 7973 7.5 Pass (a) Value is % of mass 174 (b) Value is % of mass 176This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID VIA3576-CC3533 1A83948.D 12/15/09 21:35 00:57 Continuing cal 50 VIA3576-MB 1A83950.D 12/15/09 22:34 01:56 Method Blank VIA3576-BS IA83951.D 12/15/09 23:03 02:25 Blank Spike JA34700-1MS IA83952.D 12/15/09 23:32 02:54 Matrix Spike JA34700-2DUP 1A83954.D 12/16/09 00:31 03:53 Duplicate JA34700-1 IA83955.D 12/16/09 01:00 04:22 AZ JA34700-2 1A83956.D 12/16/09 01:28 04:50 BV JA34700-3 IA83957.D 12/16/09 01:57 05:19 X JA34700-4 IA83958.D 12/16/09 02:27 05:49 AY JA34700-5 IA83959.D 12/16/09 02:56 06:18 FB-128200A JA34700-6 1A83960.D 12/16/09 03:26 06:48 YY JA34700-7 1A83960.D 12/16/09 03:55 07:17 TRIP BLANK ZZZZZZ 1A83962.D 12/16/09 04:24 07:46 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83963.D 12/16/09 04:53 08:15 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83964.D 12/16/09 05:23 08:45 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ IA83965.D 12/16/09 05:52 09:14 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83966.D 12/16/09 06:21 09:43 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83967.D 12/16/09 06:50 10:12 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83968.D 12/16/09 07:20 10:42 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83969.D 12/16/09 07:49 11:11 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 1A83970.D 12/16/09 08:18 11:40 (unrelated sample): 55 of 162 JA34700 Volatile Internal Standard Area Summary Page 1 of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Check Std: VIA3576-CC3533 Injection Date: 12/15/09 Lab File ID: 1A83948.D Injection Time: 21:35 Instrument ID: GCMSIA Method: SW846 8260B ISI IS2 IS3 IS4 IS5 AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT CheckStd.

134758 8.16 313076 10.58 393 , 853 11.55 366 , 696 14.89 23208,84' 17.37 Upper Limita 269516 8.66 i626152 11.08 787706 12.05 73-3392 15.39 464168 17.87 Lower Limitb :!67379 7.66 156538 10.08 196927 11.05 183348 14.39 116042 16.87 Lab IS1 IS2 1S3 IS4 IS5 Sample ID AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT VIA3576-MB

'128573 8.15 '350215 10.59 421686 11.55 .384780 14.89 -'57880:'

17.37 VIA3576-BS 130304 8.16 311745: 10.59 394920 11.55 369131 14.89 240731 17.37 JA34700-IMS 152715 8.16 ý319375 10.58 400627 11.55 370044 14.89 237318 17.37 JA34700-2DUP 138369 8.16 354822 10.58 424396. 11.55 388606 14.89 261911 17.37 JA34700-1 136815 8.16 336036.. 10.59 400905 11.54 3685514 14.89 254558 17.37 JA34700-2 143243 8.16 332283' 10.59 399901 11.55 365034 14.89 249863, 17.37 JA34700-3 149885 8.15 329315 10.59 391634 11.54 362263 14.88 246988 17.37 JA34700-4 137313 8.16 334651 10.59 399119 11.55 364055 14.88 248826 17.37 JA34700-5 135830 8.15 326021 10.59 393941 11.55 357282 14.89 249384 17.37 JA34700-6 125820 8.15 330919 10.58 390897 11.54 361924 14.89 246112>. 17.37 JA34700-7 139309< 8.16 318856 10.58 386568 11.55 3521i50 14.88 248913 17.37 ZZZZZZ 131526 8.15 32108i 10.59 382574 11.55 350061 14.88 246799 17.37 ZZZZZZ 130945 8.16 315635 10.58 380717 11.55 :352327. 14.89 239262 17.37 ZZZZZZ 142819 8.15 316629 10.59 378449 11.55 347372 14.89 241269 17.37 ZZZZZZ 135362i 8.16 320043 10.59 376322) 11.54 346400 14.88 17.37 ZZZZZZ '129555.'

8.15 313161 10.59 375363 11.54 344460 14.89 246294 17.37 ZZZZZZ 140335 8.15 324210 10.59 380576 11.55 352772 14.88 246655,, 17.37 ZZZZZZ 1 21660 8.15 10.58 374791 11.55 345788 14.89 240907 17.37 ZZZZZZ 131991 8.15 !316909 10.58 376997 11.55 '3 48 8380' 14.89 '239917 17.37 ZZZZZZ 143191 8.15 307632 10.59 365604 11.54 340396 14.89 234670 ' 17.37 IS I = Tert Butyl Alcohol-D9 IS 2 = Pentafluorobenzene IS 3 = 1.4-Difluorobenzene IS 4 = Chlorobenzene-D5IS 5 = 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 (a) Upper Limit = + 100% of check standard area; Retention time + 0.5 minutes.(b) Lower Limit

= -50% of check standard area; Retention time -0.5 minutes.

S56 of 162 gAcCuTEST1 JA34700 ýiT-!II' Volatile Surrogate Recovery SummaryJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 1 of I Method: SW846 8260B Matrix: AQhod Samples and QC shown here apply to the above method Lab Sample ID JA34700-1 JA34700-2 JA34700-3 JA34700-4 JA34700-5 JA34700-6.

JA34700-7 JA34700-1 MS JA34700-2DUP VIA3576-BS VIA3576-MB Lab File ID 1A83955.D 1A83956.D IA83957.D 1A83958.D IA83959.D IA83960.D 1A83961.D IA83952.D IA83954.D 1A83951.D 1A83950.D S1 S2 S3 S4 108.0 106.0.107.0.105.0 109.0 105. 0 109.0 105.0>1.06.0 107.0?.105.i0.

Recovery Limits~7ý,206120.

64- 13 5%/76-117%72- 122%), 116.0 117.0 117.0 115.0 118.0 115.0 119.0 116.0 114.0 116.0 115.0 106.0.103.0 106.0 105.0 104.0 105.0 106.0 105.0(1.05. 0 1 05. 094.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 93.0 96.0 92.0 96.0 95.0 96.0 96.0 Surrogate Compounds S1 = Dibromofluoromethane S2 = 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 S3 = Toluene-D8S4 = 4-Bromofluorobenzene 57of16 MA~CCUTEST.

JA34700 i 'LI'I' Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: V1A3533-ICC3533 Lab FilelD: 1A82951.D Response Factor Report MSIA Method Title Last Update Response via C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M1A3533.M (RTE Integrator)

Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25mmxl.4um Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Initial Calibration Calibration Files 1 =IA82947.D 20 =IA82950.D 0.5 =IA82946.D200 =1A82953.D 100 =1A82952.D 5 =lA82949.D 50 2=1A82951.

D=IA82955.D Compound 1 0.5 100 50 20 200 5 2 Avg %RSD 1)2)3)tert butyl alcohol-d9

---

ISTD---------------------

tertiary but 1.142 1.179 1.213 1.227 1.188 1.190 Ethanol 0.137 0.128 0.153 0.200 0.177 0.281 0.179-Quadratic regression Coefficient

-Response Ratio = 0.02322 + 0.18459 *A + -0.00290 *A^2 2.78 31.41 0.9976 4) 1,4-dioxane 0.086 0.086 0.079 0.089 0.069 0.205 0.102 49.82-Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9915 Response Ratio 0.00636 + 0.08546 *A 5) I pentafluorobenzene

---

ISTO-----------------------

6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)16)17)18)19)20)21)22)23)24)25)26)27)28)29)30)31)32)33)34)35)36)37)38)39)chlorodifluo dichlorodifi chloromethan vinyl chlori bromomethane chloroethane trichloroflu ethyl ether 0.468 0.753 0.606 0.404 0.280 0.754 0.572 0.380 0.285 0.700 0.539 0.603 0.829 0.680 0.373 0.313 0.820 0.231 acrolein 0.089 0.078 1,1-dichloro 0.270 acetone allyl chlori acetonitrile iodomethane carbon disul 0.959 methylene ch methyl aceta 0.315 0.290 methyl tert 0.935 trans-1,2-di 0.319 0.320 di-isopropyl 1.243 1.388 2-butanone 1,1-dichloro 0.602 0.628 0.364 0.169 0.193 0.045 0.811 1.161 0.372 0.385 1.208 0.354 1.399 0.046 0.664 0.641 0.174 0.066 1.356 0. 067 0.623 0.400 0.497 0.068 0.233 0.168 0.435 0.587 0.636 0.831 0.681 0.384 0.323 0.847 0.244 0.102 0.385 0.200 0.210 0.050 0.851 1.255 0.395 0.399 1.268 0.386 1.512 0.046 0.724 0.699 0.186 0.069 1.435 0.071 0.672 0.430 0.513 0.070 0.247 0.175 0.466 0.575 0.601 0.803 0.659 0.383 0.325 0.825 0.229 0.096 0.361 0.204 0.199 0.054 0.806 1.184 0.378 0.396 1.202 0.371 1.530 0.043 0. 699 0. 697 0.176 0.064 1.416 0.066 0.656 0.413 0.488 0.067 0.235 0.172 0.447 0.545 0.600 0.691 0.643 0.285 0.292 0.791 0.218 0.343 0.175 0.186 0.044 0.781 1.107 0.360 0.375 1.164 0.338 1.385 0.045 0.638 0.647 0.165 0.067 1.369 0.062 0.591 0.384 0.485 0.066 0.226 0.162 0.420 0.552 0.552 0.789 0.651 0.396 0.327 0.835 0.226 0.087 0.368 0.234 0.197 0.059 0.802 1.212 0.399 0.418 1.238 0.383 1.557 0.035 0.726 0.714 0.190 0.056 1.446 0.060 0.670 0.410 0.493 0.072 0.232 0.182 0.456 0.497 0.549 0.485 0.564 0.778 0.782 0.635 0.641 0.411 0.377 0.337 0.310 0.866 0.805 0.223 0.229 0.091 0.378 0.352 0.196 0.186 0.195 0.051 0.755 0.8011.195 1.1530.401 0.384 0.441 0.377 1.222 1.177 0.376 0.3561.551 1.446 0.0430.721 0.675 0.712 0.658 0.195 0.177 0.065 1.394 1.363 0.0650.673 0.640 0.420 0.385 0.494 0.495 0.084 0.071 0.218 0.224 0.214 0.177 0.470 0.435 5.74 11.44 6.20 5.79 10.41 6.97 6.78 3.88 9.90 11.05 13.27 4.60 12.68 3.98 8.39 4.37 13.51 9.45 7.74 7.64 10.27 7.25 8.72 8.33 7.76 6.78 6.63 5.69 12.40 2. 00 9.25 10.05 9. 97 7.10 chioroprene acrylonitril vinyl acetat ethyl tert-b ethyl acetat 2,2-dichloro cis-1,2-dich methylacryla propionitril bromochlorom tetrahydrofu chloroform 0.561 0. 153 0.594 1.156 1.330 0.583 0.651 0.319 0.304 0.177 0.166 0.389 0.395 58 of162.1ACCLJTEST.

JA34700 CIL ýI,,ýzý Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: V1A3533-ICC3533 Lab FilelD: I A8295 1. D 40)41)42)43)44)45)46)47)T-BUTYL FORM dibromofluor 1,2-dichloro freon 113 methacryloni 1,1,1-trichl cyclohexane iso-butyl al 0.395 0.275 0.356 0.527 0.455 0.396 0.4570.337 0.343 0.424 0.392 0.298 0.529 0.658 0.366 0.512 0..005 0.484 0.390 0.480 0.408 0.306 0.693 0.550 0.005 0.479 0.360 0.454 0.396 0.294 0.658 0.503 0.005 0.462 0.375 0.462 0.394 0.293 0.632 0.497 0.005 0.492 0.362 0.451 0.411 0.290 0.664 0.531 0.003 0.460 0.359 0.454 0.394 0.289 0 .667 0.516 0.453 0.350 0.440 0.399 0.295 0. 628 0.491 0.005#8.31 9.91 9.21 2.01 2.15 10.23 11.73 16.39 L,----- Linear regression Coefficient 0.9998 Response Ratio = -0.00052 + 0.00497 *A 48) I 1,4-difluorobenzene

---

ISTD-----------------------

49)50)51)52)53)54)55)56)57)58)59)60)61)62)63)64)65)66)67) 68)69)70)71)72)73)74)75)epichlorohyd n-butyl alco carbon tetra 1,1-dichloro hexane benzene tert-amyl me heptane isopropyl ac 1,2-dichloro trichloroeth 2-nitropropa 2-chloroethy methyl metha 1,2-dichloro dibromometha methylcycloh bromodichlor cis-1,3-dich toluene-d8 (4-methyl-2-p toluene 3-methyl-l-b trans-i,3-di ethyl methac 1,l,.2-trichl 2-hexanone 0.421 0.328 0.353 0.878 0.184 0.172 0.463 0.324 0.345 0.978 0.171 0.036 0.010 0.468 0.367 0.384 1.017 0.210 0.190 0.642 0.446 0.309 0.371 0.407 0.250 0.213 0.166 0.233 0.140 0.423 0.337 0.374 0.881 0.597 0.370 0.271 0.152 0.162 0.192 0.191 0.230 0.281 0.192 0.409 0.464 0.283 0.426 0.380 0.469 0.889 0.138 0.664 0.663 0.016 0.360 0.451 0.363 0.216 0.120 0.037 0.010 0.500 0.392 0.426 1.077 0.224 0.210 0.666 0.473 0.322 0.202 0.200 0.299 0.198 0.500 0.441 0.482 1.007 0.138 0. 694 0.016 0.467 0.371 0.221 0.134 0.037 0.010 0.487 0.379 0.428 1.041 0.223 0.202 0.659 0.454 0.313 0.201 0.185 0.291 0.191 0.495 0.420 0.458 0.947 0.133 0.655 0.017 0.435 0.348 0.207 0.127 0.037 0.010 0.440 0.353 0.391 0.971 0.211 0.196 0. 648 0.424 0.295 0.190 0.183 0.266 0.184 0.464 0.412 0.457 0.955 0.135 0.645 0.016 0.438 0.355 0.210 0.1190.038 0.0440.010 0.012 0.516 0.5060.389 0.3850.439 0.443 1.080 1.0970.241 0.245 0.214 0.220 0.704 0.469 0.451 0.309 0.314 0.207 0.184 0.299 0.197 0.506 0.420 0.468 0. 955 0.139 0.694 0.017 0.456 0.365 0.211 0.129 0.192 0.161 0.274 0.185 0.499 0.410 0.464 0.966 0.134 0.684 0.449 0.349 0.210 0.118 0.038 0.010 0.475 0.365 0.401 1.017 0.213 0.201 0. 664 0.437 0.291 0. 000#0.189 0.184 0.272 0.184 0.470 0.394 0.444 0.943 0.136.0. 662 0.016 0.428 0.346 0.204 0 .124 8.04 10.02 7.03 7.39 9.61 7.19 12.11 8.17 3.67 7 .87 13.25-1.00 8.68 7.00 10.05 10.81 7.90 13.87 9.49 4.69 1.78 4.79 3.18 9.40 9.87 11.53 5.14 8.83 9.04 4.75 3.69 9.23 12.28 9.32 11.72 6.23 6.48 9.52 10.80 14.00 8.21 12.02 4.27 76) I chlorobenzene-d5

---

ISTD-----------------------

77)78)79)80)81)82)83)84)85)86)87) 88)89)90)91)92)93)tetrachloroe 1,3-dichloro butyl acetat 3,3-DIMETHYL dibromochlor 1,2-dibromoe chlorobenzen 1,1,1,2-tetr ethylbenzene m,p-xylene o-xylene styrene bromoform 0.290 0.293 0.395 0.365 0.360 0.261 0.730 0.312 1.271 0.482 0.483 0.776 0.280 0.328 0.239 0.713 0.297 1.320 0.528 0.490 0.767 0.247 0.338 0.446 0.212 0.039 0.422 0.331 0.898 0.391 1.414 0.556 0.597 0.971 0.368 0.365 0.469 0.225 0.041 0.437 0.341 0. 927 0.410 1.504 0.585 0. 627 1. 022 0.376 2.653 0.715 0.005 0.350 0.451 0.227 0.041 0.414 0.324 0.869 0.395 1.455 0.571 0.594 0.974 0.346 0.320 0.418 0.216 0.043 0.403 0.319 0.864 0.371 1.346 0.544 0.595 0.948 0.365 0.356 0.463 0.242 0.043 0.426 0.339 0.884 0.413 1.478 0.589 0.606 0.991 0.361 0.358 0.477 0.220 0.407 0.316 0.873 0.383 1.494 0.576 0.590 0.994 0.324 0.334 0.435 0.224 0.041 0.400 0.309 0.845 0.372 1.410 0.554 0.573 0.930 0.334 I 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d isopropylben 2.047 2.173 2.460 4-bromofluor 0.611 cyclohexanon 0.005-----ISTD---------------------2.497 2.344 2.479 2.485 2.392 0.657 0.652 0.749 0.846 0.705 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005#59 of 162 GJACCUTEST.

JA34700 T; ;: ,i s Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample: VIA3533-ICC3533 Lab FilelD: 1A82951.D 94)95)96)97)98)99)100)101)102)103)104)105)106)107)108)109)110)111)112)113)114)115)116)117)118)bromobenzene 1,1,2,2-tetr trans-i,4-di 1,2,3-trichl n-propylbenz 2-chlorotolu 4-chlorotolu 1,3,5-trimet tert-butylbe pentachloroe 1,2,4-trimet sec-butylben 1,3-dichloro p-isopropylt 1,4-dichloro benzyl chlor 1,2-dichloro 0.614 0.592 0.554 0.519 0.144 2.210 0.519 1.358 1.668 1.573 0.453 1.720 2.113 1.162 1.951 1.196 1.349 1.150 2.299 0.489 1.428 1.676 0.395 1.682 2.228 1.115 1.975 1.137 1.259 0.982 0.734 0.644 0.236 0.182 2.639 0. 627 1. 678 2.142 2.392 0.570 2.188 2.835 1.437 2.609 1.458 1'. 513 1.499 1.187 0.184 1.557 1.452 0.716 3.006 1.266 0. 635 0.785 0.666 0.232 0.191 2.855 0.676 1.771 2.250 2.454 0.582 2.281 2.918 1.469 2.658 1.477 1.578 1.516 1.218 0.187 1.653 1.546 0.794 3.201 1.343 0.633 0.737 0.618 0.217 0.179 2.704 0.633 1.640 2.089 2.223 0.548 2.136 2.728 1.382 2.519 1.404 1.533 1.423 1.116 0.169 1.471 1.375 0.727 2.930 1.216 0.593 0.703 0.609 0.214 0.173 2.530 0.614 1.624 2.082 2.300 0.547 2.097 2.723 1.381 2.529 1.417 1.519 1.429 1.155 0.170 1.400 1.308 0.640 2.698 1.157 0.605 0.750 0.680 0.204 0.188 2.778 0.631 1.700 2.093 2.168 0.557 2.126 2.588 1.375 2.402 1.336 1.558 1.359 1.049 0.175 1.309 1.220 0.656 2.776 1.106 0.528 0.792 0.713 0.663 0.619 0.221 0.180 0.177 2.940 2.619 0.637 0.603 1.721 1.615 2.105 2.013 2.267 2.197 0.530 0.523 2.253 2.060 2.886 2.627 1.487 1.351 2.600 2.405 1.487 1.364 1.634 1.493 1.478 1.355 1.292 1.169 0.181 0.170 1.946 1.556 1.380 0.707 2.922 1.218 0.557 0.568 10.38 9.23 5.98 8.88 9.88 10.66 9.01 10. 80 13.28 12 .41 11.20 11.50 10.22 11 79 9. 65 8.37 14.03 7.19 12.28 14.48 9.13 8.66 6.77 7. 60 13.05 n-butylbenze 1,2-dibromo-0.125 1,3,5-TRICHL 1,2,4-trichl hexachlorobu naphthalene 1,2,3-trichl hexachloroet 0.425 (#) = Out of Range ### Number of calibration levels exceeded format ###MIA3533.M Fri Nov 20 15:06:31 2009 MSIA 60 of 162 Initial Calibration VerificationJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: VIA3533-ICV3533 Lab FileID: 1A82956.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\lA82956.D Acq On 17 Nov 2009 4:59 pm Sample ICV3533-50 Misc MS88590,VlA3533,w,,,,I MS Integration Params: rteint.p Vial: 1 Operator:

TATIANAE Inst : MSlA Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\l\METHODS\MIA3533.M (RTE Integrator)

Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um Wed Nov 18 08:10:34 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.010 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area

200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.1 tert butyl alcohol-d9 2 M tertiary butyl alcohol 3 Ethanol4 M 1,4-dioxane 1.000 1.000 1.190 1.168 True Calc.00.000 4167.991 50.000 1044.607 0.0 99 0.00 8.16 1.8 98 0.00 8.30 50 12% Drift 16.6 16.4 88 0.00 6.74 85 0.00 12.31 5 1 6 M 7 M8 M9 M 10 M 11 M 12 M 13 M 14 M 15 M 16 M 17 M 18 M 19 M 20 M 21 M 22 M 23 M 24 M 25 M 26 M 27 M 28 M 29 M 30 M 31 M 32 M 33 M 34 M 35 36 M 37 M pentafluorobenzene chlorodifluoromethane dichlorodifluoromethane chloromethane vinyl chloride bromomethane chloroethane trichlorofluoromethane ethyl ether acrolein 1,1-dichloroethene acetone allyl chloride acetonitrile iodomethane carbon disulfide methylene chloride methyl acetate methyl tert butyl ether trans-l,2-dichloroethene di-isopropyl ether 2-butanone 1,1-dichloroethane chloroprene acrylonitrile vinyl acetate ethyl tert-butyl ether ethyl acetate 2,2-dichloropropane cis-1,2-dichloroethene methylacrylate propionitrile bromochloromethane AvgRF 1.000 0.549 0.564 0.782 0.641 0.377 0.310 0.805 0.229 0.091 0.352 0.196 0.195 0.051 0.801 1.153 0.384 0.377 1.177 0.356 1.446 0.043 0.675 0.658 0.177 0.065 1.363 0.065 0.640 0.385 0.495 0.071 0.224 CCRF 1.000 0.545 0. 623 0.910 0.746 0.419 0.359 0.885 0.264 0.128.0.398 0.180 0.225 0.048 0.882 1.249 0.414 0.392 1.320 0.396 1.450 0.049 0. 77.2 0. 657 0.184 0.066 1.374 0.062 0.727 0.456 0.532 0.069 0.257% Dev 0.0 0.7-10.5-16.4-16.4-11.1-15.8-9.9-15.3-40.7#-13.1 8.2-15.4 5.9-10.1-8.3

-7.8-4.0-12.1-11.2-0.3-14.0-14.4 0.2-4.0-1.5

-0.8 4.6-13.6-18.4-7.5 2.8-14.7 103 0.00 , 10.59 96 -0.01 4.25 101 0.00 4.23 113 -0.02 4.61 113 -0.02 4.89 112 -0.01 5.64 114 0.00 5.85 108 0.00 6.37 11 0.00 6.86 130 0.00 7.16 107 0.00 7.33 93 0.00 7.43 11 0.00 7.95 100 0.00 7.94 107 0.00 7.66 103 0.00 7.79 108 0.00 8.17 101 0.00 7.96 107 0.00 8.54 106 0.00 8.59 99 0.00 9.20 110 0.00 10.01 110 0.00 9.23 97 0.00 9.34 102 0.00 8.56 99 0.00 9.23 99 0.00 9.71 90 0.00 10.03 112 0.00 10.02 109 0.00 10.04 107 0.00 10.11 101 0.00 10.12 108 0.00 10.37 JA34700 E 't ,

Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: V1A3533-ICV3533 Lab FilelD: IA82956.D 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 M M M S S M M M M tetrahydrofuran chloroform T-BUTYL FORMATE dibromofluoromethane (s)1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s)freon 113 methacrylonitrile 1,1,1-trichloroethane cyclohexane 0.177 0.184 0.435 0.488 0.453 0.458 0.350 0.3740.440 0.457 0.399 0.382 0.295 0.319 0.628 0.721 0.491 0.517-------------------

True Calc.47 iso-butyl alcohol 500.000 546.907 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 1,4-difluorobenzene epichlorohydrin n-butyl alcohol carbon tetrachloride 1,1-dichloropropene hexane benzene tert-amyl methyl ether heptane isopropyl acetate 1,2-dichloroethane trichloroethene 2-nitropropane 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether methyl methacrylate 1,2-dichloropropane dibromomethane methylcyclohexane bromodichloromethane cis-1,3-dichloropropene toluene-d8 (s)4-methyl-2-pentanone toluene 3-methyl-l-butanol trans-1,3-dichloropropene ethyl methacrylate 1,1,2-trichloroethane 2-hexanone chlorobenzene-d5 tetrachloroethene 1,3-dichloropropane butyl acetate 3,3-DIMETHYL-1-BUTANOL dibromochloromethane 1,2-dibromoethane chlorobenzene 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane ethylbenzene m,p-xylene o-xylene styrene bromoform AvgRF 1.000 0.038 0.010 0.475 0.365 0.401 1.017 0.213 0.201 0.664 0.437 0.291 0.000 0.189 0.184 0.272 0.184 0.470 0.394 0.444 0.943 0.136 0. 662 0.016 0.428 0.346 0.204 0.124 1.000 0.334 0.435 0.224 0.041 0.400 0.309 0.845 0.372 1.410 0.554 0.573 0.930 0.334 CCRF 1.000 0.035 0.009#0.509 0.405 0.391 1.105 0.208 0.193 0.627 0.478 0.332 0.000#0.191 0.203 0.308 0.205 0.456 0.468 0.506 0.975 0.143 0.719 0.015 0.493 0.395 0.235 0.141 1.000 0.375 0.490 0.212 0.038 0.437 0.359 0.980 0.422 1.535 0.609 0.664 1.028 0.388-4.0-12.2-1.1-6.9-3.9 4.3-8.1-14.8-5.3% Drift-9.4% Dev 0.0 7.9 10.0-7.2-11.0 2.5-8.7 2.3 4.0 5.6-9.4-14.1 0.0-1.1-10.3-13.2-11.4 3.0-18.8-14.0-3.4-5.1-8.6 6.3-15.2-14.2-15.2-13.7 0.0-12.3-12.6 5.4 7.3-9.2-16.2-16.0-13.4-8.9-9.9-15.9-10.5-16.2 109 0.00 10.88 108 98 99 98 96 107 107 97 108 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.42 10.43 10.46 10.64 11.08 7.30 10.31 10.68 10.75 104 99 93 106 108 96 107 97 96 98 105 107 99 99 106 107 108 95 III 109 101 107 108 97 110 111 110 105 108 110 99 98 105 ill ill 108 107 110 112 106 109 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.55 12.87 11.70 10.90 10.88 8 .92 11.16 11.18 11.32 11. 08 11.18 11.90 13.10 12.73 12.19 12.18 12.35 12.12 12.49 12.97 13.27 13.07 13.35 13.10 13.57 13.55 13.79 13. 97 14 .89 13. 97 13.99 14.05 14.16 14.27 14.43 14.92 14 .98 14. 97 15.09 15.54 15.55 15.85 90 I 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d41.000 1.000 0.0 105 0.00 17.37 ME% 62 of 162 JA34700 L :t ýt"IIýý Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample: VIA3533-ICV3533 Lab FileID: IA82956.D 91 M 92 S 93 94 M 95 M 96 M 97 M 98 M 99 M 100 M 101 M 102 M 103 M 104 M 105 M 106 M 107 M 108 M 109 110 M il1 M 112 M 113 114 M 115 M 116 M 117 M 118 m isopropylbenzene 4-bromofluorobenzene (s)cyclohexanone bromobenzene 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane trans-l,4-dichloro-2-bute 1,2,3-trichloropropane n-propylbenzene 2-chlorotoluene 4-chlorotoluene 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene tert-butylbenzene pentachloroethane 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene sec-butylbenzene 1,3-dichlorobenzene p-isopropyltoluene 1,4-dichlorobenzene benzyl chloride 1,2-dichlorobenzene n-butylbenzene 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropa 1,3,5-TRICHLOROBENZENE 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene hexachlorobutadiene naphthalene 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene hexachloroethane 2.392 0.705 0.005 0.713 0.619 0.221 0. 177 2.619 0. 603 1.615 2.013 2.197 0.523 2.060 2 .627 1.351 2.405 1.364 1.493 1.355 1.169 0.170 1.556 1.380 0.707 2. 922 1.218 0.568 2.368 0.693 0.005#0.805 0.693 0.262 0.220 2.914 0.703 1.868 2.331 2.588 0.619 2.353 3.063 1.571 2.868 1.569 1.566 1.599 1.296 0.195 1.660 1.602 0.794 3.302 1.444 0.717 1.0 1.7 0.0-12.9

-12.0-18.6-24.3#-11.3-16.6-15.7-15.8-17 .8-18.4-14.2-16.6

-16.3-19.3

-15.0-4. 9-18.0-10.9-14 .7-6.7-16.1-12.3-13.0-18. 6-26.2#93 101 110 107 109 118 121 107 109 110 108 110 i11 108 110 112 113 ill 104 110 ill 109 105 108 105 108 113 118 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.90 16.12 16.24 16.34 16.23 16.28 16.32 16.33 16.50 16. 61 16.49 16.86 16.97 16.91 17.09 17.31 17 .22 17.40 17 .52 17 .84 17.67 18.75 18. 98 19. 84 19. 98 20.25 20.61 18 .14 (A (#) = Out of Range IA82951.D MIA3533.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Wed Nov 18 14:48:39 2009 MSlA MM 63 of162 12ACCLTEST.

.1A34700 T'L :: 1"Iýý'

Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: VIA3576-CC3533 Lab FileID: IA83948.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\IA83948.D Acq On : 15 Dec 2009 9:35 pm Sample : CC3533-50 Misc MS90188,V1A3576,w,,,,1 MS Integration Params: rteint.p Vial: 26 Operator:

TATIANAE Inst : MSlA Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MIA3533.M (RTE Integrator)

Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25rmxl.4um Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.010 Min. Rel. Area 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area 200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 tert butyl alcohol-d9 1.000 1.000 0.0 108 0.00 8.16 2 M tertiary butyl alcohol 1.190 1.166 2.0 107 0.00 8.29-----------------

True 3 Ethanol 5000.0004 M 1,4-dioxane 1250.000 Calc.5441.936 931.361% Drift-8.8 120 0.00 6.73 25.5# 84 0.00 12.30 5 1 6 M 7 M8 M9 M 10 M 11 M 12 M 13 M 14 M 15 M 16 M 17 M 18 M 19 M 20 M 21 M 22 M 23 M 24 M 25 M 26 M 27 M 28 M 29 M 30 M 31 M 32 M 33 M 34 M 35 36 M 37 M pentafluorobenzene chlorodifluoromethane dichlorodifluoromethane chloromethane vinyl chloride bromomethane chloroethane trichlorofluoromethane ethyl ether acrolein 1,1-dichloroethene acetone allyl chloride acetonitrile iodomethane carbon disulfide methylene chloride methyl acetate methyl tert butyl ether trans-l,2-dichloroethene di-isopropyl ether 2-butanone 1,1-dichloroethane chloroprene acrylonitrile vinyl acetate ethyl tert-butyl ether ethyl acetate 2,2-dichloropropane cis-1,2-dichloroethene methylacrylate propionitrile bromochloromethane AvgRF 1.000 0.549 0.564 0.782 0.641 0.377 0.310 0.805 0.229 0.091 0.352 0.196 0.195 0.051 0.801 1.153 0.384 0.377 1.177 0.356 1.446 0.043 0. 675 0. 658 0.177 0. 065 1 .363 0.065 0.640 0.385 0.495 0.071 0.224 CCRF 1.000 0.480 0.641 0.744 0.615 0.357 0.295 0. 914 0.224 0.086 0.305 0.166 0.184 0.042 0.784 1.133 0.338 0.349 1.184 0.342 1.444 0.039 0.652 0.655 0.152 0.056 1.320 0.059 0.615 0.377 0.448 0.059 0.227% Dev 0.0 12.6-13.7 4.9 4.1 5.3 4.8-13.5 2.2 5.5 13.4 15.3 5.6 17.6 2.1 1.7 12.0 7.4-0. 6 3.9 0.1 9.3 3.4 0.5 14.1 13.8 3.2 9.2 3.9 2.1 9.5 16.9-1.3 118 0.00 10.58 97 -0.01 4.25 119 0.00 4 .23 106 -0.01 4.61 107 -0.02 4.89 110 0.00 5.65 108 0.00 5.85 128 -0.03 6.35 109 0.00 6.86 100 0.00 7.16 94 0.00 7.33 98 0.00 7.43 104 -0.01 7.95 98 0.00 7.94 109 0.00 7.65 107 -0.01 7.79 101 0.00 8.17 103 0.00 7.95 110 0.00 8.53 105 -0.01 8.59 113 0.00 9.20 102 0.00 10.01 106 -0.01 9.22 11 0.00 9.34 97 0.00 8.56 95 0.00 9.23 109 0.00 9.71 98 0.00 10.03 108 0.00 10.02 103 0.00 10.03 103 0.00 10.11 99 0.00 10.11 109 -0.01 10.36 64 of162 UACCUrrEST JA34700 i ;L ' " ýI Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: *VIA3576-CC3533 Lab FilelD: lA83948.D 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 M M M S S M M M M tetrahydrofuran chloroform T-BUTYL FORMATE dibromofluoromethane (s)1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s)freon 113 methacrylonitrile 1,1,1-trichloroethane cyclohexane 0.177 0.435 0.453 0.350 0.440 0.399 0.295 0.628 0.491 0.161 0.440 0.437 0.375 0.502 0.358 0.274 0.708 0.475 9.0-1i.1 3.5-7.1-14.1 10.3 7.1-12.7 3.3 109 112 107 114 124 104 106 121 102 0.00 0.00 0.00-0.01-0.01-0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.41 10.43 10.45 10.64 11.08 7.30 10.31 10.68 10.75 10.88 (A b0o------------------

True Calc.47 iso-butyl alcohol 500.000 504.820 48 49 5o 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 1,4-difluorobenzene epichlorohydrin n-butyl alcohol carbon tetrachloride 1,l-dichloropropene hexane benzene tert-amyl methyl ether heptane isopropyl acetate 1,2-dichloroethane trichloroethene 2-nitropropane 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether methyl methacrylate 1,2-dichloropropane dibromomethane methylcyclohexane bromodichloromethane cis-l,3-dichloropropene toluene-d8 (s)4-methyl-2-pentanone toluene 3-methyl-l-butanol trans-l,3-dichloropropene ethyl methacrylate 1,1,2-trichloroethane 2-hexanone chlorobenzene-d5 tetrachloroethene 1,3-dichloropropane butyl acetate 3,3-DIMETHYL-I-BUTANOL dibromochloromethane 1,2-dibromoethane chlorobenzene 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane ethylbenzene m,p-xylene o-xylene styrene bromoform AvgRF 1.000 0.038 0.010 0.475 0.365 0.401 1.017 0.213 0.201 0.664 0. 437 0.291 0.000 0.189 0.184 0.272 0.184 0.470 0.394 0.444 0.943 0.136 0. 662 0.016 0.428 0.346 0.204 0.124 1.000 0.334 0.435 0.224 0.041 0.400 0.309 0.845 0.372 1.410 0.554 0.573 0.930 0.334 CCRF 1.000 0.032 0.009#0.543 0.378 0.356 0.957 0.214 0.189 0.813 0.502 0.306 0.000#0.218 0.173 0.271 0.191 0.428 0.443 0.452 0.989 0.122 0.651 0.016 0.465 0.337 0.205 0.105 1.000 0.358 0.436 0.203 0.038 0.431 0.320 0.888 0.404 1.411 0.556 0.590 0.955 0.361% Drift-1.0% Dev 0.0 15.8 10.0-14.3-3. 6 11.2 5.9-0.5 6.0-22.4#-14.9-5.2 0.0-15.3 6.0 0.4-3.8 8. 9-12.4-1. 8-4.9 10.3 1.7 0.0-8 .6 2.6-0.5 15.3 0.0-7.2-0.2 9.4 7.3-7.7-3.6-5.1-8.6-0.1-0.4-3.0-2.7-8.1 115 0.00 11.55 98 0.00 12.87 108 0.00 11.69 125 0.00 10.89 il 0.00 10.87 96 -0.01 8.91 102 0.00 11.15 110 0.00 11.18 103 0.00 11.32 140 0.00 11.08 122 0.00 11.18 109 -0.01 11.90 113 0.00 13.10 124 0.00 12.73 100 0.00 12.19 104 0.00 12.17 11 0.00 12.35 98 0.00 12.12 115 0.00 12.48 108 0.00 12.96 113 0.00 13.27 101 0.00 13.06 108 0.00 13.35 112 0.00 13.10 114 0.00 13.56 104 0.00 13.55 107 0.00 13.79 90 0.00 13.97 116 0.00 116 114 108 104 108 115 109 ill 114 109 110 109 108 Iil 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 .89 13. 97 13. 98 14 .04 14.16 14.27 14.43 14.92 14.98 14.97 15.08 15.53 15.54 15.84 90 I 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 1.000 1.000 0.0 117 0.00 17.37 65 of162 QACcLFFEST.

JA34700 Ii l-Iýt"'

Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island. Salem, NJ Sample: Lab FilelD: Page 3 of 3 VIA3576-CC3533 1A83948.D 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 ill 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 isopropylbenzene 4-bromofluorobenzene (s)cyclohexanone bromobenzene 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane trans-i,4-dichloro-2-bute 1,2,3-trichloropropane n-propylbenzene 2-chlorotoluene 4-chlorotoluene 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene tert-butylbenzene pentachloroethane 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene sec-butylbenzene 1,3-dichlorobenzene p-isopropyltoluene 1,4-dichlorobenzene benzyl chloride 1,2-dichlorobenzene n-butylbenzene 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropa 1,3,5-TRICHLOROBENZENE 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene hexachlorobutadiene naphthalene 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene hexachloroethane 2.392 0.705 0.005 0.713 0.619 0.221 0.177 2.619 0.603 1.615 2.013 2.197 0.523 2.060 2.627 1.351 2.405 1.364 1.493 1.355 1.169 0.170 1.556 1.380 0.707 2.922 1.218 0.568 2.498 0.674 0.005#0.751 0.575 0.210 0.186 2.618 0.626 1.706 2.139 2.138 0.572 2.182 2.736 1.408 2.568 1.424 1.275 1.460 1.129 0.179 1.561 1.482 0.764 2.834 1.300 0.617-4.4 4.4 0.0-5.3 7.1 5.0-5.1 0.0-3.8-5.6-6.3 2.7-9.4-5.9-4.1-4.2-6.8-4.4 14.6-7.7 3.4-5.3

-0.3-7.4-8.1 3.0-6.7-8.6 110 110 119 112 101 106 114 107 108 112 1il 102 115 112 109 112 113 112 94 112 108 1il 110 112 112 103 113 114 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.89 16.12 16.23 16.33 16.23 16.27 16.31 16.33 16.50 16.60 16.48 16.86 16.96 16.91 17.09 17.31 17.21 17.39 17 .52 17. 83 17. 67 18.75 18 .98 19. 83 19.98 20.24 20. 61 18.13 (#) = Out of Range IA82951.D MIA3533.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC'S out = 0 Wed Dec 16 14:33:23 2009 RPT1 66 of162 JA34700

.E2 New Jersey7 -.... ............

..... ....... .... ..... .... ....

.Section. 6 iGC/MS Volatiles Raw Data MO 67 of162 12ACCUTEST.

JA34700 Saniple RcsIts: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\l\DATA\

1A83955.D 16 Dec 2009 1:00 am TATIANAE JA34700-1 MS90193,VlA3576,w

.... 1 33 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 16 14:35:53 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1) tert butyl alcohol-d9 8.16 65 136815 5) pentafluorobenzene 10.59 168 336036 48) 1,4-difluorobenzene 11.54 114 400905 76) chlorobenzene-d5 14.89 117 368514 90) 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 17.37 152 254558 500.00 ug/L -0.01 50.00 ug/L 0.00 50.00 ug/L 0.00 50.00 ug/L 0.00 50.00 ug/L 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.26 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113-120 65-135 98-117 95-122 126897 53.92 Recovery =172344 58.24 Recovery =401764 53.14 Recovery 168572 46.95 Recovery =ug/L 0.00 107.84%ug/L 0.00 116.48%ug/L 0.00 106.28%ug/L 0.00 93.90%Target Compounds Qvalue signals summed (4) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+)MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 09:15:38 2009 RPTI Page: 1 ME2 68 of 162 JA3 CUTEMt JA34700 :,Io" ,

Sample Results: A Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\

lA83955.D 16 Dec 2009 1:00 am TATIANAE JA34700-1 MS90193,VlA3576,w,,,,l 33 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 16 14:35:53 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance 9500001 TIC: 1A83955.D F M 900000 850000 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 d)0 mc 0)0)4 a;4.450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 o.Wine--> 4.00 o m.0)5 o-e ,5 .0. 6 .0. .7. 0 .8... .9 .0 ..I .0 I ....I ...0 I ....1 ....I ...0 I ...I ....I ....I '2 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 09:15:38 2009 RPT1 Page: 269 of 162 JACCUTEST.

JA34700 -L:,I;t , 100600t, N 12 Sample Results: I Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path C:\MSDCHEM\l\DATA\

Data File IA83956.D Acq On : 16 Dec 2009 1:28 am Operator TATIANAE Sample JA34700-2 Misc MS90193,VlA3576,w,,,,l ALS Vial : 34 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 16 14:36:19 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25mnmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1) tert butyl alcohol-d9 8.16 65 143243 500.00 ug/L -0.01 5) oentafluorobenzene 10.59 168 332283 50.00 ug/L 0.00 48)76)90)1,4-difluorobenzene chlorobenzene-dS 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 11.55 14.89 17.37 114 399901 117 365034 152 249863 50.00 50.00 50.00 53.22 ug/L ug/L ug/L 0.00 0.00 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.27 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113-120 65-135 98-117 95-122 123838 Recovery =171168 58.50 Recovery 389439 51.64 Recovery =166302 47.19 ug/L 0.00 106.44%ug/L 0.00 117.00%ug/L 103.28%ug/L 0.00 0.00 Recovery = 94.38%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m)manual integration

(+) = signals summedMIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 09:15:38 2009 RPTI Page: 1 S70 of 162 JA34700 I-; ,"

Sample Results: , Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\

IA83956.D 16 Dec 2009 1:28 am TATIANAE JA34700-2 MS90193,VlA3576,w, ,,, 1 34 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 16 14:36:19 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial CalibrationAbundance 900000 850000 TIC: 1A83956.D 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 I 6=N o d'EQ o E 4-o U;2 ,$U o)I 2 7)5)50000 ime--> 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00--r -,,-rrr1- &

!rr*,-,-,--r-

~ .L ~ C, 10I..... I001 ...00 .1 0 1 0 I 150 ........00 1 1. ....0 1 .... 0.010.00 11.00 1 2.00 13.00 14.00 1 5.00 16.00 17. 00 18.00 19.00 20.00 09: 5:. 200 ..T. Page 2. ............

MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 09:15:39 2009 RPT1 S71 of 162.1AC=UTEST.

JA34700 t i.L 11"'ýI.I Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

1A83957.D 16 Dec 2009 1:57 am TATIANAE JA34700-3 MS90193,VlA3576,w,,,, 1 35 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:36:30 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1) tert butyl alcohol-d9

5) pentafluorobenzene

48) 1,4-difluorobenzene

76) chlorobenzene-d5

90) 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 8.15 10.59 11.54 14.88 17.37 65 168 114 117 152 149885 329315 391634 362263 246988 500.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L-0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 113 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 -120 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 65 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 -135 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.27 98 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 -117 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 95 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 -122 123686 53.63 Recovery =168931 58.26 Recovery 391578 53.02 Recovery =164581 47.24 Recovery ug/L 0.00 107.26%ug/L -0.01 116.52%ug/L 0.00 106.04%

ug/L 0.00 94.48%Target Compounds 85) ethylbenzene

86) m,p-xylene

87) o-xylene 14.99 15.10 15.54 91 106 106 2300 1062 1149 0.23 0.26 0.28 Qvalue ug/L 81 ug/L # 71 ug/L # 62 (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:29 2009 RPT1 Page: 1 MO 72 of 162 JA34700 L. : I Samiple Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

lA83957.D 16 Dec 2009 1:57 am TATIANAE JA34700-3 MS90193,VlA3576,w....

1 35 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:36:30 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHobs\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration CM Abundance 900000 850000 TIC: 1A83957.D 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000.400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 I 2 d..2 o 05.2 o d)5 aý-a 2,;6 50000 l1ime-> 4.00'0 20.00 I g ~~~~~. ....P. .W ... ...-.-. .........ý. .... .-. ..PI 5.0 6. .... 8-. .... 9.0 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.0 MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:30 2009 RPTP.M 73 of 162 GJACCU -TEST JA34700 1 lL-,t ý'jft7eý k0NX4rpa6 Sample Resuits: Abundance n/z--> 3(Abundance Raw50 m/z--> 3(Abundance Sub 50z m/z-- 30 Scan 2121 (14.973 min): 1A82951.D

(-2111) (-)9h#85 ethylbenzene Concen: 0.23 ug/L RT: 14.99 min Scan# 2124 Delta R.T. 0.02 min Lab File: 1A83957.D Acq: 16 Dec 2009 1:57 am 1061 1.9,8 ..1.

39 52 .65 78 131 1,1 , I ,11 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 9h 62 Tgt Ion: 91 Resp: Ion Ratio Lower 91 100 106 22.3 1.3 65 0.0 0.0 2300 Upper 61.3 39.5 117%bundance Ion 91.00 (90.70 to 91.70): 1AS8 44 52 67 106 15'..I .....I .... .. ...1 I ....I .'l l ...I ....I ....I .... 1 -1 1 ..1 ' I ' ' '0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 9,1 117 10 5'Time-->106 D*0 5. 70 ."106 ,70!00: 14.99 00 000 11- ...........

..... ,ý -...... '. .L .] ......... .................-1 .14 .95 15.00 15.05 t: 52 67 82 39 106.... ............

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Abundance Ref5O mn/z--> 30Z... ..... .... ...1- -... ... .Abundance RaIw 5 0 m/z--> 30 Abundance Sub 50 Scan 2143 (15.088 min): 1A82951.D

(-2133)(-) #86 m,p-xylene Concen: 0.26 ug/L RT: 15.10 min Scan# 2146 77 6,3, h, 85 106 Delta R.T.Lab File: Acq: 16 Dec 0.02 min IA83957.D 2009 1:57 am 39 51 1 45 I.I 97 0.... I. .... 5.0..... 6. 0'7.0 .... 80 ... .90 .... 10.0 .110 Tgt Ion 106 91 Ion:106 Resp: Ratio Lower 100 154.8 169.0 1062 Upper 229. 0#9 106 40 511 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 901 106 Abundance Ion 106.00 (105.70 to 106.70):

1: o 9 .00 90.70 to P1.70)1 1A A 1000 800 600 //15.10k 400 200 0 ---- ---Time-- 15.05 15.10 15.15 40 51 mhz--> 30 1. 40 510 ' 601 710 801'

90 .. 100 '1101'

.5_. ..................0................

... .7 ... ......8 0 ..................... .............

o... t ....1A83957.D M1A3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:30 2009 RPT1 Page 3 S74 of 162 JA34700 Sample Results: Abundance Ref5O Abundance Raw50 Scan 2229 (15.538 min): 1A82951.D

(-2219) (-)1 1 51 1 4,s I1 78 63 , I 84 104 98 .1 i#87 o -xylene Concen: 0.28 ug/L RT: 15.54 min Scan# 2229 Delta R.T. 0.00 min Lab File: IA83957.D Acq: 16 Dec 2009 1:57 am Tgt Ion:106 Resp: 1149 Ion Ratio Lower Upper 106 100 91 152.6 181.8 241.8#.....: 'i ..'.

,",':', ...':';% , ., :':':'; ,-. ; .',". ., i , :'V

', ....30 4050 60 70 80 90 100 110 106 44 51 77 Li.. .. ....................n/z--> 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 160 110..........

.AbundancE Sub.D -21:{bundance Ion 106.00 (105.70 to 106.70):

1.2000 l' C 91.00.70 91 ..l 70 A 1500 1000 115.54 '%500 0 .... ............

/A/ \ ....... ...i' 15 ....15 .55 _ _15.50 15.55 106 77 1 39 51 ( 11 [ T .. ...rnz--> 30 40 50I. ....60 .50 6070 80 90 100 110 IA83957.D MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:30 2009 RPTI Page 4-MB 75 of 162 JA3CUTEST JA34700 I 1/;/f!-A ffi,,106 "

Sampte Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path : C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

Data File : lA83958.D Acq On 16 Dec 2009 2:27 am Operator TATIANAE Sample JA34700-4 Misc : MS90193,VIA3576,w,,,,l ALS Vial 36 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:37:26 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)5)48)76)90)tert butyl alcohol-d9 pentafluorobenzene 1,4-difluorobenzene chlorobenzene-d5 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 8.16 65 10.59 168 11.55 114 14.88 117 17.37 152 137313 334651 399119 364055 248826 500.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.27 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113-120 65-135 98-117 95-122 123583 52.73 Recovery =170092 57.72 Recovery =393880 52.33 Recovery =164594 46.90 Recovery =ug/L 0.00 105.46%ug/L 0.00 115.44%ug/L 0.00 104 .66%ug/L 0.00 93.80%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed M1A3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:30 2009 RPT1 Page: 1 76 of 162 JA34700 I I , -..

Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

lA83958.D16 Dec 2009 2:27 am TATIANAE JA34700-4 MS90193,VlA3576,w

.... 1 36 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:37:26 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration

{Abundance TIC: 1A83958.D 8 900000 850000 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 I 2 0)o E ,4 2 4.I d,9 29,.- i,"5 y I (04 L L). I ~ ~0-~ L,, I,~lime--> 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 I 'MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:31 2009 RPTI Page: 2 3 77 of 162 JA34700 I Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

1A83959.D 16 Dec 2009 2:56 am TATIANAE JA34700-5 MS90193,V1A3576,w,,,, 1 37 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:37:46 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.2Smmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1) tert butyl alcohol-d9

5) pentafluorobenzene

48) 1,4-difluorobenzene

76) chlorobenzene-d5

90) 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 8.15 65 10.59 168 11.55 114 14.89 117 17.37 152 135830 326021 393941 357282 249384 500.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.27 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113 120 65 135 98 117 95 122 124819 54.67 Recovery =168928 58.84 Recovery =387311 52.13 Recovery =163858 46.58 Recovery =ug/L -0.02 ug/L 0.00 ug/L 0.00 ug/L 0.00 ug/L 0.00 ug/L 0.00 109.34%ug/L 0.00 117.68%ug/L 0.00 104.26%ug/L 0.00 93.16%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed M1A3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:31 2009 RPT1 Page: 1 M 78 of 162 JACC40 .JA34700 LIt z"b ýWruýýýý -ý,! ý Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

IA83959.D 16 Dec 2009 2:56 am TATIANAE JA34700-5 MS90193,VlA3576,w, ,,, 1 37 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:37:46 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance 900000 850000 800000 TIC: 1A83959.D A 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 (6 2 o 0)U))2 o E o 2 o I, 4))>, 50000 0C,-Tlime--> 4.00 I I..! 1 -ý9-4 I 1--l .ý I -5 6.00 7.00 800 9.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00'10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:31 2009 RPT1 ME 79 of 162 JA34700 a[WAO ' ý20-XMi-l". 0, RIN Samiple Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

1A83960.D16 Dec 2009 3:26 am TATIANAE JA34700-6 MS90193,VlA3576,w,,,, 1 38 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:39:20 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration 0%Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)5)48)76)90)tert butyl alcohol-d9 pentafluorobenzene 1,4-difluorobenzene chlorobenzene-d5 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 8.15 10.58 11.54 14.89 17.37 65 168 114 117 152 125820 330919 390897 361924 246112 500.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L-0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) l,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 )s) 13.27Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113-120 65-135 98-117 95-122 122199 52.73 Recovery 168074 57.68 Recovery =387006 52.50 Recovery =165943 47.80 Recovery =ug/L -0.01 105.46%ug/L 0.00 115.36%ug/L 0.00 105.00%ug/L 0.00 95.60%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:32 2009 RPT1 Page: 1 ff1I 80 of 162 JA40UTE E JA34700 C Lý;k, Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\

1A83960.D 16 Dec 2009 3:26 am TATIANAE JA34700-6 MS90193,VlA3576,w,,,,l 38 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:39:20 2009 Quant Method C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance 900000 850000 TIC: 1A83960.D 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 J.2 (0)(0 C 2 Oi 2"0 I (,9 2.2 7 S Tine--> 4.00 i 500 I I I 0 I I I 9. 00 I .. I 0 I 0 I .0 I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 I 70. I I I 2 .05.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:32 2009 RPT1 09[ 81 of 162 RAOCCJTEST JA34700 lt Srmpu I tsýQuantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

1A83961.D 16 Dec 2009 3:55 am TATIANAE JA34700-7 MS90193,VlA3576,w

.... 1 39 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:39:42 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)5)48)76)90)tert butyl alcohol-d9 pentafluorobenzene 1,4-difluorobenzene chlorobenzene-d5 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 8.16 10.58 11.55 14.88 17.37 65 168 114 117 152 139309 318856 386568 352150 248913 500.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.27 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113-120 65-135 98-117 95-122 121924 54.60 Recovery =167679 59.72 Recovery =385175 S2.83 Recovery =161357 45.96 Recovery =ug/L -0.01 109.20%ug/L 0.00 119.44%ug/L 0.00 105.66%ug/L 0.00 91.92%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) signals summed M1A3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:33 2009 RPT1 Page: 1 S82 of 162 JA3C0LTLEST JA34700 i ,ý,,ý.

Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

IA83961.D16 Dec 2009 3:55 am TATIANAE JA34700-7 MS90193,VlA3576,w,,,, 1 39 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 17 16:39:42 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance 9000001 TIC: 1A83961.D 0 850000 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 2 ,b aE 2 4-550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0-, Imm--> 4 00 28 S (0 IE U)-2 o 31I '10 ..00 7001' 001 I'. 00 50 6 00 7 00 8 00 q 00 1000 11 00 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 08:51:33 2009 RPT1 Page: 2 MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 08:51:33 2009 RPTI ME 83 of 162 ,GACCUTTEST JA34700 L I QC Report: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

IA83950.D 15 Dec 2009 10:34 pm TATIANAE MB MS90160,VlA3576,w,,,, 1 28 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 16 14:34:10 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mxO.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)5)48)76)90)tert butyl alcohol-d9 pentafluorobenzene 1,4-difluorobenzene chlorobenzene-d5 1,4-dichlorobenzene-d4 8.15 10.59 11.55 14.89 17.37 65 168 114 117 152 128573 350215 421686 384780 257880 500.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L-0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 System Monitoring Compounds 41) dibromofluoromethane (s) 10.64 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 42) 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 (s) 11.08 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 64 68) toluene-d8 (s) 13.26 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 76 92) 4-bromofluorobenzene (s) 16.12 Spiked Amount 50.000 Range 72 113-120 65-135 98-117 95-122 128824 52.53 Recovery =177410 57.53 Recovery =420196 52.84 Recovery =175207 48.17 Recovery =ug/L 0.00 105.06%ug/L 0.00 115.06%ug/L 0.00 105.68%ug/L 0.00 96.34%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 09:15:34 2009 RPT1 Page: 1 S84 of 162 IZA~CCUEST.

JA34700 jLoc;"111iL.

QC Report: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\

IA83950.D 15 Dec 2009 10:34 pm TATIANAE MB MS90160,VlA3576,w,,,,l 28 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 16 14:34:10 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MIA3533.M Quant Title : Method SW846 8260B, ZB624 60mx0.25mmxl.4um QLast Update : Fri Nov 20 15:06:04 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance TIC: 1A83950.D 950000 900000 850000 800000 750000 700000 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 I S W, U), 42 2 oe o d, 2 0' ________ ____U U Mme--> 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 1500 1600.17.0 18.019.00 20.0017.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 MIA3533.M Tue Dec 22 09:15:34 2009 RPT1 Page: 285 of 162 JA34700 b i New Jersey...... .... I Section 7 GC/MS::Semin-volatiles QC Data Summaries Includes the following where applicable: " Method Blank Summaries" Blank Spike Summaries" Matrix Spike and Duplicate Summaries" Instrument Performance Checks (DFTPP)" Internal Standard Area Summaries" Surrogate Recovery Summaries" Initial and Continuing Calibration Summaries Ml 86 of162 JA34700 b I Raw Data: Method Blank Summary Page 1 of 3 Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-MB F85423.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8270C JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6

".CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q I 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol ND ' 5.0 1.1 ug/l 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol ND 5.0 1.1 ug/l 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 5.0 1.2 ug/1 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND. 5.0 1.7 ug/1 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 20 0.74 ug/1 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

'ND 20 0.51 ug/l 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol ND 2.0 1.1 ug/l 3&4-Methylphenol ND 2.0 1.0 ug/l 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol ND ' 5.0 1.2 ug/l 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol ND 10 0.83 ug/1 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol ND 10 0.80 ug/l 108-95-2 Phenol ND 2.0 0.58 ug/l 95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND "; 5.0 1.3 ug/l 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND: :jf 5.0 1.2 ug/1 83-32-9 Acenaphthene ND 1.0 0.37 ug/1 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene ND ' 1.0 0.27 ug/1 120-12-7 Anthracene ND 1.0 0.16 ug/l 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 1.0 0.12 ug/1 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene ND -1.0 0.095 ug/1 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fiuoranthene ND i: 1.0 0.25 ug/1 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 1.0 0.12 ug/1 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 1.0 0.38 ug/l 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND 2.0 0.35 ug/1 85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate ND 2.0 0.25 ug/1 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene ND ' 5.0 0.42 ug/1 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline ND 5.0 0.25 ug/l 86-74-8 Carbazole ND 2.0 0.17 ug/l 218-01-9 Chrysene ND ' : 1.0 0.11 ug/l 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane

'NTD 2.0 0.25 ug/l 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether "ND 2.0 0.31 ug/l 108-60-1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether

'ND 2.0 0.39 ug/l 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND ' 2.0 0.35 ug/l 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 2.0 0.42 ug/1 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene -ND 2.0 0.36 ug/l 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene N D 2.0 0.39 ug/l 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene N D " ' 2.0 0.22 ug/l f1 87 of 162 JA34700 L.

r: , I , , , % ;

Method Blank Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island. Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-MB F85423.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6 Method: SW846 8270C",4 CAS No. CompoundResult RL MDL Units Q 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 91-94-1 3,3 -Dichlorobenzidine ND 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ND 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran ND 84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate ND 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate ND 84-66-2 Diethyl phthalate ND 131-11-3 Dimethyl phthalate ND 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND 206-44-0 Fluoranthene ND 86-73-7 Fluorene ND 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene ND 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene ND 77-47-4 H1exachlorocyclopentadiene ND 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane ND 193-39-5 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 78-59-1 Isophorone ND1)91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline ND 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline N D 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline N D 91-20-3 Naphthalene N D 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene N D 621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND'86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 129-00-0 Pyrene ND 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene N'D CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 55%I 4165-62-2 Phenol-d5 37°: 118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 98.10/o 4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 100%2.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 20 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.33 ug/I 0.30 ug/l 0.15 ug/l 0.30 ug/1 0.19 ug/1 0.40 ug/l 0.17 ug/l0.23 ug/l 0.33 ug/l 0.17 ug/l 0.27 ug/1 0.37 ug/1 0.37 ug/1 0.67 ug/1 0.26 ug/l 0.13 ug/l 0.25 ug/l 0.66 ug/h 0.24 ug/1 0.29 ug/1 0.18 ug/1 0.43 ug/1 0.25 ug/1 0.44 ug/1 0.22 ug/1 0.21 ug/l 0.16 ug/l 0.44 ug/l Limits* 1 13-68%10-49%> 37-130%25-112%JA34700 "C 11 I; Method Blank Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 3 of 3 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-MB F85423.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09.

OP41361 EF4036 The QC'reported here applies to the following samples: JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Limits 321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl 82% 31-106%1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4 84%/1'o 14-122%Method: SW846 8270C CAS No. Tentatively Identified Compounds R. T.Est. Conc. Units Q system artifact unknown acid~Total TIC, S~emi-Volatil6, 1.44 9 ug/l 14.89 4.4 ug/1 4.4 ug/l J J J:R 89 of 162ý1ACCUTEST.

JA34700 .vI*i,1,r i

Blank Spike Summary Page 1 of 3 Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-BSl F85424.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8270C"4 JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6 Spike BSP BSP CAS No. Compound ug/l ug/I % Limits 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol 50 35.9 72 41-102 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol 50 45.1 90 52-117 120-83-2 '2,4-Dichlorophenol 50 39.1 78 47-113 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 50 47.8 96 43-122 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 100 79.9 80 32-138 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 50 37.0 74 47-122 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 50 35.7 71 36-100 3&4-Methylphenol 50 33.3 67 31-98 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 50 38.7 77 44-114 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 50 25.1 50 16-76 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 50 36.6 73 35-122 108-95-2 Phenol 50 17.8 36 15-62 95-95-4 2.4,5-Trichlorophenol 50 41.7 83 56-115 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 50 41.5 83 54-113 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 50 42.7 85 46-110 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 50 38.2 76 42-103 120-12-7 Anthracene 50 44.9 90 57-123 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 50 44.4 89 56-125 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 50 48.1 96 57-125 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 50 45.7 91 49-130 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 50 48.7 97 55-129 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50 51.1 102 53-132 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 50 48.5 97 55-121 85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate 50 49.8 100 55-132 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 50 41.8 84 39-108 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 50 39.0 78 34-103 86-74-8 Carbazole 50 47.6 63-122 218-01-9 Chrysene 50 45.2 90 57-123 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 50 46.6 93 43-119 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 50 45.3 91 36-124 108-60-1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 50 41.1 82?40-106 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 50 46.2 92 50-117 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 50 30.4 61 22-90 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 50 27.4 55 19-85 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 50 28.9 58 20-88 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 50 49.5 ý99 56-124 J 90 of 162 12ACCUTESTI:

JA34100 i;1:- -

Blank Spike Summary Page 2 of 3 Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-BSI F85424.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8270C JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6

-4 Spike BSP BSP CAS No. Compound ug/I ug/l % Limits 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 50 41.5 '833 55-128 91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 50 30.3 61 42-116 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene 50 48.2 96 55-133 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 50 46.5 93 "53-109 84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate 50 46.3 93 58-130 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate 50 54.0 108 55-133 84-66-2 Diethyl phthalate 50 45.5 91 52-123 131-11-3 Dimethyl phthalate 50 48.6 97 44-126 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 50 48.1 96 57-134 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 50 44.1 88 56-124 86-73-7 Fluorene 50 46.2 92 53-118 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 50 48.3 i97 54-119 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 50 27.6 55 .11-100 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 100 74.7 75 5-120 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 50 24.8 50 13-88 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 50 60.7 121 55-131 78-59-1 Isophorone 50 47.3 95 43-120 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 50 37.8 76 33-103 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 50 63.3 127 48-132 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 50 40.6 81 115 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 50 48.8 '98 51-125 91-20-3 Naphthalene 50 36.7 73 33-98 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 50 42.9 86 41-114 621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 50 50.7 1 01 1 41-121 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 50 46.3 '93 54-136 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 50 44.5 89 57-119 129-00-0 Pyrene 50 45.5 91'56-123 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 50 32.6 :65 21-97 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries BSP Limits 367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 57% 13-68%4165-62-2 Phenol-d5 4'6% 10-49%118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 100%06 37-130%4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 92% 25-112%-91 of 162 JA34700 ý i L I ' I " " t ;

Blank Spike Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-BS1 F85424.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6 Method: SW846 8270C-4 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4 BSP'79%790/%Limits 31-106%14-122%IO 92 of 162 12ACCUMET.

JA34700j7 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 1 of 3 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-MS F85432.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 OP41361-MSD F85433.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 JA34586-1 F85431.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6 Method: SW846 8270C JA34586-1 Spike ug/I Q ug/i CAS No. Compound 95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol ND 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol ND 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ND95-48-7 2-Methylphenol ND 3&4-Methylphenol ND 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol ND 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol ND 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol ND 108-95-2 Phenol ND 95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 83-32-9 Acenaphthene ND208-96-8 Acenaphthylene ND 120-12-7 Anthracene ND 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND 85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate ND 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene ND 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline ND 86-74-8 Carbazole ND 218-01-9 Chrysene ND 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ND 108-60-1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether ND 7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 100 100 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 MS MS MSD MSD Limits ug/I % ug/l % RPD Rec/RPD 65.5 '66 62.0 62 5 32-102/33 86.6 87 85.0 85 2 38-126/30 74.0 74 68.3 68 8 33-116/34 91.6 92 87.8 88 4 30-128/32 85.1 43 101 51 17 20-151/29 49.3 49 53.9 5 .4 9 31-135/29 72.2 72 67.8 68 6 26-111/33 73.7 74' 68.8 69 7 ' 26-111/33 70.9 71' 68.7 i69.' 3 : 29-116/35 54.0 )54 20.9 21: : 88* a 10-123/35 71.0 :71>'i 66.3 66. 7 34-133/26 52.2 52 50.4 50 4 '4 14-85/37 79.9 80 77.0 77 4 44-121/26 80.9 ' 78.3 '78 .3 41-119/28 82.2 82 79.9 80 3 37-114/31 73.4 73 71.7 72 2 33-108/31 89.3 :89 84.1 i84'> 6 : 48-125/26 87.9 88 82.9 83 6 48-127/26 95.4 95 92.3 92 3. 48-128/26 91.1 91 87.8 88' 4 ' 41-133/29 91.5 92 87.7 88 4 42-134/27 98.7 99 95.6 96 45-133/30 97.0 ,97 94.3 94 ' 3' :I 47-123/28 97.8 98 94.2 94 4 47-137/27 79.5 i80 76.1 76 4 35-110/32 70.9 ' 66.5 '67 6 ' 22-98/36 93.2 93 87.5 88 6 54-127/26 90.5 91 " 85.6 86:i"? 6 49-125/25 88.0 :88 86.0 86 2 33-116/36 75.1 , 77.7 78 i3 24-124/34 72.6 73 ' 70.8 7! 3 70.31-104/35 90.6 ,91: : 88.7 889 2 42-119/28 52.4 52! 48.2 48i'. 8 19-92/36 47.3 47 43.3 43 " 9 20-84/37 48.9 49 46.3 146>i. 5 20-86/36 97.0 97 90.6 991' 7 45-129/28 93 of162 RACCU.MFWSC JA34700 I l ;-IL I I Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-MS F85432.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 OP41361-MSD F85433.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 JA34586-1 F85431.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6 Method: SW846 8270C CAS No. Compound JA34586-1 Spike ug/! Q ug/l MS MS MSD MSD Limits ug/l % ug/l % RPD Rec/RPD 606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ND 53-70-3 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene ND 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran ND 84-74-2 Di-n-butyl phthalate ND 117-84-0 Di-n-octyl phthalate ND 84-66-2 Diethyl phthalate ND 131-11-3 Dimethyl phthalate ND 117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ND 206-44-0 Fluoranthene ND 86-73-7 Fluorene ND 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene ND 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene ND 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane ND 193-39-5 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 78-59-1 Isophorone ND 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline ND 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline ND 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline ND 91-20-3 Naphthalene ND 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene ND 621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine ND 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 85-01-8 Phenanthrene ND 129-00-0 Pyrene ND 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 78.8 79 75.3 75 57.1 57 56.0 56 95.1 95i 91.1 i91 89.0 89.. 84.1 84 93.8 94 87.7 88'104 104 100 100 88.7 '89 85.2 85 94.3 94 91.0 91 94.7 '95 90.0 90 86.1 86. 82.4 .82 89.5 90 87.2 87 95.8 96 91.3 91 54.9 .55 52.6 53 149 75: 149 75 45.7 46 42.8 43 119 119 115 115 87.3 87 86.9 87 71.8 72 70.2 .70 117 117 111 11:1 76.5 77 69.2 691'81.4 81 72.2 72 63.9 64 61.5 62 77.2 77 78.7 79 93.8 94 88.7 89 92.5 93 88.2 88.87.4 87 84.1 84 89.6 90 85.6 86 57.0 57: 56.9 57-5 46-132/29 2 :: 17-119/36 4 45-136/27 6 .44-114/30 7 49-134/26 4 .46-140/25 4 46-123/27 4 39-123/32 5 49-141/27 4 46-127/27 3: 44-121/29 5: 46-120/27 4 15-99/39 0 : 4-124/39 7 16-86/39 S43-137/28 0 : 33-117/36 2: 22-117/37 5 37-135/29 10 34-115/28 12 36-128/30 4 .22-106/35 2 .30-116/37 6 32-118/35 5: .42-145/27.4 ,, 45-127/27 5 45-129/26 (0 23-97/37 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 4165-62-2 Phenol-d5 118-79-6 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 4165-60-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 MS ,64 / .: 61 *b 99%, 83%MSD 59'o* :bL 94%82%JA34586-1 Limits 13-68%10-49%89%37-130%25-112%M 94 of162 12ACCLFE6T.

JA34700 T :L 1 :t 11 ',

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 3 of 3 Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch OP41361-MS F85432.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 OP41361-MSD F85433.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09 OP41361 EF4036 JA34586-1 F85431.D 1 12/11/09 NAP 12/10/09.

OP41361 EF4036 The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: SW846 8270C JA34700-1, JA34700-2, JA34700-3, JA34700-4, JA34700-5, JA34700-6

'4 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries 321-60-8 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1718-51-0 Terphenyl-dl4MS MSD JA34586-1 Limits 82%~75 %75%75%' 31-106%77% 14-122%(a) Outside control limits due to matrix interference.(b) Outside of in house control limits, but within reasonable method recovery limits.:Mf 95of162 JA34700 Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page I of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: E3M667-DFTPP Injection Date: 11/13/09 Lab File ID: 3M15140.D Injection Time: 22:31 Instrument ID: GCMS3M Raw % Relative mWe Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 5 "' 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 78108 36.7 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 1233 0.58 (1. 4) a Pass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 88381 41.5 Pass 70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 278 0.13 (0.31) a Pass 127 40.0- 60.0% of mass 198 118266 :'55.6 Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 883 0.41 Pass 198 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 212864 100.0 Pass 199 5.0 -9.0% of mass 198 14757 6.9 Pass 275k 10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 53629 25.2 Pass 365 1.0- 100.0% of mass 198 8080 3.8 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 31677 14.9 (7.7. 9) b Pass 442 40.0- 100.0% of mass 198 212112 99.6 Pass 443: 17.0- 23.0% of mass 442 40672 19.1 (19.2)c Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID E3M667-ICC667 3MI5141.D 11/13/09 22:44 00:13 Initial cal 50 E3M667-IC667 3MI5142.D 11/13/09 23:14 00:43 Initial cal 100 E3M667-IC667 3MI5143.D 11/13/09 23:44 01:13 Initial cal 80 E3M667-IC667 3MI5144.D 11/14/09 00:13 01:42 Initial cal 25 E3M667-IC667 3M15145.D 11/14/09 00:43 02:12 Initial cal 10 E3M667-IC667 3M15146.D 11/14/09 01:12 02:41 Initial cal 5 E3M667-1C667 3MI5147.D 11/14/09 01:42 03:11 Initial cal 2 E3M667-IC667 3M15148.D 11/14/09 02:12 03:41 Initial cal I S96 of 162 JACCUTES3

, JA34700 T sLw!z ' .

Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page 1 of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: E3M703-DFTPP Injection Date: 12/14/09 Lab File ID: 3M15980.D Injection Time: 11:24 Instrument ID: GCMS3M Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 51 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 39146 30.0 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 816 0.63 (1.7) a Pass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 48618 37.3 Pass N)70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 234 0:18 a Pass 127 40.0 -60.0% of mass 198 66757 51.2 Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 424 0.33 Pass-198 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 130397 100.0 Pass 199 5.0- 9.0% of mass 198 8811 6.8 P ass10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 35317 27.1 Pass 365 1.0 -100.0% of mass 198 6375 4.9 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 13631 10.5. (83.5) b Pass'442' 40.0 -100.0% of mass 198 86733 66.5 Pass 443 17.0- 23.0% of mass 442 16315 12.5 (I 8) Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID E3M703-IC703 3M15981.D 12/14/09 11:37 00:13 Initial cal 100 E3M703-IC703 3MI5982.D 12/14/09 12:04 00:40 Initial cal 1 E3M703-1C703 3MI5983.D 12/14/09 12:31 01:07 Initial cal 80 E3M703-1C703 3M15984.D 12/14/09 12:56 01:32 Initial cal 2 E3M703-IC703 3MI5986.D 12/14/09 13:50 02:26 Initial cal 5 E3M703-1C703 3MI5988.D

'12/14/09 14:43 03:19 Initial cal 10 E3M703-IC703 3M15985.D 12/14/09 15:50 04:26 Initial cal 50 E3M703-1CC703 3MI5987.D 12/14/09 16:16 04:52 Initial cal 25 E3M703-1CV703 3MI5990.D 12/14/09 17:25 06:01 Initial cal verification 50 E3M703-1CV703 3M15991.D 12/14/09 17:51 06:27 Initial cal verification 5097 of 162 J A 3 4 7 0 0 i a , .1 1 1 ". 1 1 ý "

Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page 1 of 2 Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: E3M719-DFTPP Injection Date: 12/28/09 Lab File ID: 3M16325.D Injection Time: 22:29 Instrument ID: GCMS3M Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 51 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 202676 .32.2 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 0.0 (0.0) a. Pass i0 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 254944 40.6 Pass "4 70 ... Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 .0.0 !(0.0)a Pass 127 40.0- 60.0% of mass 198 321624 !51.2 .Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 0 0.0 Pass 198 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 628593 100.0 Pass 199 5.0 -9.0% of mass 198 42510 6.8 Pass 275 10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 166210 26.4 Pass 365 1.0 -100.0% of mass 198 21942 3.5 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 93984 15.0 (85.4) b Pass 442 40.0 -100.0% of mass 198 584000 92.9 Pass'443 17.0 -23.0% of mass 442 110010 17.5' (18.8),c Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date " Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID E3M719-CC703 3M16326.D 12/28/09 22:44 00:15 Continuing cal 25 E3M719-CC667 3MI6327.D 12/28/09 23:10 00:41 Continuing cal 25 OP41506-BSI 3M16328.D 12/29/09 00:04 01:35 Blank Spike OP41443-MBI 3M16329.D 12/29/09 00:30 02:01 Method Blank OP41443-BSI 3MI6330.D 12/29/09 00:57 02:28 Blank Spike JA34700-3 3M16331.D 12/29/09 01:23 02:54 X JA34700-4 3M16332.D 12/29/09 01:50 03:21 AY JA34700-5 3M16333.D 12/29/09 02:17 03:48 FB-1282009 JA34700-6 3M 16334.D 12/29/09 02:43 04:14 YY ZZZZZZ 3M16335.D 12/29/09 03:09 04:40 (unrelated sample)OP41506-MS 3M16336.D 12/29/09 03:36 05:07 Matrix Spike OP41506-MSD 3MI6337.D 12/29/09 04:02 05:33 Matrix Spike Duplicate ZZZZZZ 3M16338.D 12/29/09 04:29 06:00 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 3M16339.D 12/29/09 04:55 06:26 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 3M16340.D 12/29/09 05:21 06:52 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 3MI6341.D 12/29/09 05:48 07:19 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 3MI6342.D 12/29/09 06:14 07:45 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 3M16343.D 12/29/09 06:40 08:11 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ 3M16344.D 12/29/09 07:06 08:37 (unrelated sample)S98 of 162 JA34700 Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP)Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample: E3M719-DFTPP Injection Date: 12/28/09 Lab File ID: 3M16325.D Injection Time: 22:29 Instrument ID: GCMS3M Lab Sample ID Lab Date Time Hours Client File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID ZZZZZZ JA35062-1 OP41443-MS OP41443-MSD OP41560-MBI ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ OP41522-MBI OP41522-BSI OP41632-BSI ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ 3M16345.D 3M16346.D 3M16348.D 3M16349.D 3MI6350.D 3MI6351.D 3MI6352.D 3M16356.D 3M16357.D 3M16359.D 3M16360.D 3MI6361.D 3M16362.D 3M16363.D 3M16364.D 3M16365.D 3MI6366.D 3M16367.D 3M16368.D 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 12/29/09 07:33 07:59 08:51 09:18 09:44 10:11 10:37 14:23 14:50 15:43 16:52 17:19 17:45 18:12 18:38 19:04 19:31 19:57 20:24 09:04 09:30 10:22 10:49 11:15 11:42 12:08 15:54 16:21 17:14 18:23 18:50 19:16 19:43 20:09 20:35 21:02 21:28 21:55 (unrelated sample)(used for QC only; not part of job JA34700)Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate Method Blank (unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)Method Blank Blank Spike Blank Spike (unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)-J R90 99 of 162 JA30 -TEST JA34700 -IL Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page I of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: EF3993-DFTPP Injection Date: 11/03/09 Lab File ID: F84454.D Injection Time: 12:34 Instrument ID: GCMSF Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 51 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 6897 41.3 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 0 (0.0 0) a1 Pass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 6096 365, Pass 70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 0. 0) Pass 127 , 40.0 -60.0% of mass 198 8324 49.9 .Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 0 0.0 Pass 198 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 16681 100.0 Pass 199 5.0 -9.0% of mass 198 1164 7.0 Pass 275 10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 3932 '23.6 Pass 365, 1.0 -100.0% of mass 198 389 2.3 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 1548 9.3 (83. 0') Pass 442 40.0 -100.0% of mass 198 9331 55.9: Pass ,4:43 17.0- 23.0% of mass 442 1864 11.2 c(20.0) Ci: Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID EF3993-1CC3993 F84455.D 11/03/09 13:32 00:58 Initial cal 50 EF3993-IC3993 F84456.D 11/03/09 14:04 01:30 Initial cal 100 EF3993-IC3993 F84457.D 11/03/09 14:37 02:03 Initial cal 80 EF3993-IC3993 F84458.D 11/03/09 15:09 02:35 Initial cal 25 EF3993-IC3993 F84459.D 11/03/09 15:41 03:07 Initial cal 10 EF3993-IC3993 F84460.D 11/03/09 16:14 03:40 Initial cal 5 EF3993-IC3993 F84461.D 11/03/09 16:46 04:12 Initial cal 2 EF3993-IC3993 F84462.D 11/03/09 17:18 04:44 Initial cal I* 100 of 162 JA34700 iL7 L 1-1 Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page 1 of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: EF3994-DFTPP Injection Date: 11/03/09 Lab File ID: F84463.D Injection Time: 17:54 Instrument ID: GCMSF Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 51 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 7496 45.9 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 106 0.65 (15) Pass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 6963 42.7 Pass Cn 70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 Pass 127 40.0 -60.0% of mass 198 8762 53.7 Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 0 -, Pass 1.98 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 16321 100.0 Pass 199 5.0 -9.0% of mass 198 1128 6.9 Pass 275 10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 3963 24.3 Pass 365> 1.0- 100.0% of mass 198 387 2.4 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 1599 9.8 .(76.5)b Pass 442 40.0- 100.0% of mass 198 10778 66.0 Pass 443 17.0 -23.0% of mass 442 2091 12.8 (19.4):c Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID EF3994-ICC3994 F84464.D 11/03/09 18:09 00:15 Initial cal 50 EF3994-IC3994 F84465.D 11/03/09 18:41 00:47 Initial cal 100 EF3994-1C3994 F84466.D 11/03/09 19:13 01:19 Initial cal 80 EF3994-IC3994 F84467.D 11/03/09 19:45 01:51 Initial cal 25 EF3994-IC3994 F84468.D 11/03/09 20:18 02:24 Initial cal 10 EF3994-IC3994 F84469.D 11/03/09 20:50 02:56 Initial cal 5 EF3994-IC3994 F84470.D 11/03/09 21:23 03:29 Initial cal 2 EF3994-IC3994 F84471.D 11/03/09 21:55 04:01 Initial cal l EF3994-ICV3993 F84472.D 11/03/09 22:28 04:34 Initial cal verification 50 EF3994-1CV3993 F84473.D 11/03/09 23:00 05:06 Initial cal verification 50 EF3994-ICV3993 F84474.D 11/03/09 23:32 05:38 Initial cal verification 50 o101 of 162 JA34700 L i I .: :. ' " I i I Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page I of 2 Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: EF4036-DFTPP Injection Date: 12/11/09 Lab File ID: F85418.D Injection Time: 08:10 Instrument ID: GCMSF Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail.51 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 9565 49.0 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 0. 0 (0. a) Pass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 9826 50.4 Pass 70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 0.0 (0.0a Pass 127 40.0- 60.0% of mass 198 11186 57.3 Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 0 0.0 Pass 198 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 19508 100.0 Pass 199 5.0 -9.0% of mass 198 1336 6.8 Pass 275 10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 4049 20.8 Pass 365 1.0 -100.0% of mass 198 481 2.'5 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 2239 11.5 (88.7) b Pass 442 40.0 -100.0% of mass 198 13726 70.4 Pass 443 17.0 -23.0% of mass 442 2525 12.9 (18.4) c Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID EF4036-CC3993 F85419.D 12/11/09 08:27 00:17 Continuing cal 25 EF4036-CC3994 F85420.D 12/11/09 09:07 00:57 Continuing cal 25 OP41373-MBI F85421..D 12/11/09 09:40 01:30 Method Blank OP41373-BSI F85422.D 12/11/09 10:11 02:01 Blank Spike OP41361-MB F85423.D 12/11/09 10:43 02:33 Method Blank OP41361-BS1 F85424.D 12/11/09 11:15 03:05 Blank Spike ZZZZZZ F85425.D 12/11/09 11:47 03:37 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ F85426.D 12/11/09 12:18 04:08 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ F85427.D 12/11/09 12:50 04:40 (unrelated sample)JA34793-8 F85428.D 12/11/09 13:22 05:12 (used for QC only; not part of job JA34700)OP41373-MS F85429.D 12/11/09 13:54 05:44 Matrix Spike OP41373-MSD F85430.D 12/11/09 14:25 06:15 Matrix Spike Duplicate JA34586-1 F85431.D 12/11/09 14:56 06:46 (used for QC only; not part of job JA34700)OP41361-MS F85432.D 12/11/09 15:28 07:18 Matrix Spike OP41361A-MS F85432.D 12/11/09 15:28 07:18 Matrix Spike OP41361-MSD F85433.D 12/11/09 16:00 07:50 Matrix Spike Duplicate OP41361A-MSD F85433.D 12/11/09 16:00 07:50 Matrix Spike Duplicate ZZZZZZ F85434.D 12/11/09 16:31 08:21 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ F85435.D 12/11/09 17:03 08:53 (unrelated sample)o102 of 162 MACCUST.JA34700 L , t .ý! ,t ,' -ý Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP)Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2Sample: EF4036-DFTPP Injection Date: 12/11/09 Lab File ID: F85418.D Injection Time: 08:10 Instrument ID: GCMSF Lab Sample ID Lab File ID Date Time HoursAnalyzed Analyzed Lapsed Client Sample ID OP41271-LB12 OP41362-LB14 ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ F85437.D F85438.D F85439.D F85440.1D 12/11/09 12/11/09 12/11/09 12/11/09 18:07 18:39 19:10 19:42 09:57 10:29 11:00 11:32 Leachate Blank Leachate Blank (unrelated sample)(unrelated sample)103 of 162 gACC1.rrEST JA34700 ý ýLýsýý1 Instrument Performance Check (DFTPP) Page 1 of I Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Sample: EF4044-DFTPP Injection Date: 12/23/09 Lab File ID: F85644.D Injection Time: 07:16 Instrument ID: GCMSF Raw % Relative m/e Ion Abundance Criteria Abundance Abundance Pass/Fail 51 30.0 -60.0% of mass 198 40680 34.8 Pass 68 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 0 0.0 (0. 0) a Pass 69 Mass 69 relative abundance 48655 41.7 Pass -4 70 Less than 2.0% of mass 69 111 0.1 (0.23) a Pass 127 40.0 -60.0% of mass 198 54700 46.8 Pass 197 Less than 1.0% of mass 198 0 0.0 Pass 198 Base peak, 100% relative abundance 116782 100.0 Pass 199 5.0 -9.0% of mass 198 8026 6,9 Pass 275 10.0 -30.0% of mass 198 33189 28.4 Pass 365 1.0 -100.0% of mass 198 4241 3.6 Pass 441 Present, but less than mass 443 15427 13.2 (78.3) b Pass 442 40.0 -100.0% of mass 198 99581 85. 3 Pass 443 17.0 -23.0% of mass 442 19714 16.9 (19.8) C Pass (a) Value is % of mass 69 (b) Value is % of mass 443 (c) Value is % of mass 442 This check applies to the following Samples, MS, MSD, Blanks, and Standards:

Lab Lab Date Time Hours Client Sample ID File ID Analyzed Analyzed Lapsed Sample ID EF4044-CC3993 F85645.D 12/23/09 08:10 00:54 Continuing cal 50 EF4044-CC3994 F85646.D 12/23/09 08:42 01:26 Continuing cal 50 OP41545-MBI F85648.D 12/23/09 09:49 02:33 Method Blank OP41545-BSI F85649.D 12/23/09 10:21 03:05 Blank Spike OP41473-MB1 F85650.D 12/23/09 10:52 03:36 Method Blank OP41473-BSI F85651.D 12/23/09 11:24 04:08 Blank Spike ZZZZZZ F85652.D 12/23/09 11:56 04:40 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ F85653.D 12/23/09 12:28 05:12 (unrelated sample)ZZZZZZ F85654.D 12/23/09 13:00 05:44 (unrelated sample)JA35876-14 F85655.D 12/23/09 13:32 06:16 (used for QC only; not part ofjob JA34700)OP41545-MS F85656.D 12/23/09 14:04 06:48 Matrix Spike OP41545A-MS F85656.D 12/23/09 14:04 06:48 Matrix Spike OP41545-MSD F85657.D 12/23/09 14:36 07:20 Matrix Spike Duplicate OP41545A-MSD F85657.D 12/23/09 14:36 07:20 Matrix Spike Duplicate JA35555-1 F85658.D 12/23/09 15:34 08:18 (used for QC only; not part ofjob JA34700)OP41473-MS F85659.D 12/23/09 16:05 08:49 Matrix Spike OP41473-MSD F85660.D 12/23/09 16:38 09:22 Matrix Spike Duplicate JA34700-1 F85661.D 12/23/09 17:09 09:53 AZ JA34700-2 F85662.D 12/23/09 17:41 10:25 BV S104 of 162 JA34700 T Semivolatile Internal Standard Area Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 2 Check Std: E3M719-CC703 Injection Date: 12/28/09 Lab File ID: 3M16326.D Injection Time: 22:44 Instrument ID: GCMS3M Method: SW846 8270C IS1 IS2 IS3 IS4 IS5 IS6 AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT checkSid 952827 ý 3.77 3633414 5.48 21:68683 8.18 3587860 10.50 4043361 14.28 3738282 15.94 Upper Limit a 1905654 4.27 7266828 5.98 4337366 8.68 -7175720 11.00 8086722 14.78 7476564 16.44 Lower Limit b 476414 3.27 1816707 4.98 1084342 7.68 '1793930 10.00 2021f681 13.78 1869141 15.44-4 Lab Sample ID IS1 AREA RT IS2 IS3 IS4 AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT IS 5 AREA IS 6 RT AREA RT OP41506-BSI OP41443-MB1 OP41443-BSI JA34700-3 JA34700-4 JA34700-5 JA34700-6 zzzzzz OP41506-MS OP41506-MSD zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz JA35062-1 OP41443-MS OP41443-MSD OP41560-MBI zzzzzz zzzzzz OP41522-MBI OP41522-BS1 OP41632-BS1 zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz 714966 601616, 690382 768439 694496 855814'893164'709952 586571 634381 604144..560201 595959 636049..728599 737000-798064 774897 943518'985766 443399*828840 583468i 111815.1 482684 455615*416615" 7505 1'1 720865, 588889", 628662 579511 571-540 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.76 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.78 3.77 3.80 3.87 3.77 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.77 3.77 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 3.77 2616163 5.48 2181694 5.48 2490510 5.48 29617718 5.47 2626194 5.47 3196326 5.47 3353695 5.47 2784654 5.47 2)109346 5.47 2303532 5.47 2251593 5.47 2102570 5.47 2205122 5.47 23912211 5.48 2861823 5.48 2639326 5.48 2790923 5.54 3150561 5.48 3736833 5.49 3280436 5.50 1671339*5.50 3099823 5.48 1940740 5.48 40563-59 5.48 1755897*5.47

-1678158*5.47 1565559*5.47 2463759 5.47 2810484 5.47 3040271 5.47 2351104 5.48 2474683 5.48 2118874 5.48 2220642 5.47 2199103 5.47 1'522763 8.171275971 8.17

'1458445 8.17:1812436 8.17 1616799 8.17 1934832 8.17 2071814 8.17 1716227 8.17 1243039 8.17 1355865 8.17 1304068 8.17 1222374 8.17 1268656 8.17 1370045 8.17 1630475 8.17 1478754. 8.17 14744523 8.17 25535 47 8.203766623 8.35 2569345 8.37 1245236 8.47 1877984 8.18 1203669 8.18 2548242 8.18 10 10097*8.17 937920* 8.17 873462* 8.17 1414354. 8.17 1595197 8.17 1803219 8.17 1613129. 8.21 1466126 8.18 1221383 8.17 1283547 8.17 1269385 8.17 2546611 10.49 2040792 10.49 2447685 10.49 29617371 10.49 2622055 10.493099605 10.49 313577540 10.49 27,749.88 10.49 2096463 10.492275105 10.49 2092175 10.49 1947802 10.48 2008691 10.48 2144793 10.49 2550138 10.4810.48 2365901 10.48 4054908 10.75 1160615* 10. 81 1607113*10.83 905104* 10.90 3085.848 10.51 21139955 10.50 4368553 10.50.1536752*10.49 1569745*10.49 1463345*10.49

'2122903 10.49 2403446 10.49 2714857 10.49 2443000 10.54 2180226 10.50 185.7519 10.49 1980171 10.49 1960350 10.49 2720498 14.28 2216033 14.27 2596514 14.27 3260074 14.27 2923908 14.26 3442755 14.27 379730.1 14.27 3,132422 14.26 2231018 14.27 2458546 14.26 2304671 14.26 2178765 14.26 2244629 14.26 2397892 14.26 2851457 14.26 25-54073 14.26 2723256 14.27 3367087 14.64 2481479 14.64 837350* 14.62 1120386*14.62 3874834 14.29 3041409 14.28 5299050 14.28 143:87:14*

14.27140081.7* 14.

27 1F355620*14.27 1927646*14.27 2180643 14.27 2421206 14.27 19631672*14.28 2068199 14.27 1799038*14.27 1934284*14.27 1950077*14.

27 2461'5064 15.94 2115619 15.94 2352832 15.94 3092183 15.94 2826448 15.93 3.287079 15.94 3605848 15.94 3.034500 15.93 2017261 15.94 2219531 15.93 2192821 15.93 211.5063 15.93 2139065 15.93 2287834 15.932696684 15.93 2452959 15.93 2646144 15.94 2763641 16.24 1650554*16.70*

25.88941 16.28 3322933 16.27 4091308 15.96 3312791 15.95 54.18897 15.95 13 11260*15.94 1134164*15.94 1105428*15.94 1836180*15.94 20)49301 15.942232483 15.94 1767039*15.94 1954320 15.94.1682682*15.941759845* 15.94 1750756*15.94 09 J105 of 162 QArCcUTEST JA34700 1,t 11' Semivolatile Internal Standard Area Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Check Std: E3M719-CC703 Injection Date: 12/28/09 Lab File ID: 3MI6326.D Injection Time: 22:44 Instrument ID: GCMS3M Method: SW846 8270C Lab Sample ID zzzzzz ISI AREA RT IS 2 AREA RT IS3 IS4 IS5 IS6AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT 5425201. 3.78 21 16718 5.48 12155431 8.17 ,878!23 10.49 1761177*14.27 1636966*15.94 IS 1 IS 2 IS 3 IS -4 IS5 IS 6= 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene-d4

= Naphthalene-d8

= Acenaphthene-D 10= Phenanthrene-d10

= Chrysene-d12

= Perylene-d12 (a) Upper Limit = + 100% of check standard area; Retention time + 0.5 minutes.(b) Lower Limit

-50% of check standard area; Retention time -0.5 minutes.

M1 E2 106 of 162 MA~CUTEST.

JA34700 L L- ",ii Semivolatile Internal Standard Area Summary Job Number: JA34700Page 1 of I Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Check Std: EF4036-CC3993 Injection Date: 12/11/09 Lab File ID: F85419.D1 Injection Time: 08:27 Instrument ID: GCMSF Method: SW8468270C IS1 IS2 IS3 IS4 IS5 IS6 AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT Check Std 63442 3.49 229246 5.76 137912 9.61 222840 12.96 213590 18.99 182559' 21.40 Upper Limit a .126884 3.99 458492 6.26 275824 10.1' I1 445680 13.46 427180 19.49 3651188 21.90 Lower Limit b 3i 1721 2.99 114623 5.26 68956 9.11 111420 12.46 106795 18.49 91280. 20.90-4 F-73 Lab IS1 Sample ID AREA IS2RT AREA RT OP41373-MB1 OP41373-BS1 OP4136 1-MB OP41361-BS1 zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz JA34793-8 OP41373-MS OP41373-MSD JA34586-1 OP41361-MS OP41361A-MS OP41361-MSD OP41361A-MSD zzzzzz zzzzzz OP41271.-LBI2 OP41362-LB14 zzzzzz zzzzzz 63958:: 66971 5.7849 59832 56107 66542.69498 6ý4395 61210.66197 55808 57315 57315, 61836 61836 58548 49420'55303 54112 54103 52067 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.49 3.50 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.48 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 236291 " 5.76 239853 5.76 216504. 5.77 21424.1 5.76 206170 5.77 239853 5.77 247394 5.76 226421 5.76 220807 5.76 236035 5.76 205419 5.76 209744 5.76 209744 5.76 21i5925 5.76-5925 5.76 211114 5.77 174465 5.77 197506 5.77 190178 5.77 196510 5.77 186542 5.77 IS 3 AREA RT 134279.. 9.61 1 34323!' 9.61 123725. 9.61 1.19352. 9.61 119952 9.61 134162 9.61 136983 9.61 125278 9.61 121675.i 9.619.61 119300 9.61 117587.. 9.61 9.61 123155 9.61 123155D 9.61 121298 9.61 593ý42*' 9.94 H1'3112 9.62 105245 9.61 109594 9.61 1021,17' 9.62 IS4 IS5AREA RT AREA 211746 12.97 186397203832 12.96 177880'192206, 186776.i187019:197468.204145 175526 175285 184214'180469'180341.18034 1" 189711~189711 184420 178380'165796 162 5 03.167156 157902 12.97 183810 12.96 173008 12.97 '177503'12.97 168109, 12.97 175736 12.96 146242 12.96 138012 12.96 '142262 12.97 163244 12.96 1665722 12.96 166572 12.96 173643 12.96 173643 12.97 172396 13.09 179807 12.97 152058 12.97 1476 1 12.97 1485ý 19 12.98 140530 IS 6 RT AREA RT 18.99 158709 21.40 18.98 147239 21.40 19.00 162571 21.40 18.98 147055 21.40 19.00 157316 21.40 19.00 137976 21.40 19.00 141366 21.40 18.99 '121107 21.40 18.99 1.16404 21.40 18.99 120852'2 21.40 18.99 14-5096 21.39 18.98 144287 21.40 18.98 144287 21.40 18.99 147857 21.40 18.99 147857 21.40 18.99 153067" 21.40 18.99 1164841 21.40 19.00 126177 21.41 19.00 106087 21.41 19.00 121758 21.41 19.00 117844. 21.41 IS 1 = 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 IS 2 = Naphthalene-d8 IS 3 = Acenaphthene-D10 IS 4 = Phenanthrene-dlO IS 5 = Chrysene-d12 IS 6 = Perylene-d12 (a) Upper Limit = + 100% of check standard area; Retention time + 0.5 minutes.(b) Lower Limit = -50% of check standard area; Retention time

-0.5 minutes.fl107 of 162 JA34700 L; Semivolatile Internal Standard Area Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of I Check Std: EF4044-CC3993 Injection Date: 12/23/09 Lab File ID: F85645.D Injection Time: 08:10 Instrument ID: GCMSF Method: SW846 8270C IS1 IS2 IS3 IS4 IS5 IS6 AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT Check Std 85494 3.45 315760 5.72 088151 9.56 3 315114 12.91 337605 18.94 300572

21.36 Upper Limit a 170988 3.95 631400 6.22 376302 10.06 630228 13.41 675210 19.44 601144 21.86 Lower Limit b 42747 2.95 157850 5.22 94076 9.06 157557" 12.41 1.688033 18.44 150286 20.86-J U'Lab Sample ID ISI AREA RT OP41545-MB1 76418 OP41545-BS1

72260 OP41473-MBI 79752 OP41473-BSI 86497 ZZZZZZ 80644 ZZZZZZ 84996 zzzzzz 83788 JA35876-14 73811 oP41545-MS 76267 OP41545A-MS 76267 OP41545-MSD 75672.OP41545A-MSD 75672 JA35555-1 83353 OP41473-MS 91987 OP41473-MSD 90035 JA34700-1 99437 3.47 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.46 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 IS 2 AREA RT 276908 5.73 268035 5.72 2889417 5.73 310749 5.72 288389. 5.73 299275 5.72 301489 5.72 2170)831 5.72 2 7 62 3 9 5.72 276239 5.72 280861 5.72 280861 5.72 301431 5.72 328812- 5.72 32264'3( 5.73 357244 5.73 378579 5.73 IS3 1S4 IS5 IS6 AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT AREA RT I 159023 9.56 154281 9.56 158086 .9.56 180668. 9.56 158967 9.56 171928 9.56 171787 9.56 155717. 9.56 164380 9.56 164380 9.56 168116 9.56 168.116. 9.56 184537. 9.58 190648 9.58 190869 9.58216975 9.57 228791 9.56 258655 12.93 272883 18.96 234934 21.37 259129 12.91 27,7063 18.95 241952 21.37 263142 12.92 2718.911 18.96 235852 21.37 296733 12.91 308490 18.94 275961 21.37 258295 12.91 281247; 18.95 263737 21.36 289114 12.91 311684 18.94 298245 21.36 281309 12.91 302113 18.94 280.858 21.35 263795 12.91 275592 18.94 244437 21.35 274179 12.91 289005 18.94 257918 21.36 274179 12.91 289005.. 18.94 257918 21.36 275887 12.91 297555. 18.94 267003 21.36 275887 12.91 297555. 18.94 267003 21.36 324012 12.94 378120 18.96 348008.

21.39 320083 12.93 353595 18.96 32703 1 21.38 3206,55 12.94 359310 18.97 327051 21.39 354926, 12.92 369436 18.96 331470 21.37 374758 12.92 400876 18.96 345007 , 21.37 JA34700-2 1011990 3.46 IS 1 = 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 IS 2 = Naphthalene-d8 IS 3 = Acenaphthene-D 10 IS 4 = Phenanthrene-dl0 IS 5 = Chrysene-d12 IS6 = Perylene-d12 (a) Upper Limit

+ 100% of check standard area; Retention time + 0.5 minutes.(b) Lower Limit

= -50% of check standard area; Retention time -0.5 minutes.Mn108 of 162 12A~CLFJEST.

JA34700 --11, ,

Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery SummaryJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page I of 1 Method: SW846 8270C Matrix: *AQ Samples and QC shown here apply to the above method Lab Sample ID JA34700-1 JA34700-2 JA34700-3 JA34700-4 JA34700-5 JA34700-6 OP41361-BS1 OP41361-MB OP41361-MS OP41361-MSD Lab File ID F85661.D F85662.D 3MI6331.D 3M16332.D 3M16333.D 3M16334.D F85424.D F85423.D F85432.D F85433.D S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 41.0 33.0 32.0 20.0 47.0k 29.0 57.0.55.0 64.0 63.0 23.0 18.0 16.0 12.0:21.0 18.0 46.0 37.0 61.0* a 59.0* a 100.0 79.0 101.0 46.0 103'.0 84.0 100.0.98.0 99.0 94.0 75.0 64.0 63.0 37.0 80.0 60.0 92.0 100.0 83.0 82.0 75. 0 61.0 67.0 38.0 80.0 60.0 79.0 82.0 82.0 75.0 82.0 70.0 79.0.40.0 96.0 74.0 79.0 84.0 82.0.75.0 Surrogate Compounds S1 = 2-FluorophenolS2 = Phenol-d5 S3= 2,4,6-Tribromophenol S4 = Nitrobenzene-d5 S5 = 2-Fluorobiphenyl S6 = Terphenyl-d14 Recovery Limits 13 -68%10-490o%3,7-1300%'

~31- 106%/14-122%"o (a) Outside of in house control limits, but within reasonable method recovery limits.ME 109 of 162 MACCJTIEST.

JA34700 ý ;ý: 11 Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 1 Sample: E3M667-1CC667 Lab FilelD: 3M15141.D Response Factor Report MS3M Method Title Last Update Response via C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M667.M (RTE Integrator)

SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u Sat Nov 14 12:01:51 2009 Initial Calibration Calibration Files 100 =3m15142.D 10 =3m15145.D 80 =3m15143.D 5 =3m15146.D 50 =3m15141.D 2 =3m15147.D 25 =3m15144.D 1 =3m15148.D

-4 Compound 100 80 50 25 10 5 2 1 Avg %RSD 102) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d

---

ISTD----------------------

103) Benzaldehyde 0.903 0.842 0.860 1.114 1.062 0.930 1.057 0.967 11.26 104) Phenanthrene-dlOa

---

ISTD----------------------

105) Atrazine 0.106 0.109 0.116 0.103 0.114 0.105 0.089 0.096 0.105 106) Acenaphthene-dlaa

---

ISTD---------------------

107) 1,2,4,5-Tetr 0.500 0.513 0.534 0.471 0.542 0.521 0.444 0.545 0.509 8.74 6.98 108) Chrysene-dl2a -- -------ISTD- ----------

109) Benzidine 0.482 0.546 0.697 0.565 0.708 0.623 0.604 14.75 (#) = Out of Range ### Number of calibration levels exceeded format ###M3M668.M Mon Nov 16 12:03:06 2009 MS3M M2110of 162 GJA~CCTEST.

JA34700 1,r!ý Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 4 Sample: E3M703-ICC703 Lab FileID: 3MI5987.D Response Factor Report MS3M Method Title Last Update Response via C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M (RTE Integrator)

SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u Wed Dec 16 12:51:04 2009 Initial Calibration Calibration Files 100 =3m15981.D 80 10 =3m15988.D 5=3m15983 .D=3m15986.

D 50 =3m15985 .D 2 =3m15984.D 25 =3m15987 .D 1 =3m15982.D Compound 100 80 50 25 10 5 2 1 Avg %RSD 1) I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d

---

ISTD---------------------

2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)16)17)18)19)20)21)22)23)1,4-Dioxane Pyridine N-Nitrosodim 2-Fluorophen Indene Cumene Phenol-d5 Phenol Aniline bis(2-Chioro 2-Chlorophen Decane 1,3-Dichloro 1,4-Dichloro Benzyl alcoh 1,2-Dichloro Acetophenone 2-Methylphen 2,2'-oxybis(3&4-Methylph n-Nitroso-di Hexachloroet 1.349 0.907 1.249 2.040 2.899 1.724 1.945 1.667 1.489 1.612 1.271 1.662 1.747 1.000 1.742 1.840 1.255 0.480 1.395 0.958 0.648 1.404 0.915 1.244 2.057 2.932 1.748 1.957 1.715 1.527 1.570 1.447 1.637 1.711 1.019 1.694 1.870 1.278 0.487 1.392 0.995 0.627 0.452 0.202 0.641 0.757 0.230 0.382 0.239 1.293 0.874 1.139 1.904 2.727 1. 604 1.812 1.587 1.420 1.373 1.534 1.478 1.532 0.919 1.467 1.757 1.189 0.452 1.189 0. 955 0.515 1.285 0.851 1.052 1.860 2.680 1.518 1.736 1.581 1.372 1.311 1.561 1.430 1.469 0.824 1.395 1.724 1.126 0.449 1.107 0.936 0.473 1.447 0.955 1.328 2.074 3.029 1.916 1.967 1.840 1. 642 1.448 1.761 1.576 1. 685 0.919 1.561 1.883 1.307 0.499 1.357 1.038 0.526 1.283 0. 912 1.230 1. 927 2.867 1.756 1.787 1. 682 1.583 1.384 1.716 1.489 1.594 0.747 1.475 1.788 1.232 0.458 1.262 0.985 0.479 1.261 1.356 0.875 0.857 1.839"2.518 1.571 1.720 1.393 1.604 1.284 1.616 1.430 1.556 0.727 1.439 1.676 1.142 0.439 1.094 0.876 0.480 2.004 2.756 1.522 1.453 1.246 1.589 1.326 1.708 1.416 1.539 1.382 1.388 1. 103 0.471 1.020 0.875 0 .448 0. 000#1.335 0.893 1.207 1.963 2.801 1.670 1.797 1.589 1.528 1.414 1.577 1.515 1.604 0.879 1.519 1.741 1.204 0.467 1.227 0.952 0.525-1.00 4.95 3.90 8.03 4.69 5.81 8.36 9.51 11.90 6.21 8.57 10.29 6.43 6.18 13.20 8 .88 9.16 6.25 4.51 11.95 5. 92 14.12 8.19 8.79 8.41 6.16 14.19 12.34 15.72 0.9944 5.68 12.09 11.00 13.31 9.00 17.40 0.9987 24) I Naphthalene-d8 25)26)27)28)29)30)31)32)33)34)35)36)37)Nitrobenzene Nitrobenzene Quinoline Isophorone 2-Nitropheno 2,4-Dimethyl Benzoic Acid 0.450 0.206 0.644 0.746 0.238 0.385 0.239-----------------

ISTD---------------------

0.416 0.412 0.456 0.430 0.363 0.378 0.420 0.183 0.179 0.195 0.178 0.166 0.162 0.184 0.570 0.579 0.649 0.586 0.614 0.500 0.598 0.709 0.696 0.767 0.739 0.653 0.657 0.716 0.197 0.187 0.202 0.184 0.169 0.157 0.196 0.323 0.293 0.325 0.294 0.334 0.182 0.166 0.248 0.215 0.215-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.01345 + 0.13029 *A + 0.04359 *A^2 bis(2-Chloro 0.455 0.454 0.418 0.405 0.442 2,4-Dichloro 0.316 0.299 0.253 0.232 0.276 2,6-Dichloro 0.343 0.334 0.275 0.260 0.296 1,3,5-Trichl 0.395 0.376 0.311 0.291 0.324 1,2,4-Trichl 0.361 0.347 0.299 0.288 0.318 1,2,3-Trichl 0.413 0.389 0.301 0.278 0.306---Quadratic regression-0.416 0.254 0.264 0.294 0.297 0.281 0.386 0.420 0.424 0.223 0.253 0.263 0.265 0.285 0.290 0.285 0.286 0.320 0.282 0.307 0.312 0.270 0.282 0.315 Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00624 + 0.21243 *A + 0.08075 *A^2 38) Naphthalene 1.230 1.211 1.081 1.038 1.159 1.076 1.050 1.115 1.120 39) 4-Chloroanil 0.483 0.475 0.398 0.381 0.437 0.396 0.367 0.325 0.408 6.51 13.29 ME2c11 of 16 JA34700 Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 4 Sample: E3M703-ICC703 Lab FilelD: 3MI5987.D 40) 2,3-Dichloro 0.351 0.352 0.309 0.299 0.331 0.300 0.300 0.285 0.316

41) Caprolactam 0.126 0.127 0.119 0.152 0.172 0.156 0.123 0.139 42) Hexachlorobu 0.322 0.293 0.196 0.177 0.185 0.171 0.162 0.176 0.210-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00691 + 0.09567 *A + 0.09105 *A^2 43) 4-Chloro-3-m 0.343 0.342 0.306 0.285 0.311 0.286 0.258 0.292 0.303 44) 2-Methylnaph 0.998 0.997 0.983 0.913 0.961 0.866 0.562 0.599 0.860-Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9998 Response Ratio = -0.02227 + 1.00482 *A 45) 1-Methylnaph 0.770 0.756 0.653 0.626 0.710 0.691 0.713 0.846 0.721 46) Dimethylnaph 0.699 0.675 0.569 0.539 0.584 0.537 0.499 0.564 0.583

47) I Acenaphthene-dlO

---

ISTD---------------------

48) Hexachlorocy 0.425 0.403 0.278 0.227 0.235 0.191 0.145 0.272-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = -0.00082 + 0.17031 *A + 0.05259 *A^2 49) 2,4,6-Trichl 0.424 0.397 0.320 0.301 0.324 0.293 0.260 0.331 Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00778 + 0.23274 *A + 0.07612 *A^2 50)51)52)53)54)55)56)57)58)59)60)2,4,5-Trichl 2-Fluorobiph 2-Chloronaph Biphenyl 2-Nitroanili Dimethylphth Acenaphthyle 2,6-Dinitrot 3-Nitroanili Acenaphthene 2,4-Dinitrop 0.390 0.367 1.581 1.517 1.418 1.843 0.407 0.406 1.655 2.378 2.298 0.304 0.299 0.344 0.333 1.354 1.311 0.166 0.155 0.308 1.296 1.146 1.462 0.362 1.320 1.882 0.265 0.294 1.131 0.113 0.279 1.217 1.032 1.336 0.332 1.175 1.715 0.250 0.257 1.080 0.088 0.360 1.351 1. 147 1.469 0.374 1.273 1. 912 0.269 0.299 1.199 0.090 0.343 1.244 1.052 1.355 0.336 1.170 1.748 0.244 0.244 1.131 0.063 0.301 1.230 1.045 1.314 0.323 1.163 1.679 0.210 1.338 0.979 1.351 0.345 1.343 1.898 0.235 0.335 1.347 1.117 1.447 0.361 1.300 1.939 0.260 0.295 1.194 0.112 8.07 14.68 29.20 0.9978 9.66 20.75 9.67 11.89 38.72 0.9968 17 .64 0.9992 11.96 10.02 13.06 12.76 9.11 13.34 13.53 12.27 13.40 8.21 36.05 0.9981 17.06 0.9915 8.65 9.15 27.62 0.9990 14.74 10.39 23.66 0.9981 1.116 1.227-Quadratic regression

---

Response Ratio = -0.00264 + 0.06996 *A Coefficient

=+ 0.01981 *A^2 61) 4-Nitropheno 0.168 0.158 0.107 0.141 0.140 0.115 0.138-Quadratic regression

---

Coefficient

-Response Ratio = 0.01427 + 0.06290 *A + 0.04048 *A^2 62)63)64)65)66)67)Dibenzofuran 1.812 1.754 1.513 1.431 1.589 1.510 1.471 1.660 1.592 2,4-Dinitrot 0.406 0.401 0.358 0.334 0.371 0.329 0.318 0.381 0.362 2,3,4,6-Tetr 0.379 0.353 0.271 0.249 0.255 0.234 0.203 0.160 0.263----- Quadratic regression

---

Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00370 + 0.18546 *A + 0.07814 *A^2 Diethylphtha 1.742 1.656 1.299 1.209 1.330 1.251 1.212 1.467 1.396 Fluorene 1.550 1.476 1.255 1.183 1.305 1.206 1.191 1.348 1.314 4-Chlorophen 0.918 0.835 0.576 0.518 0.571 0.536 0.538 0.629 0.640----- Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.02268 + 0.29618 *A + 0.24898 *A^2 68) 4-Nitroanili 0.368 0.353 0.283 0.247 0.312 0.283 0.308 14.98 69)70)I Phenanthrene-d0

---

ISTD---------------------

4,6-Dinitro-0.166 0.144 0.109 0.104 0.107 0.078 0.118 26.88-Quadratic regression Coefficient

= 0.9990 Response Ratio = 0.00874 + 0.04945 *A + 0.04519 *A^2 MACCUTE6T.

JA34700 ý Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 4 Sample: E3M703-ICC703 Lab FileID: 3M15987.D 71)72)73)74)75)76)n-Nitrosodip 0.615 0.579 0.481 0.479 0.536 0.498 0.521 0.559 0.534 1,2-Diphenyl 0.876 0.900 0.907 0.938 1.084 1.004 1.004 1.118 0.979 2,4,6-Tribro 0.105 0.101 0.089 0.089 0.104 0.094 0.097 4-Bromopheny 0.213 0.202 0.174 0.173 0.200 0.191 0.192 0.256 0.200 Hexachlorobe 0.239 0.231 0.198 0.198 0.229 0.213 0.230 0.298 0.229 Pentachlorop 0.175 0.161 0.125 0.106 0.113 0.088 0.128 SQuadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00465 + 0.07924 *A + 0.01927 *A^2 77) Phenanthrene 0.997 0.985 0.896 0.896 1.035 0.999 1.087 1.389 1.035-Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9976 Response Ratio = -0.01309 + 0.98469 *A 78) Anthracene 0.986 0.954 0.870 0.887 1.053 1.005 1.113 1.511 1.047

-Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9967 Response Ratio = -0.01006 + 0.96381 *A 79)80)81)82)Carbazole Di-n-butylph Fluoranthene Octadecane 0.857 1.275 1.198 0.827 1.266 1.146 0.379 0.761 1.157 0.981 0.407 0.759 1.162 0.951 0.448 0.950 1.278 1.084 0.537 0.899 1.198 1.041 0.505 1.021 1.191 1.146 0.492 0.868 1.373 1.238 1.363 1.114 0.461 83) I Chrysene-d12

---

ISTD-----------------------

84)85)86)87)88)89)90)91)Pyrene Butyl steara Terphenyl-dl Butylbenzylp Benzo[a]anth 3,3'-Dichlor Chrysene bis(2-Ethylh 0.990 0.993 0.246 0.777 0.755 0.460 0.465 0.947 0.938 0.415 0.402 0.985 0.993 0.658 0.661 0.984 0.317 0.706 0.484 0.889 0.337 0.904 0.662 0.977 0.337 0.673 0.493 0.885 0.304 0.867 0.663 1.134 0 .397 0.805 0.551 0.971 0.338 1.031 0.728 1.105 0.372 0.820 0.502 0.913 0.300 1.017 0.655 1.177 1.449 1.101 0.410 0.346 0.963 0.786 0.461 0.496 0.489 0.894 0.971 0.926 0.293 0.341 1.071 1.128 0.999 0.622 0.614 0.658 9.11 9.08 7.33 13.08 13.80 26.18 0.9992 15.12 19.46 11.18 5.96 11.81 13.21 14 .61 17.48 11.99 6.12 3.84 14 .41 8 .45 5.22 21.50 54.98 0.9991 16.02 0. 9994 22.82 0. 9984 26.86 0.9998 21.51 0.9996 29.68 0.9995 92) I Perylene-d12

---

ISTD---------------------

93) Di-n-octylph 1.807 1.740 1.511 1.361 1.351 1.154 0.957 1.412-Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9944 Response Ratio = -0.15383 + 1.81527 *A 94) Benzo[b]fluo 2.652 2.218 1.394 1.129 0.977 0.813 0.642 0.796 1.328-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.05389 + 0.28145 *A + 0.94102 *A^2 95) Benzo[k]fluo 1.567 1.326 1.088 1.292 1.145 1.142 0.969 1.218-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.02355 + 0.88955 *A + 0.33247 *A^2 96) Benzo[a]pyre 1.417 1.379 1.098 0.985 1.070 1.020 0.777 0.754 1.063-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00364 + 0.86530 *A + 0.22851 *A^2 97) Indeno[l,2,3 1.795 1.629 1.305 1.108 1.133 0.986 0.900 0.944 1.225-Quadratic regression

--.... Coefficient Response Ratio = 0.01250 + 0.84950 *A + 0.37825 *A^2 98) Dibenz(a,h)a 1.146 1.075 0.884 0.791 0.811 0.722 0.645 0.681 0.844-Quadratic regression

---

Coefficient Response Ratio = 0.00465 + 0.66139 *A + 0.19579 *A^2 99) Dibenz[a,h]a 1.615 1.483 1.152 0.914 0.920 0.869 0.816 0.788 1.070-Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00467 + 0.72339 *A + 0.36132 *A^2 RACCUTEST.

JA34700 zz,'" i ,

Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 4 of 4 Sample: E3M703-1CC703 Lab FilelD: 3M15987.D 100) 7,12-Dimethy 0.804 0.604 0.437 0.413 0.324 0.272 0.476----- Quadratic regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = 0.00582 + 0.26753 *A + 0.26668 *A^2 41.44 0.9999 101) Benzo[g,h,i]

1.228 1.139 0.975 0.882 0.986 0.902 0.840 0.879 0.979 14.05

(*) = Out of Range ### Number of calibration levels exceeded format ###M3M703HQ.M Wed Dec 16 12:51:53 2009 MS3M JA34700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: E3M703-ICV703 Lab FileID: 3MI5990.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m703\3m15990.D Acq On : 14 Dec 2009 5:25 pm Sample : icv703-50 Misc : op41242,E3M703,1000,,,l,l MS Integration Params: lscint.p Vial: 11 Operator:

kristis Inst. : MS3M Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via: C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M (RTE Integrator)

SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mX0.18mmIDXO.18u

Wed Dec 16 12:51:04 2009: Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Max. RRF Dev : 20%Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. Rel. Area : 202%1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1.000 1.000 0.0 110 0.00 3.85 3 t Pyridine 1.335 1.561 -16.9 133 0.03 1.704 t N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.893 0.943 -5.6 118 0.03 1.70 6 t Indene 1.963 2.319 -18.1 134 0.00 4.197 t Cumene 2.801 2.834 -1.2 114 0.01 3.021 t bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 1.528 1.514 0.9 117 0.00 3.59 3 t Decane 1.577 1.688 -7.0 121 0.00 3.69 4 t 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.515 1.589 -4.9 118 0.00 3.80 5 t 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.604 1.638 -2.1 117 0.00 3.86 6 t Benzyl alcohol 0.879 0.962 -9.4 115 -0.02 4.10 7 t 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.519 1.580 -4.0 118 0.00 4.09 8 t Acetophenone 1.741 1.964 -12.8 123 -0.01 4.40 0 t 2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropa 0.467 0.473 -1.3 115 0.00 4.26 2 t n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamin 0.952 1.012 -6.3 116 0.00 4.45 3 t Hexachloroethane 0.525 0.533 -1.5 114 0.00 4.47 24 26 27 28 I t t t Naphthalene-d8 1.000 Nitrobenzene 0.184 Quinoline 0.598 Isophorone 0.716-- AvgRF 1.000 0.186 0.687 0.733 CCRF 0.466 0.0-1.1-14.9-2.4% Dev-9.9 106 0.00 5.56 108 0.00 4.63 128 -0.03 6.10 109 0.00 4.94 32 t bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methan 0.424 118 0.00 36 t 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene0.312 0.331

-6.1 117 0.00-------------------

AvgRF 38 t Naphthalene 1.120 40 t 2,3-Dichloroaniline 0.316 41 t Caprolactam 0.139-------------------

True 42 t Hexachlorobutadiene 50.000 CCRF 1.158 0.313 0.162 Calc.48.525% Dev-3.4 0.9-16.5% Drift 3.0 5.31 5.51 5.59 7.16 6.27 5.87 113 0.00 107 0.00 144 0.00 ill 0.00------------------

True Calc.44 t 2-Methylnaphthalene 50.000 44.674% Drift 10.7 83 0.00 6.63-------------------

AvgRF 45 t l-Methylnaphthalene 0.721 46 t Dimethylnaphthalene 0.583 CCRF 0.708 0.610% Dev 1.8-4.6 115 0.00 6.79 113 0.00 7.61 115 of162 JA 134700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: E3M703-ICV703 Lab FilelD: 3M15990.D 47 1 Acenaphthene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 102 0.00-------------------

True 48 t Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 100.000 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 t t t t t t t t 2-Chloronaphthalene Biphenyl 2-Nitroaniline Dimethylphthalate Acenaphthylene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3-Nitroaniline Acenaphthene 1.117 1.447 0.361 1.300 1.939 0.260 0.295 1.194 AvgRF 1.592 0.362 AvgRF 1.396 1.314 62 t Dibenzofuran 63 t 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Calc.99.225 1.247 1.626 0.394 1.400 1.795 0.278 0.269 1.226 CCRF 1.673 0.350 CCRF 1.358 1.376 Calc.48.887 CCRF 0.281% Drift 0.8-11.6-12.4-9.1

-7.7 7.4-6.9 8.8-2.7% Dev-5.1 3.3% Dev 2.7-4.7% Drift 2.2% Dev 8.8 Ill 114 111 108 97 107 93 Ill 113 100 0.00 0.00-0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00-0.03 0.01 109 0.00 8.26 6.99 7.38 7.38 7.66 8.02 8 .02 8.11 8.34 8.32 0.00 8.57 0.00 8.72 65 t Diethylphthalate 66 t Fluorene 107 0.00 112 0.00-------------------

True 67 t 4-Chliorophenyl-phenylethe 50.000-------------------

AvgRF 68 t 4-Nitroaniline 0.308 107 0.00 101 -0.02 9.14 9.11 9.16 9.33 69 I Phenanthrene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 101 0.00 10.58 71 72 74 75 t t t t n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether Hexachlorobenzene AvgRF 0.534 0.979 0.200 0.229 CCRF 0.490 0.953 0.190 0.210% Dev 8.2 2.7 5.0 8.3 103 106 110 107 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.39 9.41 9.92 10.11 77 t Phenanthrene 78 t Anthracene 50.000 49.669 50.000 50.242 0.7 109 0.01 10.62-0.5 112 0.00 10.69 79 80 81 82 t t t t Carbazole Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Octadecane AvgRF 0.868 1.238 1.114 0.461 CCRF 0.875 1.222 1.028 0.450% Dev-0.8 1.3 7.7 2.4 116 -0.02 11.02 107 0.00 11.71 106 0.00 12.42 112 0.00 10.58 83 I 84 t Chrysene-d12 Pyrene 1.000 1.000 1.101 1.129 0.0 90 0.00 14.34-2.5 104 0.00 12.71 87 88 89 90 91 t t t t t Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo[a]anthracene 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine Chrysene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat 0.489 0.926 0.341 0.999 0.658 0.557 1.003 0.285 1.047 0.759-13.9-8.3 16.4-4.8-15.3 104 102 77 105 104 0.00 0.00-0.02 0.01 0.01 13.75 14.32 14.36 14.38 14.54 92 I Perylene-d12 1.000 1.000 0.0 89 0.00 16.00

---

True 93 t Di-n-octylphthalate 50.000 Calc.50.807% Drift-1.6 102 0.01 15.26 MB116 of 162 OACCUTEST.

JA34700 F ý-,'

Initial Calibration VerificationJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 3 of 3 Sample: E3M703-ICV703 Lab FieleD: 3M15990.D 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 t t t

t t

t t Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[a]pyrene Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Dibenz(a,h)acridine Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthr 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 51.572 52.699 52.108 52. 969 51.413 51.477 48.222 CCRF 1.076-3.1

-5.4-4.2-5.9-2.8-3.0 3.6% Dev-9.9 102 96 99 99 95 95 85 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 15.62 15.64 15.95 17.09 16.85 17.10 15.62----------

AvgRF 101 t Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.979 99 0.00 17.37 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

(#) = Out of Range 3m15985a.D M3M703HQ.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Wed Dec 16 16:23:32 2009 MS3M MM117 of 162 JA34700 t Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of I Sample: E3M703-1CV703 Lab FilelD: 3M15991.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\m'sdchem\l\DATA\e3m703\3ml5991.D Acq On : 14 Dec 2009 5:51 pm Sample : icv703-50 Misc : op41242,E3M703,1000,,,1,l MS Integration Params: iscint.p Vial: 12 Operator:

kristis Inst : MS3M Multi plr: 1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M (RTE Integrator)

SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u Mon Dec 14 16:51:52 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area : 202%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.1 I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1.000 1.000 0.0 90 0.00 3.84 10 t Aniline 1.589 1.861

-17.1 105 0.00 3.53 24 I Naphthalene-d8 39 t 4-Chloroaniline 1.000 1.000 0.408 0.366 0.0 88 10.3 81 0.00-0.02 5.56 5.77 (#) = Out of Range 3m15985a.D M3M703HQ.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Mon Dec 14 22:12:27 2009 MS3M RAcCCUTES-I:

JA34700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 2 Sample: E3M704-ICV703 Lab FileID: 3M15996.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m703\3m15996.D Acq On : 14 Dec 2009 8:13 pm Sample icv703-50 Misc : op41242,E3M704,1000,,,1,1 MS Integration Params: lscint.p Vial: 5 Operator:

kristis Inst : MS3M Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\l\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M (RTE Integrator)

SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mX0.18mmIDX0.18u Tue Dec 15 16:01:17 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area : 202%U'Compound AvgRF CCRF%Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 9 12 19 21 24 29 30 I t t t t I t t 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 Phenol 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylphenol 3&4-Methylphenol Naphthalene-d8 2-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.000 1.797 1.414 1.204 1.227 1.000 0.196 0.334 1.000 1.827 1.422 1.293 1.381 1.000 0.203 0.395 Calc.57.296 0.0-1.7-0.6-7.4-12.6 90 90 93 97 104 0.00-0.02 0.00-0.01-0.03 3.84 3.60 3.67 4.31 4.51 5.56 5.07 5.22 5.62 0.0-3.6-18.3% Drift-14.6 88 0.00 91 -0.01 108 -0.02 112 0.02-------------------

True 31 Benzoic Acid 50.000 33 t 2,4-Dichlorophenol 34 2,6-Dichlorophenol 0.263 0.250 0.290 0.285 4.9 87 -0.03 5.47 1.7 91 -0.01 5.77% Dev 0.0 87 -0.03 6.62-------------------

AvgRF 43 t 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 0.303 CCRF 0.303 47 I Acenaphthene-dlO 49 t 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 1.000 1.000 50.000 52.060 0.0 83 0.00-4.1 91 -0.03-------------------

AvgRF 50 t 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0.335--------------------

True 60 t 2,4-Dinitrophenol 100.000 61 t 4-Nitrophenol 50.000---------------------

True 64 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 50.000 CCRF 0.345 Calc.82.626 59.793 Calc.50.472% Dev-3.0 8.26 7.17 7.28 8.52 8.90 93 -0.04% Drift-17.4-19.6 54 123-0.01-0.12% Drift-0.9 89 -0.02 8.90 0.0 68 0.00 10.57 69 I Phenanthrene-dlO 1.000 1.000-------------------

True 70 t 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylpheno 50.000 Calc.52.814% Drift-5.6 77 -0.04 9.35 ME 119 of 162 JA3=CX"TEBiT JA34700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample: E3M704-ICV703 Lab FilelD: 3M15996.D True 76 t Pentachlorophenol 100.000 Calc.108.726% Drift-8.7 76 0.00 10.45--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

(#) = Out of Range 3m15985a.D M3M703HQ.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Tue Dec 15 16:31:12 2009 MS3M MB120of 162 RACCUTEST.

JA34700 IFL --ýk1 Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: E3M719-CC703 Lab FilelD: 3MI16326.D Evaluate Continuinq Calibration Report Data File C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m7l9\3ml6326.D Acq On : 28 Dec 2009 10:44 pm Sample cc703-25 Misc : op41506,E3M719, MS Integration Params: lscint.p Vial: 2 Operator:

larisap Inst : MS3M Multiplr:

1.00 Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M (RTE Integrator)

Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u Last Update : Tue Dec 29 13:24:46 2009 Response via : Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area

202%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1,4-Dioxane Pyridine N-Nitrosodimethylamine 2-Fluorophenol Indene Cumene Phenol-d5 Phenol Aniline bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 2-Chlorophenol Decane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzyl alcohol 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Acetophenone 2-Methylphenol 2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropa 3&4-Methylphenol n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamin Hexachloroethane 1.000 1.000----------N A 1.335 0.893 1.207 1.963 2.801 1.670 1.797 1.589 1.528 1.414 1.577 1.515 1.604 0.879 1.519 1.741 1.204 0.467 1.227 0.952 0.525 1.000 0.420 0.184 0.598 0.716 0.196 0.334 1.009 0. 692 1.128 1.776 2.614 1.556 1.552 1.096 1.338 1.340 1.386 1.410 1.507 0.670 1.402 1.683 1.093 0.432 1.129 0.859 0.529 1.000 0.369 0.168 0.553 0. 631 0. 188 0.281 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 0.0 124 0.00 4.4# 97 0.00 2.5# 101 0.00 6.5 133 0.00 9.5 118 0.00 6.7 121 0.00 6.8 127 0.00 3.6 111 0.00 1.0# 86 0.00 2.4 121 0.00 5.2 127 0.00 2.1 110 0.00 6.9 122 0.00 6.0 127 0.00 3.8# 101 0.00 7.7 124 0.00 3.3 121 0.00 9.2 120 0.00 7.5 119 0.00 8.0 126 0.00 9.8 114 0.00 0.8 138 0.00 3.77 1.63 1.63 2.57 4.11 2.93 3.53 3.55 3.47 3.52 3.60 3.60 3.72 3.78 4.04 4.01 4.34 4.25 4.18 4.47 4.38 4.39 5.48 4.53 4.56 6.05 4.88 5.00 5.16 I S t t t t t Naphthalene-d8 Nitrobenzene-d5 Nitrobenzene Quinoline Isophorone 2-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.0 12.1 8.7 7.5 11.9 4.1 15.9 127 114 119 121 115 127 122 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 True Calc. % Drift25.000 30.610

-22.4# 170 0.00 5.50 31 Benzoic Acid 32 t 33 t 34 35 t 36 t-- AvgRF bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methan 0.424 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.263 2,6-Dichlorophenol 0.290 1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 0.320 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.312 CCRF 0.342 0.269 0.278 0.309 0.304% Dev 19.3-2.3 4.1 3.4 2.6 107 0.00 5.23 147 0.00 5.41 136 0.00 5.70 135 0.00 4.98 134 0.00 5.43 Ma121 of 162 JA34700 Continuing Calibration Summary Page 2 of 3Job Number:

JA34700 Sample: E3M719-CC703 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Lab FilelD: 3M16326.D Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ 37- .....--------------

True 37 t 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 25.000 Calc. % Drift 38 39 40 41 t t t t-----------------------A v g R F Naphthalene 1.120 4-Chloroaniline 0.408 2,3-Dichloroaniline 0.316 Caprolactam 0.139 26.656 CCRF 0.992 0.359 0.307 0.133 Calc.28.155-6.6 135 0.00% Dev 11.4 12.0 2.8 4.3 122 0.00 120 0.00 131 0.00 112 0.00 5.78 5.50 5.71 7.08 6.25 5.78-----------------------

True 42 t Hexachlorobutadiene 25.000-----------------------

AvgRF 43 t 4-Chloro&3-methylphenol 0.303-----------------------

True 44 t 2-Methylnaphthalene 25.000-----------------------

AvgRF 45 t 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.721 46 t Dimethylnaphthalene 0.583% Drift-12.6 137 0.00 CCRF % Dev 0.285 5.9 127 0.00 6.57 Calc.23.042 CCRF 0.652 0.554% Drift 7.8 124 0.00% Dev 9.6 5.0 132 0.00 131 0.00 6.55 6.71 7.53 47 1 Acenaphthene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 131 0.00 8.18-----------------------

True 48 t HexachlorocyclOpentadiene 50.000 49 t 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 25.000 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 t S t t t t t t t t 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2-Chloronaphthalene Biphenyl 2-Nitroaniline Dimethylphthalate Acenaphthylene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3-Nitroaniline Acenaphthene AvqRF 0.335 1.347 1.117 1.447 0.361 1.300 1.939 0.260 0.295 1.194-----------------------

True 60 t 2,4-Dinitrophenol 50.000 61 t 4-Nitrophenol 25.000-----------------------

AvgRF 62 t Dibenzofuran 1.592 63 t 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.362-----------------------

True 64 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 25.000-----------------------

AvgRF 65 t Diethylphthalate 1.396 66 t Fluorene 1.314-----------------------

True 67 t 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethe 25.000-----------------------

AvgRF 68 t 4-Nitroaniline 0.308 Calc.47.990 27.774 CCRF 0.370 1.216 1.064 1.303 0.329 1.226 1.667 0.266 0.259 1.040 Calc.55.484 30.032 CCRF 1.464 0.370 Calc.27.925 CCRF 1.250 1.176 Calc.28.644 CCRF 0.248% Drift 4.0-11.1% Dev-10.4 9.7 4.7 10.0 8.9 5.7 14.0-2.3 12.2 12.9% Drift-11.0-20.1#% Dev 8.0-2.2 128 0.00 6.89 143 0.00 7.11 173 0.00 7.24 130 0.00 7.17 135 0.00 7.29 127 0.00 7.30 129 0.00 7.61 136 0.00 7.93 127 0.00 7.93 139 0.00 8.03 132 0.00 8.30 126 0.00 8.23 158 0.00 8.46 125 0.00 8.88 134 0.00 8.49 145 0.00 8.66% Drift-11.7 144 0.00 8.83% Dev 10.5 10.5 135 0.00 9.04 130 0.00 9.02% Drift-14.6 146 0.00 9.07% Dev 19.5 131 0.00 9.31 122 of 162 MACCWT6EST.JA34700 Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample: E3M719-CC703 Lab FileID: 3M16326.D 69 1 Phenanthrene-dl0 1.000 1.000 0.0 124 0.00 10.50 I--------------------

True 70 t 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylpheno 25.000--------------------

AvgRF 71 t n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.534 72 t 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.979 73 S 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 0.097 74 t 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 0.200 75 t Hexachlorobenzene 0.229--------------------

True 76 t Pentachlorophenol 50.000 77 t Phenanthrene 25.000 78 t Anthracene 25.000 79 80 81 82 t t t t Calc.29.768 CCRF 0.518 0.863 0.110 0.202 0.226 Ca1c.54.526 25.428 25.871 CCRF 0.852 1.253 1.062 0.436 1.000 0. 995 0.308 0.744 0.504 0. 941 0.352 0.961 0.738% Drift-19.1% Dev 3.0 11.8-13.4-1.0 1.3% Drift-9.1

-1.7-3.5% Dev 1.8-1.2 4.7 5.4 139 135 137 0.00 0.00'0.00 1 1 1 134 0.00 134 0.00 114 0.00 153 0.00 144 0.00 141 0.00 1 9.31 9.30 9.31 9.48 9.83 0.02 0.39 0.53 0.60 Carbazole Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Octadecane 83 I 84 t 85 86 S 87 t 88 t 89 t 90 t 91 t Chrysene-d12 Pyrene Butyl stearate Terphenyl-d14 Butylbenzylphthalate Benzo[a]anthracene 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine Chrysene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat AvgRF 0.868 1.238 1.114 0.461 1.000 1.101 0.346 0.786 0.489 0.926 0.341 0.999 0.658 139 0.00 10.95 133 0.00 11.62 138 0.00 12.34 120 0.00 10.48 0.0 9.6 11.0 5.3-3.1-1.6-3.2 3.8-12.2 136 139 124 151 139 145 158 151 152 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.28 12.64 13.74 12.93 13.67 14.25 14.29 14.31 14.45 92 I Perylene-d121.000 1.000 0.0 158 0.00 15.94 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 t t t t t t t t-- True Di-n-octylphthalate 25.000 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 25.000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 25.000 Benzo[a]pyrene 25.000 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 25.000 Dibenz(a,h)acridine 25.000 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 25.000 7,12-Dimethyibenz(a)anthr 25.000 Caic.22.560 28.663 22.714 24.972 27.540 28.643 27.750 23.347% Drift 9. 8-14.7 9.1 0.1-10.2-14.6-11.0 6.6% Dev-7.5 161 165 147 162 177 185 188 146 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.17 15.55 15.57 15.89 17.02 16.78 17.03 15.54---------------------

AvgRF CCRF 101 t Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.979 1.052 188 0.00 17.29

(#) = Out of Range 3m15987a.D M3M703HQ.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Tue Dec 29 13:26:14 2009 MS3M JA34700 L Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of I Sample: E3M719-CC667Lab FilelD:

3MI6327.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\3m16327.D Acq On : 28 Dec 2009 11:10 pm Sample : cc667-25Misc op41506,E3M719, MS Integration Params: lscint.p Vial: 3 Operator:

larisap Inst : MS3M Multiplr:

1.00 Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M (RTE Integrator)

Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u Last Update : Tue Dec 29 13:26:53 2009 Response via : Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. RRF Dev : 20% Max. Rel. Area : 202%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

102 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4a 1.000 1.000 0.0 65 0.00 3.77 103 Benzaldehyde 0.967 0.939 2.9 71 0.00 3.32 104 Phenanthrene-dlOa 105 Atrazine 106 Acenaphthene-dlOa 107 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzen 1.000 1.0000.105 0.126 1.000 1.0000.509 0.579 0.0 76-20.0# 92 0.0 74-13.8 910.00 10.49 0.00 10.26 0.00 8.17 0.00 6.87 108 Chrysene-dl2a 1.000 1.000 0.0 84 0.00 14.27 109 Benzidine 0.604 0.264 56.3# 39# 0.00 12.69 (#) = Out of Range 3m15987a.D M3M703HQ.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Tue Dec 29 13:33:14 2009 MS3M f 124 of 162 JACCUTES0r, JA34700 L Tc t"1 Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: EF3993-ICC3993 Lab FileID: F84455.D Response Factor Report MSF Method Title Last Update Response via C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-SMS 20m x .18mm x .18um Wed Nov 04 07:59:35 2009 Initial CalibrationCalibration Files 2 =F84461.D 5 100 =F84456.D 50=F84460.D=F84455.D 25 1=F84458.D=F84462.D 80 =F84457.D 10 =F84459.D 2 2 2 2 Compound 2 5 25 80 100 50 1 10 Avg %RSD 1) I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d

---

ISTD---------------------

2) 1,4-Dioxane 0.580 0.502 0.506 0.465 0.457 0.464 0.665 0.492 0.516 13.8 3) Pyridine 1.240 1.330 1.348 1.384 1.369 1.243 1.581 1.447 1.368 8.0 4) N-Nitrosodim 0.737 0.760 0.812 0.760 0.756 0.750 0.718 0.843 0.767 5.3 5) 2-Fluorophen 1.188 1.222 1.323 1.338 1.321 1.262 1.050 1.354 1.257 8.1 6) Indene 2.032 2.042 2.052 2.052 2.042 2.013 2.304 2.199 2.092 4.9 7) Cumene 2.827 2.774 2.816 2.750 2.764 2.733 3.131 2.975 2.846 4.8 8) Phenol-d5 1.683 1.701 1.618 1.648 1.638 1.591 1.720 1.861 1.682 5.0 9) Phenol 1.700 1.695 1.739 1.708 1.680 1.678 1.724 1.875 1.725 3.7 0) Aniline 1.766 1.850 1.533 1.514 1.490 1.416 2.081 1.901 1.694 14.1 1) bis(2-Chloro 1.326 1.281 1.261 1.221 1.215 1.160 1.491 1.377 1.291 8.1 2) 2-Chlorophen 1.406 1.442 1.433 1.393 1.379 1.393 1.541 1.540 1.441 4.5 3) Decane 1.848 1.759 1.661 1.558 1.556 1.576 2.200 1.822 1.748 .12.4 14) 1,3-Dichloro 1.577 1.570 1.582 1.552 1.560 1.547 1.687 1.674 1.593 3.4 5) 1,4-Dichloro 1.602 1.604 1.595 1.575 1.574 1.568 1.734 1.696 1.619 3.8 6) Benzyl alcoh 0.808 0.814 0.879 0.876 0.874 0.828 0.932 0.859 5.1 7) 1,2-Dichloro 1.485 1.497 1.518 1.478 1.480 1.482 1.596 1.606 1.518 3.4 8) Acetophenone 1.726 1.736 1.730 1.748 1.750 1.720 1.851 1.870 1.766 3.3 9) 2-Methylphen 1.104 1.217 1.229 1.219 1.223 1.196 1.069 1.332 1.199 6.7 0) 2,2'-oxybis( 0.432 0.438 0.437 0.441 0.439 0.432 0.469 0.465 0.444 3.2 1) 3&4-Methylph 1.121 1.251 1.329 1.336 1.338 1.283 1.024 1.398 1.260 10.0 2) n-Nitroso-di 0.908 0.929 0.885 0.879 0.869 0.867 0.966 0.942 0.906 4.0 23) Hexachloroet 0.497 0.502 0.526 0.523 0.516 0.528 0.532 0.549 0.521 3.2:-4 4 8 0 5 3 4 0 1 0 5 3 2 6 2 9 9 5 5 9 1 6 0 24) I Naphthalene-d8

---

ISTD-----------------------

25)26)27) 28)29)30)31)32)33)34)35)36)37)38)39)40)41)Nitrobenzene Nitrobenzene Quinoline Isophorone 2-Nitropheno 2,4-Dimethyl Benzoic acid 0.396 0.373 0.177 0.178 0.616 0.659 0.665 0.645 0.179 0.191 0.2570.078 0.177 0.381 0.186 0. 687 0.643 0.213 0.307 0.284 0.386 0.186 0.702 0.618 0.213 0.348 0.305 0.391 0.189 0.710 0. 614 0.216 0.354 0.381 0.186 0. 693 0. 627 0.211 0.323 0.255 0.410 0.172 0.669 0..709 0.179----- Linear regression Coefficient

=Response Ratio = -0.01756 + 0.30241 *A bis(2-Chloro 2,4-Dichloro 2,6-Dichloro 1,3,5-Trichl 1,2,4-Trichl 1,2,3-Trichl Naphthalene 4-Chloroanil 2,3-Dichloro Caprolactam 0.361 0.272 0.294 0.351 0.330 0.320 1.141 0.422 0.339 0.306 0.379 0.293 0.292 0.352 0.335 0.324 1.115 0.441 0.349 0.231 0.388 0.322 0.317 0.361 0.335 0.333 1.116 0.434 0.368 0.186 0.388 0.323 0.317 0.357 0.335 0.330 1.105 0.425 0.368 0.185 0.393 0.327 0.322 0.363 0.341 0.334 1. 120 0.426 0.376 0.192 0.385 0.320 0.318 0.362 0.340 0.334 1.110 0.425 0.372 0.177 0.403 0.231 0.306 0.386 0.351 0.338 1.256 0.422 0.348 0.336 0.415 0.197 0.721 0.700 0.218 0.297 0.247 0.9915 0.413 0.330 0.327 0.380 0.357 0.353 1.195 0.483 0.380 0.203 0.9981 0.392 0.184 0.682 0. 653 0.202 0.314 0.224 0.389 0.302 0.312 0.364 0.341 0.333 1.145 0. 435 0..363 0.227 3.76 4.38 4.92 5.53 8.27 11.36 37.45 3.96 11.62 4.13 3.49 2.72 2.96 4.69 4.74 4.17 26.85----- Linear regression

---

Coefficient

=125 of 162 JA34700 Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: EF3993-ICC3993 Lab FilelD: F84455.D Response Ratio = 0.00217 + 0.18649 *A 42)43)44)45)46)Hexachlorobu 0.178 4-Chloro-3-m 0.216 2-Methylnaph 0.691 1-Methylnaph 0.726 Dimethylnaph 0.600 0.175 0.261 0.702 0.735 0.613 0.179 0.298 0.734 0.724 0.644 0.175 0.298 0.737 0.727 0.647 0.177 0.306 0.750 0.739 0. 655 0.179 0.302 0.740 0.730 0.649 0.196 0.187 0.304 0.756 0.769 0.799 0.791 0.649 0.675 0.181 0.283 0.735 0.746 0.642 47) I Acenaphthene-dlO

---

ISTD-----------------------

48) Hexachlorocy 0.158 0.184 0.245 0.272 0.277 0.261 0.143 0.233----- Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9993 Response Ratio = -0.02236 + 0.27800 *A 49)50)51)52)53)54)*55)56)57)58)59)60)61)62)63)64)65)66)67)68)2,4,6-Trichl 2,4,5-Trichl 2-Fluorobiph 2-Chloronaph Biphenyl 2-Nitroanili Dimethylphth Acenaphthyle 2,6-Dinitrot 3-Nitroanili Acenaphthene 2,4-Dinitrop 0.334 0.345 1.422 1.167 1.530 0.274 1.222 1.844 0.223 0.255 1.180 0.345 0.372 1.403 1.142 1.492 0.301 1.238 1.838 0.252 0.279 1.134 0.064 0.375 0.412 1.397 1.157 1.508 0.325 1.259 1.895 0.282 0.323 1.151 0.136 0.376 0.411 1.339 1.127 1.445 0.332 1.229 1.869 0.289 0.330 1.133 0.173 0.377 0.415 1.346 1. 135 1.454 0.332 1.252 1.867 0.296 0.339 1.164 0.183 0.376 0.405 1.370 1.140 1.482 0.326 1.232 1.855 0.280 0.321 1.142 0.154 0.310 0.395 0.425 1.596 1.531 1.248 1.258 1.617 1.636 0.348 1.380 1.358 2.057 2.034 0.197 0.295 0.335 1.301 1.255 0.109 t = 0.9960 0.157 1.665 1.714 0.385 0.313 1.728 1.442 1.414 1.431 0.568 0.615 0.332 0.222 0.361 0.398 1.425 1.172 1.521 0.320 1.271 1.907 0.264 0.312 1.183 0.136 0.149 1.594 0.371 0.297 1.389 1.338 0.576 0.305--Linear regression

---

Coefficien Response Ratio = -0.05120 + 0.18802 *A 4-Nitropheno Dibenzofuran 2,4-Dinitrot 2,3,4,6-Tetr Diethylphtha Fluorene 4-Chlorophen 4-Nitroanili 1.546 0.297 0.240 1.441 1.297 0.553 0.214 0.124 1.572 0.324 0.273 1.375 1.297 0.568 0.278 0.169 1.587 0.391 0.302 1.313 1.322 0.581 0.327 0.150 1.549 0.398 0.316 1.233 1.302 0.568 0.334 0.155 1.575 0.409 0.325 1.251 1.325 0.579 0.342 0.138 1.545 0.392 0.313 1.326 1.313 0.575 0.310 4.05 11.88 3.58 4.08 3.71 23.77 7.85 7.19 6.41 4.42 4.66 7.69 4.87 4.58 13.94 10.27 5.25 32.46 10.67 3.91 11.47 10.20 11.35 4.01 3.16 14.89 20.25 3.65 5.45 9.24 3.67 3.28 25.83 6.96 6.12 3.56 8.88 4.01 13.36 6.28 69) I Phenanthrene-dl0

---

ISTD----70) 4,6-Dinitro-0.087 0.134 0.159 0.160 0.146-Linear regression

---

Coefficient Response Ratio = -0.01427 + 0.16483 *A 0.124 0.135= 0.9987 71)72)73)74)75)76)77)78)79)80)81)82)n-Nitros 1, 2-Diph 2,4, 6-Tr 4-Bromop Hexachlo Pentachl odip 0.565 0.581 0.578 0.560 0.571 0.575 0.587 enyl 0.884 0.871 0.868 0.827 0.845 0.828 0.933 ibro 0.086 0.100 0.108 0.109 0.113 0.110 heny 0.213 0.206 0.214 0.219 0.226 0.215 0.210 robe 0.227 0.222 0.229 0.228 0.231 0.226 0.243 orop 0.090 0.1070.143 0.153 0.159 0.149 0.071-Linear regression

---

Coefficient Response Ratio = -0.01232 + 0.15841 *A 0.629 0.959 0.113 0.230 0.242 0.134 0.9992 1.257 1.294 1.167 1.460 1.279 0.623 0.581 0 .877 0.105 0.217 0.231 0.126 1.205 1.210 1.090 1.423 1.221 0.599 Phenanthrene Anthracene Carbazole Di-n-butylph Fluoranthene Octadecane 1.234 1.200 1.043 1.430 1.190 0.655 1.179 1.203 1.076 1.369 1.178 0.581 1.160 1.178 1.086 1.354 1.199 0.554 1.144 1.154 1.075 1.343 1.197 0.538 1.165 1.176 1.096 1.386 1.231 0.542 1.122 1.129 1.056 1.325 1.184 0.536 1.380 1.349 1.117 1.715 1.311 0.766 83) I Chrysene-d12

---

ISTD---------------------

84) Pyrene 1.300 1.260 1.276 1.313 1.329 1.226 1.483 1.404 1.324 126 of 162 GJACCUTEST.

JA34700 Initial Calibration SummaryJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJPage 3 of 3 Sample: EF3993-ICC3993 Lab FileID: F84455.D 85) Terphenyl-dl 0.923. 0.887 0.881 0.909 0.921 0.864 1.090 0.980

86) Butylbenzylp 0.566 0.568 0.585 0.612 0.629 0.577 0.593 0.627 87) Butyl steara 0.633 0.502 0.442 0.416 0.422 0.400 0.491-Linear regression

---

Coefficient

= 0.9990 Response Ratio = 0.01111 + 0.41205 *A 0.932 0.595 0.472 1.167 0.397 1.120 0.833 88)89)90)91)Benzo[a]anth 3,3'-Dichlor Chrysene bis(2-Ethylh 1.159 0.351 1.125 0.822 92) I Perylene-d12

93) Di-n-octylph 1.329 94) Benzo[b]fluo 1.079 95) Benzo[k]fluo 1.286 96) Benzo[a]pyre 1.097 97) Indeno[1,2,3 0.838 98) Dibenz(a,h)a 0.830 99) Dibenz[a,h]a 0.994 100) 7,12-Dimethy 0.298 1.107 0.382 1.103 0.782 1.390 1..107 1.266 1.063 0.963.0.890 1.003 0.213 1.118 0.415 1.071 0.799 1.157 0.427 1.082 0.843 1.174 0.431 1.089 0.854 1.091 0.397 1.036 0.792 1.320 0.335 1.289 0.895 1.213 0.435 1.169 0.875 7.82 4.24 17.03 6.27 9.53 7.01 4.91 7.97 9.68 12.75 5.31 9.35 6.87 4.60 28.18------- ----ISID-----

SD---------------------

1.502 1.170 1.288 1.128 1.005 0.951 1.047 0.460 1.542 1.398 0.995 1.133 1.099 0.965 1.024 0.497 1.600 1.343 1.089 1. 165 1.151 0.992 1.058 0.506 1.479 1.154 1.200 1.083 1.024 0.906 0.995 0.478 1.314 1.138 1.448 1.134 1.080 0.875 1.020 0.303 1.620 1.283 1.457 1.258 1.052 1.019 1.137 0.377 0.9992 1.472 1.209 1.253 1.133 1.026 0.928 1. 035 0.392----- Linear regression

---

Coefficient Response Ratio = -0.02487 + 0.51106 *A 101) Benzo[g,h,i]

1.107 1.102 1.115 1.130 1.153 1.052 1.201 1.232 1.136 5.06= Out of Range ### Number of calibration levels exceeded format ###MF3993.M Thu Nov 05 11:07:01 2009 GCMS3A M 127 of 162 QACCZUTE9T.

JA34700 ý ýi Initial Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of I Sample: EF3994-ICC3994 Lab FileID: F84464.D Response Factor Report MSF Method Title Last Update Response via: C:\MSDCHEM\l\METHODS\MF3994.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um: Wed Nov 04 07:56:21 2009: Initial Calibration Calibration Files 2 =F84470.D 5 100 =F84465.D 50=F84469 .25 =F84467.D 1 =F84471.D 80 =F84466.D 10 =F84468.D Compound 2 5 25 80 100 50 1 10 Avg %RSD...........................................................................

102) i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d

---

ISTD---------------------

103) Benzaldehyde 0.870 1.002 0.854 0.926 0.870 0.851 0.951 1.104 0.929 9.55-J-I 104) Acenaphthene-dlOa

---

ISTD---------------------

105) 1,2,4,5-Tetr 0.450 0.547 0.510 0.548 0.532 0.577 0.515 0.586 0.533 106) Atrazine 0.246 0.298 0.311 0.305 0.302 0.345 0.247 0.339 0.299 8.03 12.29 107) i Chrysene-dl2a

---

-----ISTD- ----------108) Benzidine 0.628 0.523 0.525 0.474 0.649 0.679 0.580 14.34 (#) = Out of Range ### Number of calibration levels exceeded format ###MF3994.M Wed Nov 04 12:32:51 2009 GCMS3A Mo128 of 162 11ACCUM&Ms JA34700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: EF3994-1CV3993 Lab FilelD: F84472.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF3993\F84472.D Acq On : 3 Nov 2009 10:28 pm Sample icv3993-50 Misc op40617,ef3994,2nd source-bn-1,2 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P.Vial: 18Operator: ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Title : Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Last Update : Wed Nov 04 07:59:35 2009 Response via : Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Min. Rel. Area

50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. RRF Dev : 20% Max. Rel. Area

200%0 1 Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.1 I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1.000 1.000 0.0 74 0.00 3.96 2 t 1,4-Dioxane 0.516 0.564 -9.3 89 0.02 1.19 3 t Pyridine 1.368 1.636 -19.6 97 -0.01 1.374 t N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.767 0.907 -18.3 89 0.00 1.37 5 S 2-Fluorophenol

---

NA----------6 t Indene 2.092 2.462 -17.7 90 0.00 4.427 t Cumene 2.846 2.993

-5.2 81 0.00 2.90 8 S Phenol-d5

---

NA9 t Phenol ----------

NA----------0 t Aniline ----------

NA----------

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 t t t t

t t t t t t t t t I S t

t t t t bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 2-Chlorophenol Decane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzyl alcohol 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Acetophenone 2-Methylphenol 2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropa 3&4-Methylphenol n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamin Hexachloroethane 1.291 1.400 -8.4 89 0.00-----------

NA----------

1.748 2.071 -18.5 97 0.00 1.593 1.724 -8.2 82 0.001.619 1.779

-9.9 84 0.00 0.859 0.949 -10.5 84 -0.061.518 1.674

-10.3 83 0.001.766 2.021

-14.4 87 -0.02----------

NA----------

0.444 0.476 -7.2 81 -0.01----------

NA----------

0.906 1.017 -12.3 86 -0.02 0.521 0.564 -8.3 79 0.00 3.67 3.81 3.90 3.99 4.32 4.29 4.74 4.57 4..83 4.80 Naphthalene-d8 Nitrobenzene-d5 Nitrobenzene Quinoline Isophorone 2-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.000 1.000 0.0 73----------

NA----------0.184 0.202

-9.8 800.682 0.792

-16.1 840.653 0.691

-5.8 81----------

NA ----------

---

NA ----------0.00 6.32-0.01-0.04-0.02 5.03 7.11 5.50 31 t Benzoic acid 32 t bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methan 33 t 2,4-Dichlorophenol 34 2,6-Dichlorophenol 35 1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 36 t 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 37 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Calc. % Drift-- NA----------

AvgRF CCRF % Dev 0.389 0.452 -16.2 86 -0.01 6.05--- --- --NA----------

-- NA----------

-- NA----------

0.341 0.378 -10.9 82 0.00 6.27-- NA----------

IB 129 of 162 0ACVcLTFrr=T.

JA34700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: EF3994-1CV3993 Lab FilelD: F84472.D 38 t Naphthalene 39 t 4-Chloroaniline 40 t 2,3-Dichloroaniline 41 t Caprolactam 1.145 1.227 -7.2 81 0.00----------

NA ----------

0.363 0.361 0.6 71 0.00 6.36 8.64 7.39 Calc.50.749% Drift-1.5 79 -0.06 42 43 44 45 46 t t t t t Hexachlorobutadiene 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 1-Methylnaphthalene Dimethylnaphthalene AvgRF CCRF % Dev 0.181 0.203 -12.2----------

NA-0.735 0.809

-10.1 0.746 0.801 -7.4 0.642 0.699 -8.9 1.000 1.000 0.0 83 0.00 6.81 80 0.00 7.87 80 0.00 8.09 79 0.00 9.30 69 0.00 10.22--4-4 0ý47 I Acenaphthene-dlO

---

True Calc.48 t Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 100.000 106.427------------------

AvgRF CCRF 49 t 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

---

50 t 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

---

51 S 2-Fluorobiphenyl

---

52 t 2-Chloronaphthalene 1.172 1.286 53 t Biphenyl 1.521 1.694 54 t 2-Nitroaniline 0.320 0.367 55 t Dimethylphthalate 1.271 1.365 56 t Acenaphthylene 1.907 1.857 57 t 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.264 0.301 58 t 3-Nitroaniline 0.312 0.299 59 t Acenaphthene 1.183 1.256

---

True Caic.60 t 2,4-Dinitrophenol

---

AvgRF CCRF 61 t 4-Nitrophenol 62 t Dibenzofuran 1.594 1.799 63 t 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.371 0.392 64 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol

---

65 t Diethylphthalate 1.389 1.334 66 t Fluorene 1.338 1.454 67 t 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethe 0.576 0.641 68 t 4-Nitroaniline 0.305 0.337% Drift-6.4 75 0.00% Dev---- NA ----------

---

NA ----------

---

NA ----------

-9.7 78 0.00-11.4 79 0.00-14.7 77 -0.02-7.4 76 0.00 2.6 69 0.00-14.0 74 0.00 1 4.2 64 -0.03 1-6.2 76 0.00 1 8.40 8.93 8.98 9.39 9.96 9.86 0.08 0.37 0.30% Drift---- NA ----------

% Dev----NA---------

-12.9 80 0.00 1-5.7 69 -0.02 1---- NA ----------

4.0 69 0.00 1-8.7 76 0.00 1-11.3 77 0.00 1-10.5 75 -0.04 1.0.68 0.97 1.63 1.47 1.59 1.81 69 I Phenanthrene-dl0 1.000 1.000 0.0 67 0.00 13.59--------------------

True 70 t 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylpheno

---

AvgRI 71 t n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.58 72 t 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.87 73 S 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 74 t 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 0.21 75 t Rexachlorobenzene 0.23:-------------------

True 76 t Pentachlorophenol Calc. % Drift----------

NA----------

F CCRF % Dev 1 0.645 -11.0 75 0.00 11.93 7 0.977 -11.4 79 0.00 11.94 SNA----------

7 0.238 -9.7 74 0.00 12.69 1 0.249 -7.8 74 0.00 12.92 Calc. % Drift-- A----------

MO130 of 162 JA34700 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem.

Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample: EF3994-1CV3993 Lab FilelD: F84472.D 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 t t t t t t I t S t Phenanthrene Anthracene Carbazole Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Octadecane AvgRF 1.205 1.210 1.090 1.423 1.221 0.599 CCRF 1.279 1.309 1.243 1.463 1.271 0.649% Dev-6.1-8.2-14.0-2.8-4.1-8.3 76 0.00 13.64 77 0.00 13.75 79 -0.01 14.27 74 0.00 15.47 72 0.00 16.41 81 0.00 13.82 Chrysene-d12 Pyrene Terphenyl-dl4 Butylbenzylphthalate 1.000 1.000 0.0 63 0.00 19.54 1.324 1.393 -5.2 72 0.00 16.89------- --NA -----------0.595 0.640

-7.6 70 0.00 18.80-4 LAI C>-------------------

True 87 Butyl stearate Calc. % Drift----------

NA ----------

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 t t t t I t t t t t t t Benzo[a]anthracene 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine Chrysene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat Perylene-d12 Di-n-octylphthalate Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[a]pyrene Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Dibenz(a,h)acridine Dibenz[a,h]anthracene AvgRF 1.167 0.397 1.120 0.833 1.000 1.472 1.209 1.253 1.133 1.026 0.928 1. 035 CCRF 1.172 0.341 1.189 0.878 1.000 1.657 1.283 1.413 1.248 1.102 1.014 1.139% Dev-0.4 14.1-6.2-5.4 0.0-12.6-6.1-12.8-10.2-7.4-9.3-10.0 68 0.00 19.52 54 0.00 19.63 72 0.00 19.59 70 0.00 20.05 60 68 67 71 70 65 68 69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.89 21.08 21.35 21.40 21.81 23.29 23.04 23.32----------------------

True 100 t 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthr 50.000----------------------

AvgRF 101 t Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.136 Calc. % Drift 61.890 -23.8# 77 0.00 21.39 CCRF 1.237% Dev-8.9 71 0.00 23.58 102 i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A 103 t Benzaldehyde 104 Acenaphthene-dlOa 1.05 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzen 106 Atrazine 110 i Chrysene-dl2a ill t Benzidine1.000 1.000 0.0 57 0.00 3.96 1.000 0.533 0.299 1.000----------

NA ----------

1.000 0.0 60 0.00 0.644 -20.8# 67 0.00 0.342 -14.4 59 -0.01 1.000 0.0 .59 0.00------- --NA -----------

10.22 8.34 13.41 19.54 (#) = Out of Range F84455.D MF3993.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC'S out = 0 Wed Nov 04 12:21:23 2009 GCMS3A Ml131 of 162 0A=CcxrFES&, JA34700 L1 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 2 Sample: EF3994-1CV3993 Lab FilelD: F84473.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF3993\F84473.D Acq On : 3 Nov 2009 11:00 pm Sample : icv3993-50 Misc : op40617,ef3994,2nd source-acid MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Vial: 19 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Wed Nov 04 07:59:35 2009 Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. RRF Dev : 20% Max. Rel. Area : 200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 9 12 19 21 24 29 30 I t t t t I t t 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 Phenol 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylphenol 3&4-Methylphenol Naphthalene-d8 2-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.000 1.725 1.441 1.199 1.260 1.000 0.202 0.314 1.000 1.532 1.330 1.120 1.183 1.000 0.186 0.332 Calc.42.394 CCRF 0.279 0.283 0.257 0.0 11.2 7.7 6.6 6.1 0.0 7.9-5.7% Drift 15.2% Dev 7.6 9.3 9.2 81 74 78 76 75 81 72 84 0.00-0.02

-0.01-0.02-0.03 0.00-0.01-0.03 3.96 3.65 3.72 4.62 4.91 6.32 5.65 5.91 6.40 6.18 6.64 7.90------------------------

True 31 t Benzoic acid 50.000 77 0.00 33 t 34 43 t 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dichlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol AvgRF 0.302 0.312 0.283 71 72 69-0.04-0.02-0.04 47 I Acenaphthene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 75 0.00 10.22 49 50 61 64 t t t 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 4-Nitrophenol 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.361 0.398 0.149 0.297 0.335 0.375 0.140 0.265 7.2 5.8 6.0 10.8 67 70 76 64-0.02-0.04-0.02-0.02 8.67 8.78 11.10 11.18 69 I Phenanthrene-dl01.000 1.000 0.0 72 0.00 13.59----------------------

True 70 t 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylpheno 50.000----------------------

AvgRF----------------------

True 76 t Pentachlorophenol 100.000 Calc.41.460 CCRF Calc.83.156 CCRF% Drift 17.1% Dev% Drift 16.8% Dev 55 -0.02 11.89 60 -0.02 13.44----------------------

AvgRF 83 I Chrysene-d12 92 I Perylene-d12 102 i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A 1.000 1.0001.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0 66 -0.01 19.53 0.0 65 -0.01 21.89 0.0 63 0.00 3.96&ia 132 of 162 MAcCCUTEST.

JA34700 " ýL _

Initial Calibration VerificationJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 2 Sample: EF3994-ICV3993 Lab FileID: F84473.D 104 Acenaphthene-dl a 1.000 1.000 0.0 65 0.00 10.22 110 i Chrysene-dl2a 1.000 1.000 0.0 62 -0.01 19.53 (#) = Out of Range F84455.D MF3993.M.SPCC's out = 0 CCC'S out = 0 Wed Nov 04 12:22:39 2009 GCMS3Aý4S133 of 162.JA34700 -.L v1! ,11 Initial Calibration Verification Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of I Sample: EF3994-1CV3993 Lab FileID: F84474.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\EF3993\F84474.D Acq On : 3 Nov 2009 11:32 pm Sample : icv3993-50 Misc : op40617,ef3994,3rd source MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Vial: 20 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Wed Nov 04 07:59:35 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.050 Min. Rel. Area

50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area : 200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.1 I 1,4 --- -- ---

Di h o o e z n- d4 1.000 1.000-- --- -- -- --- -- --- --

1 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 10 t Aniline 24 I Naphthalene-d8 39 t 4-Chloroaniline 47 I Acenaphthene-dlO 69 I Phenanthrene-dl0 83 I Chrysene-d12 92 I Perylene-d12 102 i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A 103 t Benzaldehyde 1.000 1.000 1.694 1.844 1.000 1.0000.435 0.456 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0000.929 0.875 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.580 0.615 0.0 94 0.00-8.9 122 -0.01 3.96 3.56 0.0 94 0.00 6.32-4.8 101 -0.02 6.65 0.0 89 0.00 10.22 0.0 88 0.00 13.59 0.0 84 0.00 19.54 0.0 83 -0.01 21.89 0.0 73 0.00 3.96 5.8 75 0.00 3.34 0.0 78 0.00 10.22 104 Acenaphthene-dlOa 110 i Chrysene-dl2a 11 t Benzidine (#) = Out of Range F84455.D MF3993.M 0.0 79-6.0 75 0.00 19.54 0.00 16.94 SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Wed Nov 04 12:22:41 2009 GCMS3A:[MB 134 of 162 JA3CUTEST.

JA34700 t ýt1 Initial Calibration Verification Page 1 of 1 Job Number: JA34700 Sample: EF3996-1CV3993 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Lab FilelD:

F84488.D Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF3996D\F84488.D Vial: 5 Acq On : 4 Nov 2009 10:16 am Operator:

ninap Sample : icv3993-50 Inst : MSF Misc : op40617,ef3996,2,4 dinitrophenol Multiplr:

1.00 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Title : Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Last Update : Wed Nov 04 07:59:35 2009 Response via : Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Min. Rel. Area

50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. RRF Dev : 20% Max. Rel. Area

200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1.000 1.000 0.0 78 0.00 3.96 24 I Naphthalene-d8 1.000 1.000 0.0 79 0.00 6.32 47 I Acenaphthene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 73 -0.01 10.22

-True Calc. % Drift 60 t 2,4-Dinitrophenol 100.000 85.912 14.1 56 -0.03 10.62---------------------

AvgRF CCRF % Dev 69 I Phenanthrene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 71 -0.01 13.58 83 I Chrysene-d12 1.000 1.000 0.0 63 -0.02 19.53 92 I Perylene-d12 1.000 1.000 0.0 60 -0.02 21.88 102 i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A 1.000 1.000 0.0 60 0.00 3.96 104 Acenaphthene-dlOa 1.000 1.000 0.0 64 -0.01 10.22 107 i Chrysene-dl2a 1.000 1.000 0.0 59 -0.02 19.53 (#) = Out of Range SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 F84455.D MF3993.M Mon Nov 09 11:57:51 2009 GCMS3A135 of 162 JA34700 C'. -I Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: EF4036-CC3993 Lab FilelD: F85419.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF4036\F85419.D Acq On : 11 Dec 2009 8:27 am Sample : cc3993-25 Misc : op41214,ef4036,1000,,,1,1 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Vial: 2 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Title : Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Last Update : Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Response via : Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. RRF Dev : 20% Max. Rel. Area

200%Compound AvgRF CCRF%Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1,4-Dioxane Pyridine N-Nitrosodimethylamine 2-Fluorophenol Indene Cumene Phenol-d5 Phenol Aniline bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 2-Chlorophenol Decane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Benzyl alcohol 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Acetophenone 2-Methylphenol 2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropa 3&4-Methylphenol n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamin Hexachloroethane Naphthalene-d8 Nitrobenzene-d5 Nitrobenzene Quinoline Isophorone 2-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.000 0.516 1.368 0.767 1.257 2.092 2.846 1.682 1.725 1.694 1.291 1.441 1.748 1.593 1.619 0.859 1.518 1.766 1.199 0.444 1.260 0.906 0.521 1.000 0.392 0.184 0.682 0.653 0.202 0.314 1.000 0.459 1.294 0.751 1.245 2 .077 2.976 1.841 1.675 1.351 1.332 1.434 2 .655 1.578 1.599 0.813 1.503 1.844 1.238 0.429 1.331 1 .027 0.548 1.000 0.447 0.181 0.696 0.722 0.199 0.327 0.0 11.0 5.4 2.1 1.0 0.7-4.6-9.5 2.9 20. 2#-3.2 0.5-51.96 0.9 1.2 5.4 1.0-4.4-3.3 3.4-5.6-13.4-5.2 0.0-14.0 1.6-2. 1-10.6 1.5-4.1% Drift 5.3% Dev-2.1-1.0-2.9 4.4-0.6 1.5 64 58 61 59 60 65 68 73 62 56 68 64 102 64 64 59 63 68 64 63 64 74 67 65 76 63 65 72 60 69-0.05-0.02-0.02-0.02-0.03-0.04-0.03-0.05-0.05-0.03-0.03-0.04-0.04-0.04-0.04-0.03-0.04-0.03-0.04-0.04-0.03-0.05

-0.05-0.06-0.04-0.03-0.05-0.05-0.03-0.03 3.49 0. 97 1.14 1.14 2.13 3. 93 2.49 3.31 3.33 3.16 3.24 3.31 3.34 3.43 3.51 3. 92 3.80 4.28 4.24 4.09 4.56 4.35 4.27 5.76 4.51 4.55 6.62 4.99 5.17 5.49 6.04 5.54 5.78 6.15 5.10 5.72 6.21 True Calc.25.000 23.685 31 t Benzoic acid 59 -0.04 32 t 33 t 34 35 36 t 37-- AvgRF bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methan 0.389 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.302 2,6-Dichlorophenol 0.312 1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 0.364 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.341 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.333 CCRF 0.397 0.305 0.321 0.348 0.343 0.328 66 61 65 62 66 64-0.04-0. 02-0.04-0.05-0.05-0.05!MJ136 of 162 QA~CUTEST.

JA34700 lt;I:: II ,

Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: EF4036-CC3993 Lab FilelD: F85419.D 38 39 40 t t t Naphthalene 4-Chloroaniline 2,3-Dichloroaniline 1.145 0.435 0.363--------------------

True 41 t Caprolactam 25.000 1.141 0.415 0.372 Calc.29.451 CCRF 0.194 0.331 0.736 1.006 0.652 0.3 66 4.6 62-2.5 65-0.06-0.02-0.05 42 43 44 45 46 5.80 6.19 8.09 t t t t t Hexachlorobutadiene 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 2-Methylnaphthalene l-Methylnaphthalene Dimethylnaphthalene AvgRF 0.181 0.283 0.735 0.746 0.642% Drift-17.8% Dev-7.2-17.0-0.1-34.9#-1.6 77 -0.16 6.97 70 -0.06 6.23 72 0.00 7.54 65 -0.06 7.29 90 -0.06 7.51 65 -0.06 8.71 47 I Acenaphthene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 66 -0.06 9.61--------------------

True 48 t Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 50.000 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 t t S t t t t t t t t 2,4, 6-Trichiorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2-Chloronaphthalene Biphenyl 2-Nitroaniline Dimethylphthalate Acenaphthylene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3-Nitroaniline Acenaphthene AvgRF 0.361 0.398 1.425 1.172 1.521 0.320 1.271 1.907 0.264 0.312 1.183 Calc.50.091 CCRF 0.368 0.407 1.395 1.163 1.481 0.443 1.293 1.843 0.215 0.336 1.142 Calc.47.511 CCRF 0.177 1.574 0.410 0.302 1.343 1.343 0.590 0.306% Drift-0.2 71 -0.06% Dev-1.9-2.3 2.1 0.8 2.6-38.4#-1.7 3.4 18.6-7.7 3.5% Drift 5.0% Dev-18.8 1.3-10.5-1.7 3.3-0.4-2.4-0.3 65 -0.04 65 0.00 66 -0.06 67 -0.06 65 -0.06 90 -0.03 68 -0.06 64 -0.06 51 -0.04 69 -0.02 66 -0.06 7.80 8.18 8.40 8.23 8 .34 8.40 8.91 9.40 9.25 9.55 9.92 9.68--------------------

True 60 t 2,4-Dinitrophenol 50.000 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 t t t t t t t 4-Nitrophenol Dibenzofuran 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Diethylphthalate Fluorene 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethe 4-Nitroaniline AvgRF 0.149 1.594 0.371 0.297 1.389 1.338 0.576 0.305 67 0.01 10.21 69 0.02 10.97 66 -0.06 10.08 70 -0.03 10.48 66 -0.04 10.66 68 -0.06 11.04 67 -0.07 10.85 67 -0.06 10.98 62 -0.02 11.38 69 I Phenanthrene-dl0 1.000 1.000 0.0 69 -0.07 12.96% Drift 7.6 66 -0.04 11.40--------------------

True 70 t 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylpheno 25.000 71 72 73 74 75 t t S t t n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether Hexachlorobenzene AvgRF 0.581 0.877 0.105 0.217 0.231 Calc.23.094 CCRF 0.553 1.028 0.111 0.221 0.232 Calc.48.745% Dev 4.8-17.2-5.7-1.8-0.4% Drift 2.5 66 -0.06 11.35 81 -0.06 11.33 71 -0.05 11.53 71 -0.07 12.06 70 -0.07 12.29 7.0 -0.07 12.89

---

True 76 t Pentachlorophenol 50.000ýMJ137 of 162 JA34700 L Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample: EF4036-CC3993 Lab FilelD: F85419.D 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 t t t t t t I t S t Phenanthrene Anthracene

Carbazole Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Octadecane Chrysene-d12 Pyrene Terphenyl-d14 Butylbenzylphthaiate AvgRF 1 .205 1.210 1.090 1.423 1 .221 0.599 1.000 1.324 0.932 0.595--------------------

True 87 Butyl stearate 25.000 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 t t t t I t t t t t t t Benzo[a]anthracene 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine Chrysene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat Perylene-d12 Di-n-octylphthalate Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k] fluoranthene Benzo [a] pyrene Indeno [1,2,3-cd]

pyrene Dibenz(a,h)acridine Dibenz[a,h]anthracene AvgRF 1.167 0.397 1.120 0.833 1.000 1.472 1.209 1.253 1.133 1.026 0.928 1.035 CCRF 1.137 1.149 1.036 1.402 1.165 0.780 1.000 1.281 0.911 0.624 Calc.33.548 CCRF 1.096 0.376 1.055 0.829 1.000 1.665 1.063 1.387 1.142 1.216 0.908 1.003 Caic.21.937 CCRF 1.099% Dev 5.6 5.0 5.0 1.5 4.6-30.2#0.0 3.2 2.3-4.9% Drift-34.2#87 -0.08 67 67 69 72% Dev 6.1 5.3 5.8 0.5 0.0.-13.1 12.1-10.7-0.8-18.5 2.2 3.1-0.07-0-.07-0.07-0.07 66 -0.07 18.95 61 -0.05 19.14 66 -0.07 19.03 70 -0.07 19.51 18.99 16.24 16.86 18.22 18.47 67 -0.07 13.01 67 -0.07 13.12 66 -0.04 13.72 71 -0.07 14.85 67 -0.07 15.77 97 -0.07 13.20 63 70 57 68 64 76 60 60-0.07-0.07-0.07-0.06-0.07-0.17-0.14

-0.17 21.40 20.56 20.85 20.88 21.30 22.81 22.56 22.83------------------------

True 100 t 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthr 25.000------------------------

AvgRF 101 t Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.136% Drift 12.3 56 -0.08 20.85% Dev 3.3 62 -0.19 23.10--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

(#) = Out of Range F85213.D MF3993.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Fri Dec 11 13:00:25 2009 GCMS3A JA34700 ,L r:t I "

Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page I of I Sample: EF4036-CC3994 Lab FilelD: F85420.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF4036\F85420.D Acq On : 11 Dec 2009 9:07 am Sample : cc3994-25 Misc : op41214,ef4036,1000,,,l,1 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Vial: 3 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area : 200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

102 i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A 1.000 1.000 0.0 76 -0.04 3.49 103 t Benzaldehyde 0.929 0.865 6.9 77 -0.02 2.95 104 105 106 Acenaphthene-dlOa 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzen Atrazine 1.000 0.533 0.299 1.000 0.516 0.325 0.0 3.2-8.7 82 83 86-0.07-0.05-0.09 9.61 7.76 12.83 107 i Chrysene-dl2a 1.000 1.000 0.0 87 -0.07 18.98 108 t Benzidine 0.580 0.423 27.1# 70 -0.10 16.42 (#) = Out of Range F85213.D MF3993.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Fri Dec 11 13:02:58 2009 GCMS3A*MACCUTEST JA34700 C!L ;: 11iý Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 3 Sample: EF4044-CC3993 Lab FileID: F85645.DEvaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\l\DATA\EF4044\F85645.D Acq On : 23 Dec 2009 8:10 am Sample : cc3993-50 Misc : op41442,ef4044,1000,,,1,l MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Vial: 2Operator: ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method Title Last Update Response via Min. RRF Max. RRF Dev C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Multiple Level Calibration 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min 20% Max. Rel. Area : 200%1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.1 I 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 1.000 1.000 0.0 106 -0.09 3.45 2 t 1,4-Dioxane 0.516 0.564 -9.3 128 -0.04 0.953 t Pyridine 1.368 1.547 -13.1 132 -0.05 1.114 t N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.767 0.949 -23.7# 134 -0.05 1.11 5 S 2-Fluorophenol 1.257 1.243 1.1 104 -0.09 2.076 t Indene 2.092 1.984 5.2 104 -0.09 3.89 7 t Cumene 2.846 2.900 -1.9 112 -0.07 2.45 8 S Phenol-d5 1.682 1.817 -8.0 121 -0.13 3.23 9 t Phenol 1.725 1.822 -5.6 115 -0.13 3.25 0 t Aniline 1.694 1.655 2.3 124 -0.09 3.10 1 t bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 1.291 1.424 -10.3 130 -0.08 3.19 2 t 2-Chlorophenol 1.441 1.392 3.4 106 -0.10 3.25 3 t Decane 1.748 1.560 10.8 105 -0.09 3.304 t 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.593 1.531 3.9 105 -0.09 3.39 5 t 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.619 1.570 3.0 106 -0.09 3.47 6 t Benzyl alcohol 0.859 0.895 -4.2 114 -0.08 3.867 t 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.518 1.509 0.6 108 -0.09 3.768 t Acetophenone 1.766 1.794 -1.6 110 -0.07 4.249 t 2-Methylphenol 1.199 1.251 -4.3 111 -0.10 4.170 t 2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropa 0.444 0.443 0.2 108 -0.09 4.041 t 3&4-Methylphenol 1.260 1.369 -8.7 113 -0.11 4.48 2 t n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamin 0.906 1.073 -18.4 131 -0.09 4.32 3 t Hexachloroethane 0.521 0.579

-11.1 116 -0.10 4.22 4 I Naphthalene-d8 1.000 1.000 0.0 109 -0.10 5.72 5 S Nitrobenzene-d5 0.392 0.438 -11.7 126 -0.09 4.476 t Nitrobenzene 0.184 0.183 0.5 108 -0.08 4.507 t Quinoline 0.682 0.653 4.3 103 -0.08 6.598 t Isophorone 0.653 0.733 -12.3 128 -0.09 4.969 t 2-Nitrophenol k 0.202 0.209

-3.5 108 -0.08 5.11 0 t 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.314 0.348 -10.8 118 -0.11 5.41 True Calc.50.000 43.928% Drift 12.1 31 t Benzoic acid 108 0.00 6.07 32 t 33 t 34 35 36 t 37-- AvgRF bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methan 0.389 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0.302 2,6-Dichlorophenol 0.312 1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 0.364 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.341 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.333 CCRF 0.419 0.299 0.313 0.359 0.346 0.332% Dev-7.7 1.0-0.3 1.4-1.5 0.3 119 -0.10 5.49 102 -0.09 5.71 108 -0.10 6.08 108 -0.10 5.06 11 -0.10 5.68 109 -0.10 6.16 M2140 of 162 J)A34700 Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 2 of 3 Sample: EF4044-CC3993 Lab FieleD: F85645.D 38 39 40 t t t Naphthalene 4-Chloroaniline 2,3-Dichloroaniline 1.145 0.435 0.363---------------------

True 41 t Caprolactam 50.000 1.101 0.431 0.358 Calc.48.553 CCRF 0.216 0.319 0.757 0.958 0.645 3.8 109 -0.11 0.9 1i1 -0.09 1.4 105 -0.11i% Drift 2.9 113 -0.15 5.75 6.13 8.03 6.98 6.19 7.45 7.24 7.46 8.66 42 43 44 45 46 t t t t t Hexachlorobutadiene 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 1-Methylnaphthalene Dimethylnaphthalene AvgRF 0.181 0.283 0.735 0.746 0.642% Dev-19.3-12.7-3.0-28.4#-0.5 132 -0.11 115 -0.10 112 -0.11 144 -0.11 109 -0.11-J 47 I Acenaphthene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 109 -0.11 9.56--------------------

True Calc.48 t Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 100.000 113.141

% Drift-13.1 128 -0.11 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 t t S t t t t t t t t 2, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2-Chloronaphthalene Biphenyl 2-Nitroaniline Dimethylphthalate Acenaphthylene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3-Nitroaniline Acenaphthene AvgRF 0.361 0.398 1.425 1.172 1.521 0.320 1.271 1.907 0.264 0.312 1.183 CCRF 0.383 0.414 1.405 1.187 1.473 0.393 1.292 1.859 0.221 0.312 1.164% Dev-6.1-4.0 1.4-1.3 3.2-22. 8#-1.7 2.5 16.3 0.0 1.6 il1 -0.10 112 -0.09 112 -0.11 114 -0.11 109 -0.11 132 -0.09 115 -0.10 110 -0.11 86 -0.09 106 -0.09 Iil -0.11 7.75 8.12 8.32 8.19 8.30 8.35 8.85 9.36 9.20 9.50 9.85 9.63--------------------

True Calc.60 t 2,4-Dinitrophenol 100.000 103.116% Drift-3.1 123 -0.07 10.13 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 t t t t t t t 4-Nitrophenol Dibenzofuran 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Diethylphthalate Fluorene 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethe 4-Nitroaniline AvgRF 0.149 1.594 0.371 0.297 1.389 1.338 0.576 0.305 CCRF 0.131 1.668 0.420 0.341 1.270 1.349 0.666 0.294% Dev 12.1-4.6-13.2-14.8 8.6-0.8-15.6 3.6 104 -0.20 10.75 118 -0.11 10.03 117 -0.08 10.43 119 -0.12 10.58 105 -0.11 11.00 112 -0.12 10.80 127 -0.11 10.93 104 -0.07 11.33 69 I Phenanthrene-dlO 1.000 1.000 0.0 117 -0.12 12.91% Drift 3.1 119 -0.09 11.35---------------------

True 70 t 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylpheno 50.000 71 72 73 74 75 t t S t t n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether Hexachlorobenzene AvgRF 0.581 0.877 0.105 0.217 0.231 Calc.48.454 CCRF 0.584 0.888 0.122 0.246 0.273% Dev-0.5-1.3-16.2-13.4-18.2 119 -0.12 11.29 125 -0.12 11.28 130 -0.12 11.47 133 -0.12 12.01 142 -0.12 12.24--- ----- -----True Calc. % Drift 76 t Pentachlorophenol100.000 100.435

-0.4 121 -0.14 12.83 JA34700 " : '1 i5 Continuing Calibration SummaryJob Number:

JA34700 Account: AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 3 of 3 Sample: Lab FileID: EF4044-CC3993 F85645.D 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 t t t

t t

t I t S t Phenanthrene Anthracene Carbazole Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Octadecane Chrysene-d12 Pyrene Terphenyl-d14 Butylbenzylphthalate AvgRF 1.205 1.210 1.090 1.423 1.221 0.599 1.000 1.324 0.932 0.595-------------------

True 87 Butyl stearate 50.000 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 t t t t I t t t t t t t Benzo[a]anthracene 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine Chrysene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalat Perylene-d12 Di-n-octylphthalate Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k]fluoranthene Benzo[a]pyrene Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Dibenz(a,h)acridine Dibenz[a,h]anthracene AvgRF 1.167 0.397 1.120 0.833 1.000 1.472 1.209 1.253 1.133 1.026 0.928 1.035 CCRF 1.108 1.122 1.007 1.263 1.241 0.504 1.000 1.202 0.894 0.494 Caic.39.954 CCRF 1.074 0.412 1.059 0.669 1.000 1.266 1.092 1.315 1.098 1.213 0.944 1.057 Calc.52.520 CCRF 1.106% Dev 8.0 7.3 7.6 11.2-1.6 15.9 0.0 9.2 4.1 17.0% Drift 20.1# 107 -0.12 18.43 126 124 131 108% Dev 8.0-3.8 5.4 19.7 0.0 14.0 9.7-4.9 3.1-18.2-1.7-2.1-0.11-0.12-0.13-0.12 124 -0.11 18.92 131 -0.11 19.07 129 -0.11 18.99 106 -0.11 19.47 18.94 16.19 16.81 18.18 115 -0.12 12.96 116 -0.12 13.07 112 -0.11 13.65 111 -0.12 14.80 123 -0.12 15.72 110 -0.12 13.15 123 106 117 135 125 146 129 131-0.11-0.11-0.11-0.11-0.11-0.21-0.18-0.21 21.36 20.52 20.81 20.84 21.27 22.76 22.52 22.79------------------------

True 100 t 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthr 50.000------------------------

AvgRF 101 t Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.136% Drift-5.0 133 -0.12 20.81% Dev 2.6 130 -0.24 23.06--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

(#) = Out of Range F84455.D MF3993.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Wed Dec 23 12:13:35 2009 GCMS3A MB142 of 162 RA~CCFTEST JA34700 Continuing Calibration Summary Job Number: JA34700 ,Account:

AGMPAL Arcadis Project: PSEG-Salem, Artificial Island, Salem, NJ Page 1 of 1 Sample: EF4044-CC3994 Lab FilelD: F85646.D Evaluate Continuing Calibration Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\EF4044\F85646.D Acq On : 23 Dec 2009 8:42 am Sample : cc3994-50 Misc : op41442,ef4044,tc142 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Vial: 3 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Title : Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Last Update : Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Response via : Multiple Level Calibration Min. RRF : 0.050 Min. Rel. Area : 50% Max. R.T. Dev 0.50min Max. RRF Dev : 20% Max. Rel. Area : 200%Compound AvgRF CCRF %Dev Area% Dev(min)R.T.

102 i 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A 1.000 1.000 0.0 125 -0.08 3.46 103 t Benzaldehyde 0.929 0.817 12.1 120 -0.07 2.90-4 104 105 106 Acenaphthene-dlCa 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzen Atrazine 1.000 0.533 0.299 1.000 0.670 0.392 0.0 140-25.7# 163-31.1# 159-0.12-0.11-0.11 9.56 7.71 12.80 107 i Chrysene-dl2a 1.000 1.000 0.0 173 -0.11 18.94 108 t Benzidine 0.580 0.565 2.6 150 -0.20 16.32 (#) = Out of Range F84455.D MF3993.M SPCC's out = 0 CCC's out = 0 Wed Dec 23 12:15:15 2009 GCMS3A M2143 of 162 JA34700 New Jersey* -: :: :

:. .: :::. .:... ~ ~ ..... ---.... ... ... .. ... ...

Section ý8 GC/MS Sem.i-volatiles Raw Data*l 144 of 162 JA34700 Sample Results:I

.Quantitation Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF4044\F85661.D Acq On 23 Dec 2009 5:09 pm Sample : ja34700-1 Misc op41361,ef4044,900 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Quant Time: Dec 23 17:34:01 2009 Quant R (QT Reviewed)Vial: 18 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 esults File: MF3993.RES Quant Method Title Last Update Response via DataAcq Meth C:\MSDCHEM\l\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-SMS 20m x .18mm x .18um Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Initial Calibration MF3993 Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)24)47)69)83)92)102)104)107)1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 Naphthalene-d8 Acenaphthene-dlC Phenanthrene-dlC Chrysene-d12 Perylene-d12 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A Acenaphthene-dlCa Chrysene-dl2a 3.46 5.73 9.57 12.92 18.96 21.37 3.46 9.57 18.96 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 164 240 99437 357244 216975 354926 369436 331470 99437 216975 369436 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb-0.08-0.10-0.11-0.11-0.10

-0.10-0.08-0.11-0.10 0*System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 85) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount 50.000 2.10 112 63710 20.39 Recovery =3.32 99 48505 11.60 Recovery =4.48 82 130904 37.43 Recovery =8.19 172 290597 37.58 Recovery =11.49 330 46788 49.99 Recovery =16.83 244 354160 41.16 Recovery =ppb -0.05 40.78%ppb -0.04 23.20%ppb -0.08 74.86%ppb -0.10 75.16%ppb -0.10 99.98%ppb -0.11 82.32%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed F85661.D MF3993.M Thu Dec 24 15:01:43 2009 GCMS3A Page 1 ,MEJ 145 of 162 JA34700 LiL : ,page of Sample Results: : S Quantitation Report Data File C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF4044\F85661.D Acq On 23 Dec 2009 5:09 pm Sample ja34700-1 Misc op41361,ef4044,900 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Quant Time: Dec 24 15:01 2009 Quan (QT Reviewed)Vial: 18 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 t Results File: MF3993.RES Method Title Last Update Response via Abundance C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .i8um Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Initial Calibration TIC: F85661.D 0~Q_(C0 z o=(2 0 C N.0 V 2-0 0~S a mine-->F85661.D MF3993.MThu Dec 24 15:01:43 2009 GCMS3A Page 2 ,MB 146 of162 JA34700 L T -! L " -7, LP66W 3 Sample Results: Quantitation Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\l\DATA\EF4044\F85662.D Acq On : 23 Dec 2009 5:41 pm Sample : ja34700-2 Misc : op41361,ef4044,900 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Quant Time: Dec 23 18:06:04 2009 Quant R (QT Reviewed)Vial: 19Operator: ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 esults File: MF3993.RES Quant Method Title Last Update Response via DataAcq Meth C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18umThu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Initial Calibration MF3993 Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)24)47)69)83)92)102)104)107)1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 Naphthalene-d8 Acenaphthene-dl0 Phenanthrene-dl0 Chrysene-d12 Perylene-d12 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A Acenaphthene-dlCa Chrysene-dl2a 3.46 5.73 9.56 12.92 18.96 21.37 3.46 9.56 18.96 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 164 240 101990 378579 228791 374758 400876 345007 101990 228791 400876 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb-0.08-0.10-0.11-0.12-0.10

-0.10-0.08-0.11-0.10 0, E~System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 85) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount 50.000 2.10 112 52934 16.51 Recovery =3.33 99 39270 9.15 Recovery =4.49 82 119156 32.15 Recovery =8.19 172 248541 30.48 Recovery =11.49 330 39002 39.47 Recovery =16.82 244 325272 34.84 Recovery =ppb -0.05 33.02%ppb -0.03 18.30%ppb -0.06 64.30%ppb -0.11 60.96%ppb 70.10 78.94%ppb -0.11 69. 68%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed F85662.D MF3993.M Mon Dec 28 10:53:01 2009 GCMS3A Page 1 MO 147 of 162 BACCUTES-1 JA34700 ý,t ý11.s .. ...... .

Sample Results: Quantitation Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF4044\F85662.D Acq On : 23 Dec 2009 5:41 pm Sample ja34700-2 Misc : op41361,ef4044,900 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Quant Time: Dec 28 10:52 2009 Quan (QT Reviewed)Vial: 19 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 t Results File: MF3993.RES Method Title Last Update Response via Abundance 7000001 C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Initial Calibration TIC: F85662.D 650000 600000 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 o*<U)a.-C 6 dC U-6 5 a U)'IC U),'T P 2a o)25 zI 2).o U-E-Pw j L--,-Time--> 2.00 4.00 I ..0 I ....I .00 .I .0.0 ..1 ....1 .8. I ..I .0 .I 0 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00

• 20.00 22.00 F85662.D MF3993.M Mon Dec 28 10:53:02 2009 GCMS3A Page 2 MB 148 of 162 GJA30LFEST JA34700 ý l b C. C ,I-,r-m me ...-

Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16331.D 29 Dec 2009 1:23 am larisap ja34700-3 op41361,E3M719,950 7 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:39:03 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Compound R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)Internal Standards 1) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4

24) Naphthalene-d8

47) Acenaphthene-dlO

69) Phenanthrene-dlO

83) Chrysene-d12

92) Perylene-d12 102) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4a 104) Phenanthrene-dlOa 106) Acenaphthene-dlOa 108) Chrysene-dl2a 110) Naphthalene-d8a System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 86) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount 50.000 Target Compounds 9) Phenol 44) 2-Methylnaphthalene

59) Acenaphthene

66) Fluorene 77) Phenanthrene

78) Anthracene

79) Carbazole 3.771 5.472 8.173 10.489 14.270 15.939 3.771 10.489 8.173 14.270 5.472 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 188 164 240 136 768439 2961718 1812436 2961731 3260074 3092183 768439 2961731 1812436 3260074 2959976 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00*ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb 0.00 0.00 0.00-0.01-0.01 0.00 0.00-0.01 0.00-0.01 0.00 2.583 112 372472 16.06 Recovery =3.594 99 256334 7.99 Recovery 4.541 82 975795 31.41 Recovery =7.167 172 2036212 33.37 Recovery =9.472 330 364872 50.72 Recovery 12.928 244 2513050 39.25 Recovery =ppb 0.02 32.12%ppb 0.06 15.98%ppb 0.01 62.82%ppb 0.00 66.74%ppb 0.00 101.44%ppb 0.00 78.50%3. 610 6.563 8.221 9.039 10.521 10.628 11.007 94 142 153 166 178 178 167 106270 71065 33094 45735 49389 19774 31118m 3.08 1.84 0.61 0.77 1.21 0.69 0.48 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb Qvalue 85 81 89 95 95 74 (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:39:14 2009 MS3M Page: 1 M 149 of 162 EAOCCFTEST.

JA34760 w M1rn ...

Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16331.D29 Dec 2009 1:23 am larisap ja34700-3 op4l361,E3M719,950 7 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:39:03 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-Sms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance TIC- 3m16331.D\data.ms le+071 9500000 9000000 8500000 8000000 7500000 7000000 6500000 6000000 5500000 5000000 4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 C 5-<2.)S E_C z 4 kJ 0 U)4 z 2 a a W)CC ii e-,T a;a.0 r2 -1ý-ýI T ! .ime--> -I .0.0 .I .00. I .... ..... 7.0. 8.0 9.00 1 1 .0 1 1 1 1 1 ,Tme-- 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6,00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:39:15 2009 MS3M Page: 2 15 !S7of162 W S va..

Sample Results: Abundance Scan 396 (3.605 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms

(-390) (-)Ref 501 0 n/z-->Abundance Raw 50 66 39 1'." 115 143 350#9 Phenol Concen: RT: 3.610 Delta R.T.Lab File: Acq: 29 Dec 3.08 ppb min Scan# 397 0.064 min 3m16331.D 2009 1:23 am 207 281 II..... ... ....

10 150. ___'100 150 99 200 ....... 2 .3. 00..Tgt Ion 94 65 66 Ion: 94 Resp: Ratio Lower 100 36.6 5.9 54.8 7.3 106270 Upper 65. 9 67.3 49 71 120~ ~LJI 141161181 207227249 281 343 I- I mz-,> 50 1i00 150 200 250 , 300 350 Abundance ,. .: i ' 2:2 99 0, Sub 50 71 42 120 141161181 207227249 279 343 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 _me-->Abund dance Scan 962 (6.632 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms

(-955) (-)1 142#44 2-Methylnaphthalene Concen: 1.84 ppb RT: 6.563 min Scan# 949 Delta R.T. 0.016 min Lab File: 3m16331.D Acq: 29 Dec 2009 1:23 am Ref 50 0 m/z-->Vbundanc-E Raw 50 115 I1 77/i 180207.-1 .... I' ' ., 1 -.... .....50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Scan 949 (6.53 mrin): 3m16331.M\dala.ims 142 49 84 115il~ ~L~ 179 207 244 261 341 4 Tgt Ion:142 Resp: Ion Ratio Lower 142 100 141 88.9 42.9 115 39.9 0.0 71065 Upper 102.9 59.8 29 Abundance 60000 40000 mnz--> 50 100 150 200 250 30'1'0 350... .4 ....300 350 400 AbundancE-S531 i-)142 Sub 50 115 9139 63 m , 168193217244271 200 341 429_350. 40 rnime--.00 hn/z--> 50 100 .150 .200 ,. 250 300 3m16331.D M3M703H0.M Tue Dec 29 13:39:15 2009 MS3M Page 3 J0 151 of 162 JA34700 L cz L : Mixinklo-WO.

Sample Results bundance Scan 1276 (8.312 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms

(-1262) (-)1 #59 Acenaphthene Concen: 0.61 ppb RT: 8.221 min Scan# 1259 Delta R.T. -0.005 min Lab File: 3m16331.D Acq: 29 Dec 2009 1:23 am Ref 50 0 Abundance Raw 50 76 Al .510 l21261' I I I I I 50 .100 150 200 2.50 300 5 22 1 r nin ) : 3 ? ,r L , 350o'4.00 153 43 84 KJ1 207 253281 341 415 Tgt Ion 153 152 154 Ion:153 Resp: Ratio Lower 100 42.4 18.2 80.1 62.3 33094 Upper 78.2 122.3 kbundancei I i .

% .,, ..................., .' I ...I .....I ...I ..I 'mHz--> 50 100 150 200 250 300 Abundance

'S"...I 153 350 400 Sub 50 43 76 119 0I, 18. .I ......=o ] 253 34 1 4-15 i/z--> 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time--> 8.10 8.15 Abundance Scan 1425 (9.109 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms

(-1418) (-) #66 16 Fluorene Ref 50 RT: 9.039 Delta R.T.Lab File: Acq: 29 Dec 0.77 ppb min Scan# 1412 0.016 min 3m16331.D 2009 1:23 am 63 82 115 13939 .1.. 5 I 1 187204221 mn/z--> 40 60 80 100120140160180200220240260280300320 Abundance Sc- 1,412 (9,039 rainl: 3,n16331.Data mIS 166 192 1491 Raw 50 4 ýTgt Ion:166 Resp: Ion Ratio Lower 166 100 165 89.1 64.4 167 14.3 0.0 45735 Upper 3m16331.D M3M703H0.M Tue Dec 29 13:39:15 2009 MS3M Page 4 ME 152 of 162 JA34700 L a I6' &II Sample Results: Abundance Ref 50 i 0-nvz-->Abundance Raw 50/ -h/z-->Scan 1706 (10.612 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms (-1695)

(-)1'8#77 Phenanthrene Concen: 1.21 ppb RT: 10.521 min Scan# 1689 Delta R.T. -0.011 min Lab File: 3m16331.D Acq: 29 Dec 2009 1:23 am 76 152 I 39 j 198 126 d 208 233 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 8 224246267289 314 341 371 Tgt Ion:178 Ion Ratio 178 100 179 16.4 176 17.4%bundance Resp: Lower 49389 Upper 0.0 45.1 0.0 50.3 64 411 160 S[9612 250..I --I 5 I0 .I ' I 1 50 100 150 200 250 300350 AbundancE Sub 50 C m/z-->I&,.aB 1389 188 200 150 100 50 00 10. 21 00 00 00 00 0 10.40 10.50 1060 64 41 94 128 160 224 256276 315 341 371 5 I I ..I .1.5. I .50 100 150 200 250 300 350 hime-->AbundancE Ref 50 mlz-->Abundance Raw 50 Scan 1720 (10.687 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms

(-1713) (-)1 '8 89 151 38 63 j 1261d I 203228 264#78 Anthracene Concen: 0.69 ppb RT: 10.628 min Scan# 1709 Delta R.T. 0.027 min Lab File: 3m16331.D Acq: 29 Dec 2009 1:23 am.; ... i f 0 N .I ..I .ý I , .- ..- -...........I ..i ...i ...i ...

0 ido1 5.0 260 .250 300 350 Scan 73(IC.628 rrin: 3mG3Z31,D\da 1mL 160 41 96 192 41 128 1224 1 E~ .L 246 270 330355 400 Tgt................... I o Ion 178 179 176 Ion:178 Resp: 19774 Ratio Lower Upper 100 30.2 0.0 45.2 27.2 0.0 49.3 Abundance 401 h/z--> 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 460 Abundanc(Sub 50 64 160 96 188 41 128 1(224 256281 330 355 401 0 ' ...ý 1 11 .1, .ý 1 .1 .-

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Time->3m16331.D M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:39:16 2009 MS3M Page 5:IB 15 f 6~ACCLUT-ST.

JA34700 t ;L- ,I"1 "M ji 6M ... .' 4 Sample Results: Abundance Scan 1782 (11.018 min): 3m15987.D\data.ms

(-1769) (-) #79 I 117 Car]bazole Ref 50 01 itvz-->A6dýaanc-e-Raw So Concen: RT: 11.007 Delta R.T.Lab File: Acq: 29 Dec 0.48 ppb m min Scan# 1780 0.059 min 3m16331.D 2009 1:23 am 83 139 39 63 j 113 196 2631 ..I. 1 -1 ....1 1 ' I ' I ' I ' ' '

1'50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Sr : 41. M data .Tgt Ion 167 166 139 Ion:167 Resp: Ratio Lower 100 31118 Upper 41 96 149 1 192 128 224 I 168 256..... .. il .. .275 328 355 22.5 0.0 50. 626.9 0.0 43.7 2ýE o, , nL-J, 1 4 u- I o -", .-ýYWZ--> 50 100 150 200 250 3GO 350 Abundance Sub 50 an -1 149 41 Abundance11 07 10000 8000 6000 4000 V, 4 A 200011, 0 CO 64 I 96 224 128 1 192 256 275328 355 0i -Týnvz- 50 100 150 200 250 300.I '350 11.00 11.10 Time-->3ml6331.D M3M703HO.M Tue Dec 29 13:39:16 2009 MS3M Page 6 M01 154 of 162 MACCUTEST.

JA34700 L.-." 73M1633,1.0,'.',*jA34'.

W49XW!Oagi,$ý0161 Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16332.D29 Dec 2009 1:50 am larisap ja34700-4 op 4 l361,E3M719,950 8 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:40:11 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Compound R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)Internal Standards 1) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4

24) Naphthalene-d8

47) Acenaphthene-dlO

69) Phenanthrene-dl0

83) Chrysene-d12

92) Perylene-d12 102) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4a 104) Phenanthrene-dlOa 106) Acenaphthene-dlOa 108) Chrysene-dl2a 110) Naphthalene-d8a System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 86) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount 50.000 3.765 5.472 8.167 10.489 14.265 15. 934 3.765 10.489 8 .167 14.265 5.472 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 188 164 240 136 694496 2626194 1616799 2622055 2923908 2826448 694496 2623053 1616799 2923908 2625425 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00.40.00 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb 0.00 0.00-0.01-0.01-0.02

-0.01 0.00-0.01

-0.01-0. 02 0.00 0*2.615 112 208343 9.94 Recovery =3.653 99 172048 5.93 Recovery 4.562 82 506535 18.39 Recovery =7.167 172 1029667 18.92 Recovery =9.488 330 147967 23.23 Recovery =12.922 244 1155838 20.13 Recovery =ppb 0.05 19.88%ppb 0.12 11.86%ppb 0.03 36.78%ppb 0.00 37.84%ppb 0.01 46.46%ppb 0.00 40.26%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:40:15 2009 MS3M Page: 1.MB 155of162 JA34700[3M1'61&,b7!J 4766-4'ý,ý',ýAYM Sanipie Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16332.D 29 Dec 2009 1:50 am larisap ja34700-4 op4l361,E3M719,950 8 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:40:11 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mX0.18mmIDXO.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance 6500000.TiC: _3m1633_2D\"d~ata.ms 6000000 0o 5500000 I 5000000 oa 4500000 4000000 z£9.-3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0a 4.E, 2 C 0, 2 2 2: 0 N L E 2 LL 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.006.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:40:15 2009 MS3M Page: 2 Ma 156 of 162 JA34700 ,II 11 'I~ ~ ~~ S' C. : 1,ý6i A476ý Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16333.D29 Dec 2009 2:17 am larisap ja34700-5 op4l361,E3M719,930 9 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:41:03 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-Sms 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Compound R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)Internal Standards 1) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4

24) Naphthalene-d8

47) Acenaphthene-dlO

69) Phenanthrene-dl0

83) Chrysene-d12

92) Perylene-d12 102) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4a 104) Phenanthrene-dlOa 106) Acenaphthene-dlOa 108) Chrysene-dl2a 110) Naphthalene-d8a System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 3.765 5.472 8.173 10.489 14.270 15.939 3.765 10.489 8.173 14.270 5.472 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 188 164 240 136 855814 3196326 1934832 3099605 3442755 3287079 855814 3100145 1934832 3443104 3196326 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb 47.22%ppb 21.46%ppb 79.68%ppb 79.64%ppb 102.56%ppb 95.78%0.00 0.00 0.00-0.01-0.01 0.00 0.00-0.01 0.00-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lit 0e 2.573 112 609748 23.61 Recovery =3.589 99 383320 10.73 Recovery 4.536 82 1335560 39.84 Recovery =7.167 172 2593764 39.82 Recovery =9.478 330 386086 51.28 Recovery =12.928 244 3237949 47.89 Recovery =Spiked Amount 86) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount Target Compounds 50.000 50.000 Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+) = signals summed M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:41:11 20.09 MS3M tmI .-, NO Page: 1 0M 157of 162 JA34700 Sample Results: Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

Data File 3ml6333.D Acq On : 29 Dec 2009 2:17 am Operator : larisap Sample ja34700-5 Misc : op41361,E3M719,930 ALS Vial 9 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:41:03 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mX0.18mmIDXO.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance TiC: 3m16333.D\datams

1. 1e+07 1 05e+07 le+07 9500000 9000000 8500000 8000000 7500000 7000000 6500000 6000000 8 5500000 a 5000000 4500000 4000000 2 3500000 4 3000000" .0 2500000 a a, 2 1000000 2 5000000 0000 cl C u C a.me--> 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:41:12 2009 MS3M Page: 2 on7 158of162 JA34700 L i )

Sample Reeults: ~ K Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16334 .D29 Dec 2009 2:43 am larisap ja34700-6 op41361,E3M719,1000 10 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:41:53 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant TitleQLast Update Response via SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Initial Calibration 20mXO.18mmIDXO.18u Compound R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)Internal Standards 1) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4

24) Naphthalene-d8

47) Acenaphthene-dlO

69) Phenanthrene-dl0

83) Chrysene-d12

92) Perylene-d12 102) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4a 104) Phenanthrene-dla 106) Acenaphthene-dlOa 108) Chrysene-dl2a 110) Naphthalene-d8a System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-dS Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 86) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount 50.000 3.765 5.471 8. 172 10.488 14.270 15.939 3.765 10.488 8.172 14.270 5.471 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 188 164 240 136 893164 3353695 2071814 3357540 3797301 3605848 893164 3357540 2071814 3797301 3353695 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb 0.00 0.00 0.00-0.01

-0.01 0.00 0.00-0.01 0.00-0.01 0.00 Io 2.589 112 388381 14.41 Recovery 3.605 99 328466 8.81 Recovery =4.541 82 1057870 30.07 Recovery 7.167 172 2096818 30.06 Recovery =9.472 330 342846 42.04 Recovery 12.927 244 2772767 37.18 Recovery =ppb 0.02 28.82%ppb 0.07 17.62%:ppb 0.01 60.14%ppb 0.00 60.12%ppb 0.00 84.08%ppb 0.00 74.36%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration

(+)signals summed M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:41:57 2009 MS3M Page: 1 J 1 of 162 JA340 1,rL o 1'3MI ""If.

Quantitation Report (QT Reviewed)Data Path Data File Acq On Operator Sample Misc ALS Vial C:\msdchem\l\DATA\e3m719\

3m16334.D 29 Dec 2009 2:43 am larisap ja34700-6 op41361,E3M719,1000 20 Sample Multiplier:

1 Quant Time: Dec 29 13:41:53 2009 Quant Method : C:\MSDCHEM\1\METHODS\M3M703HQ.M Quant Title : SEMI-VOA METHOD. Column ZB-5ms 20mX0.18mmIDX0.18u QLast Update : Tue Dec 29 13:33:58 2009 Response via : Initial Calibration Abundance TlIC: 3m16334.D\data.ms le+07 9500000 cD 9000000 2'I 8500000 8000000.8 a"-2'a 7500000 7000000 6500000 a.6000000 d)ca 5500000 U)2 cý5000000 4500000 4000000 3500000.3000000.8 2 4 250000C 200000C 1500000 1000000 500000 (,9*0 W)U)E 2 (4r V U)2 a L-lu Li-JL LýWI ...-1 .imme--> 2.00 3.00 4.0 5.0 600 7. 00.. .00 900 ....1 .....0 ......1.....0...0

-1 3. I 0 I ... I .1 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 M3M703HQ.M Tue Dec 29 13:41:58 2009 MS3M Page: 2 160 of162 B,. a.. ' 1 QC Report: Quantitation Report Data File : C:\MSDCHEM\1\DATA\EF4036\F85423.D Acq On 11 Dec 2009 10:43 amSample op41361-mbl Misc op41361,ef4036,1000,,,1,1 MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Quant Time: Dec 11 11:07:49 2009 Quant Rc (QT Reviewed)Vial: 6 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 esults File: MF3993.RES Quant Method Title Last Update Response via DataAcq Meth C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18umThu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009 Initial Calibration MF3993 Internal Standards R.T. QIon Response Conc Units Dev(Min)1)24)47)69)83)92)102)104)107)1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 Naphthalene-d8 Acenaphthene-dl0 Phenanthrene-dl0 Chrysene-d12 Perylene-d12 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4A Acenaphthene-dlCa Chrysene-dl2a 3.50 5.77 9.61 12.97 19.00 21.40 3.50 9.61 19.00 152 136 164 188 240 264 152 164 240 57849 216504 123725 192206 183810 162571 57849 123725 183810 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb ppb-0.04

-0.05

-0.06-0.07-0.06-0.07-0.04-0.06-0.06 00 0 q System Monitoring Compounds 5) 2-Fluorophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 8) Phenol-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 25) Nitrobenzene-d5 Spiked Amount 50.000 51) 2-Fluorobiphenyl Spiked Amount 50.000 73) 2,4,6-Tribromophenol Spiked Amount 50.000 85) Terphenyl-d14 Spiked Amount 50.000 2.13 112 50208 27.61 Recovery =3.37 99 44957 18.48 Recovery =4.52 82 105660 49.85 Recovery 8.24 172 180006 40.83 Recovery =11.54 330 24788 48.91 Recovery 16.86 244 180681 42.20 Recovery ppb -0.03 55. 22%.ppb 0.00 36. 96%ppb -0.03 99.70%ppb -0.06 81. 66%ppb -0.04 97.82%ppb -0.07 84.40%Target Compounds Qvalue (#) = qualifier out of range (m) = manual integration F85423.D MF3993.M Fri Dec 11 13:05:24 2009 (+) = signals summed GCMS3A Page 1 161 of 162 JA34700 i L U ."n t -B * -..... .

QC Report: QC Reot: I1.Y`W Quantitation Report Data File C:\MSDCHEM\I\DATA\EF4036\F85423.D Acq On 11 Dec 2009 10:43 am Sample : op41361-mbl Misc : op41361,ef4036,1000,,,l,l MS Integration Params: RTEINT.P Quant Time: Dec 11 13:05 2009 Quanl (QT Reviewed)Vial: 6 Operator:

ninap Inst : MSF Multiplr:

1.00 t Results File: MF3993.RES Method Title Last Update Response via Abundance 360000 340000 3200001* C:\MSDCHEM\I\METHODS\MF3993.M (RTE Integrator)

Semi Volatile GC/MS, zbX-5MS 20m x .18mm x .18um: Thu Dec 03 14:55:43 2009: Initial Calibration 11C: F85423.D 00 300000 280000 260000 240000 220000 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 2<1 2 o o 30~a z 6 a a C)a2 0)23 O3_o E C)w -200 Wnme-->LLi..00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00

.20.00 22.00 F85423.D MF3993.M Fri Dec 11 13:05:25 2009 GCMS3A Page 2&93H 162of162 0 900 ' * -..3*

ARCADIS Appendix C Soil Analytical Results (September 2009) e-Hardcopy

2. 0 Automated Report New Jersey: G-.,ACCUTEST............... .. .. .. .

'01/19/10 Technical Report for Arcadis PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ NP000571.0008 Accutest Job Number: JA28757 Sampling Dates: 09/22/09 -09/23/09 Report to: Arcadis Geraghty & Miller Jonathan.

Shafer@arcadis-us.

com ATTN: Jonathan Shafer Total number of pages in report: 16 Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.

• ~8~ 0'I David N. peisVP Ops, Laboratory Director Client Service contact: Marie Meidhof 732-329-0200 Certifications:

NJ(12129), NY(10983), CA, CT, DE, FL, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MT, NC, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WV This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of Accutest Laboratories.

Test results relate only to samples analyzed.P 01, I New Jersey

• 2235 Route 130

• Dayton, NJ 08810 ° tel: 732-329-0200 t tax: 732-329-3499

° http://www.accutest.com Accutest Laboratories is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to this document.

Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.

lfa 1of 16 MACCUTESTE JA28151 7 ýL..T ,t Table of Contents 4-1 Section 1: Sam ple Sum m ary ...................................................................................................

Section 2: C ase Narrative/Conform ance Sum m ary ..............................................................

Section 3: Sam ple R esults ........................................................................................................

3.1: JA 28757-1: TP-10(2.0-2.5)092209

...............................................................................

3.2: JA 28757-1R : TP-10(2.0-2.5)092209

............................................................................

3.3: JA 28757-2: TP-1 1(2.0-2.5)092209

...............................................................................

3.4: JA 28757-3: TP-12(1.0-1.5)092209

...............................................................................

3.5: JA 28757-4: FB-092209

................................................................................................

Section 4: M isc. Form s ............................................................................................................

4.1: Chain of Custody ...........................................................................................................

Sections: 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 1.3 14 ma 2 of 16 QACCUTEST JA28757 ' , L -: ;, I ý , , ý, ,

Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-201 0 Sample Summary Arcadis PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ Project No: NP000571.0008 Sample Collected Number Date Time By JA28757-1 09/22/09 08:00 KH 09/22/09 08:00 KH JA28757-2 09/22/09 11:00 KH 4A28757-3 09/22/09 13:10 KH ,.JA28757-4 09/23/09 10:30 KH Job No: JA28757 Received 09/24/09 09/24/09 09/24/09 09/24/09 09/24/09 Matrix Code Type SO SoilSO Soil SO SoilSO Soil AQ Field Blank Soil Client Sample ID TP- 10(2.0-2.

5)j092209'TP-1 0(2:0-2.5)0922O9 TP 11(2.0-2.5)092209 TP-ll2(1.0~-1.5;)092209

ý.FBm092209 Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page.M2 3 of 16 12ACCUTEST.

JA28757 ,L II"r I L a b o -a t o r i e s CASE NARRATIVE

/ CONFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Client: Arcadis Job No JA28 757 Site: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ Report Date 10/8/2009 6:50:21 PMOn 09/24/2009, 3 Sample(s), 0 Trip Blank(s) and I Field Blank(s) were received at Accutest Laboratories at a temperature of 5 C.Samples were intact and properly preserved, unless noted below.

An Accutest Job Number of JA28757 was assigned to the project.Laboratory sample ID, client sample ID and dates of sample collection are detailed in the report's Results Summary Section.Specified quality control criteria were achieved for this job except as noted below.

For more information, please refer to the analytical results and QC summary pages.Extractables by GCMS By Method SW846 8270C Matrix SO Batch ID: OP40276 All samples were extracted within the recommended method holding time.All samples were analyzed within the recommended method holding time.All method blanks for this batch meet method specific criteria.Sample(s)

JA29550-1MS, JA29550-1MSD were used as the QC samples indicated.

I Extractables by GC By Method SW846-8015 Matrix AQ Batch ID: OP40082 All samples were extracted within the recommended method holding time.a All samples were analyzed within the recommended method holding time.a All method blanks for this batch meet method specific criteria..Sample(s)

JA28658-1MS, JA28658-IMSD were used as the QC samples indicated.

Matrix SO Batch ID: OP40102 All samples were extracted within the recommended method holding time.All samples were analyzed within the recommended method holding time.m All method blanks for this batch meet method specific criteria.Sample(s)

JA28839-1MS, JA28839-IMSD were used as the QC samples indicated.

Wet Chemistry By Method SM18 2540G Matrix SO Batch ID: GN30648 i The data for SM182540G meets quality control requirements.

Accutest certifies that data reported for samples received, listed on the associated custody chain or analytical task order, were produced to specifications meeting Accutest's Quality System precision, accuracy and completeness objectives except as noted.Estimated non-standard method measurement uncertainty data is available on request, based on quality control bias and implicit for standard methods. Acceptable uncertainty requires tested parameter quality control data to meet method criteria.Accutest Laboratories is not responsible for data quality assumptions if partial reports are used and recommends that this report be used in its entirety.

Data release is authorized by Accutest Laboratories indicated via signature on the report cover Thursday, October 08, 2009 Page 1 of I o4 of 16 JA28757 i't .1ýA- i i New Jersey.C.CLF IEBST.... ... ... ...

..Sample Results Report of Analysis JA28757 Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-20 10 Report of Analysis Page I of 1 Client Sample ID: TP-10(2.0-2.5)092209Lab Sample ID: JA28757-1 Date Sampled:

09/22/09 Matrix: SO -Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846-8015 SW846 3545 Percent Solids: 94.3 Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3Y17806.D 1 09/28/09 DNM 09/26/09 OP40102 G3Y545 Run #2 3Y17857.D 10 09/30/09 DNM 09/26/09 OP40102 G3Y547 Initial Weight Final Volume Run #1 17.2 g 1.0 ml Run #2 17.2 g 1.0Oml CAS No. Compound TPH-DRO (C 1O-C28)CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Result RL MDL Units Q 3710 62 31 mg/kg Run# I Run# 2 Limits 84-15-1 16416-32-3 438-22-2 o-Terphenyl Tetracosane-d50 5a-Androstane 11I0%/ýJ 43%48%/o 134%147%37%~17-148%29-151%19-161%(a) Result is from Run#

2 ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range ,J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound Mel 6 of 16 JA2C8 JTEST.JA28757 L :tC :' "-C1 Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-20 10 Report of Analysis Page I of 3 Client Sample ID: TP-10(2.0-2.5)092209 Lab Sample ID: JA28757-1R Date Sampled:

09/22/09 Matrix: SO -Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3550B Percent Solids: 94.3 Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 P45389.D 1 10/07/09 NAP 10/06/09 OP40276 EP1936 Run #2 Initial Weight Final Volume Run #1 35.1 g 1.0 ml Run #2 BN TCL List (4)CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q 83-32-9 208-96-8 120-12-7 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 101-55-3 85-68-7 91-58-7 106-47-8 86-74-8 218-01-9 111-91-1 111-44-4 108-60-1 7005-72-3 95-50-1 541-73-1 106-46-7 121-14-2 606-20-2 91-94-1 53-70-3 132-64-9 84-74-2 117-84-0 84-66-2 131-11-3 117-81-7 206-44-0 Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g, h, i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate 2-Chloronaphthalene

4-Chloroaniline Carbazole Chrysene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2, 6-Dinitrotoluene 3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine Dibenzo(a, h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Di-n-butyl phthalate Di-n-octyl phthalateDiethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene 162 ND N D INDýND ,NDýND ND ND ,ND N D N D N D ND fND:ND N D N D,N D ND ND NDI:ND ND 128 ND NIýD N D ND N D 18.7 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 150 60 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 150 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 30 8.8 9.7 11 9.8 9.2 10 11 I1 17 9.4 9.7 14 10 12 9.1 9.0 9.1 8.7 8.1 6.7 13 12 7.7 10 9.0 6.7 15 10 11 27 13 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg J ND Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound MN 7 of 16 12ACCUTEST.

JA28757 EIbý:i Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-20 10 Report of Analysis Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: TP-10(2.0-2.5)092209 Lab Sample ID: JA28757-1R Date Sampled: 09/22/09 Matrix: SO -Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3550B Percent Solids: 94.3 Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ j BN TCL List CAS No. Compound 86-73-7 Fluorene 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 78-59-1 Isophorone 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 91-20-3 Naphthalene 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 129-00-0 Pyrene 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Result RL MDL Units Q 373.ND ND~~ND N D N D N D 1660 ND N D ND~257 ND ND.700 107 30 60 30 600 150 30 60 60 150 150 150 30 60 60 150 30 30 60 9.9 9.8 8.4 31 8.4 10 8.1 17 13 12 12 8.2 8.7 7.4 18 14 12 8.0 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Run# I Run# 2 Limits 4165-60-0 321-60-8 1718-51-0 Nitrobenzene-d5 2-Fluorobiphenyl Terphenyl-dl4 76%/o 66%47%/'28-113%38-107%31-116%CAS No. Tentatively Identified Compounds alkane alkane alkane alkane alkane alkane alkane Naphthalene trimethyl alkane alkane alkane alkane alkane R. T.7.52 8.35 8.75 9.58 9.91 10.52 11.00 11.63 12.03 12.44 13.02 13.94 14.81 6100 ,5600-8500 i:550o0:9100 3900 9000 4000 8900 5000 29000 22000 13000: Est. Conc. Units Q ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg J J J J J J J J J J J J J ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compoundZ a 8 of 16 12ACCUTEST JA28757 ,b- 't",; .

Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-201 0 Report of Analysis Page 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: TP- 10(2.0-2.5)092209 Lab Sample ID: JA28757-1R Date Sampled: 09/22/09 Matrix: SO -Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846 8270C SW846 3550B Percent Solids: 94.3 Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ BN TCL List CAS No. Tentatively Identified Compounds alkane alkane Total TIC, Sem~i-Volatilie R.T. Est. Co 15.58 410000: 16.24 '-7500*:::::

-147:100 nc. Units Q ug/kg J ug/kg J ug/kg J ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound MI2 9 of 16 2AJCMT1EST.

JA28757 LiC 1 Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-2010 Report of Analysis Page 1 of I Client Sample ID: TP-1 1(2.0-2.5)092209 Lab Sample ID: JA28757-2 Date Sampled:

09/22/09 Matrix: SO -Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846-8015 SW846 3545 Percent Solids: 92.7 Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem. NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3Y17807.D 1 09/28/09 DNM 09/26/09 OP40102 G3Y545 Run #2 Run #1 Run #2 Initial Weight 17.0 g Final Volume 1.0 ml CAS No. Compound TPH-DRO (C IO-C28)CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Result RL MDL Units Q 2620 6.3 3.1 mg/kg Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits 84-15-1 16416-32-3 438-22-2 o-Terphenyl Tetracosane-d50 5a-Androstane 66%ii 10901/91 %17-148%29-151%19-161%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 10 ofl16'IACCurMST JA28757 t '. :ý1 ,Ir Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-2010 Report of Analysis Page ] of 1 Client Sample ID: TP-12(1.0-1.5)092209 Lab Sample ID: JA28757-3 Date Sampled: 09/22/09 Matrix: SO -Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846-8015 SW846 3545 Percent Solids: 93.5 Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3Y17808.D 1 09/28/09 DNM 09/26/09 OP40102 G3Y545 Run #2 Initial Weight Final Volume Run #1 17.2 g 1.0 ml Run #2 CAS No. Compound TPH-DRO (C IO-C28)CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Result RL MDL Units Q 12.4 6.2 3.1 mg/kg Run# I Run# 2 Limits 84-15-1 16416-32-3 438-22-2 o-Terphenyl Tetracosane-d50 5a-Androstane 92%110/0%17-148%29-151%19-161%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound ll2 1ofl16 QACCUTEST.

JA28757 I .L ý7:

Accutest LabLink@539582 17:26 19-Jan-2010 Report of Analysis Page 1 of I Client Sample ID: FB-092209 Lab Sample ID: JA28757-4 Date Sampled: 09/23/09 Matrix: AQ -Field Blank Soil Date Received:

09/24/09 Method: SW846-8015 SW846 3510C Percent Solids: n/a Project: PSEG-Diesel, Salem, NJ File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3Y17780.D 1 09/25/09 DNM 09/25/09 OP40082 G3Y544 Run #2 Initial Volume Final Volume Run #1 1000 ml 1.0 ml Run m2 CAS No. Compound TPH-DRO (C IO-C28)CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Result RL MDL Units Q ND 0.10 0.039 mg/I Run# I Run# 2 Limits 84-15-1 16416-32-3 438-22-2 o-Terphenyl Tetracosane-d50 5a-Androstane 11(0%('127%102%10 34-139%34-141%26-140%ND = Not detected MDL -Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range J = Indicates an estimated value B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound fff 2 f1 OACCUTEST JA28757 L;II::,!1I New Jersey Section 4 I~Misc. Forms Custody Documents and Other Forms Includes the following where applicable:

.Chain of Custody M19 13 of 16 JA28757 L a b orE s'Laboratorie CHAIN OF CUSTODY2235 Rout 130, Daytmo N1 05830TEL, 732-329-0200 FAX: 732.329.34995J4M0

\ 'PAGE I OF I ,5R-ES7ne.~R RCeeC*e ,,,RequestedClent IRmportg lCfomtton ,ODE3 h Mat.Cd CoW -ylNaOe W .ACv AP5 RSC 6Sk Wt W -ceoý WOw s0.5 545555 tree s .*' ... Na Wte Co y SWt _7:6 a SI- Slo.p Ne->ýt PA 1S9tdO 5sLurei N.S- 3"*i17~5 ESdm Prcst Ceonw W. Frect S .letA-trne Falqs NN~s .'m ý .0r w.S -nt ol: C. --P -s to. (l o u3 ....... , 2o2-o ,l ,-;. 0 -0, x4 -) _-1 P-W I(o-25):a2.'

q0zzlo'I I oV-ýx",I vi i i z.-.)?2i

~ fi1 0 Mi 5i. *-3 ' 1- r2 (r.- j.g sy:?20q ;bvo so I L i14 212310"t IG-3J.7 1.I ' -7______________7______

_______ days)_______ Dat DM-Meayty/eeteeV~4.

'13 .5 50 btsd~o-S et. ea R-e s CoSCROOW A. LIset I1 1) NYASP Cat.es A E] std. 10 Days (by Cootrad y-] Crmevwdl -'B3.ILevel4 21 1 WASP Cato B _______ _r__FII-LTI 'l-4.l5 3f 4) 4ll F Crmect IB Dy REMS ý Caalw Otheur;nP I D ay EblreGEWC

________ Ceeent IB, kSSSCOtet Ersnsy Rat TIA Mat ase L. 530 blelk MJ RRS..:e -Re-.tO e CC SR-my. t S R. data A-,_____I_/

Sample Custody must be d rneseCtet Obalm eact time- -p3. d e stosstsioN.

Inading couesete -y.4 Sq SN -.--. sy- R0ý"1 t~~( P\ -IfC-> zV 'A-JA28757: Chain of Custody Page 1 of 3 ,Lq[ 14 of 16 JA28757 .I I '4 ,

OACCUTESTAccutest Laboratories Sample Receipt Summary Accutest Job Number: JA28757 Date / Time Received:

9/24/2009 Project: Client: Delivery Method: No. Coolers: Y or N 3. COC Present: W 0 4. Smpl DatesfTime OK [] 0 Immediate Client Services Action Required: Client Service Action Required at Login: Airbill #is: No No I Cooler Security Y 1. Custody Seals Present: 2. Custody Seals Intact: Cooler Temperature

1. Temp criteria achieved: 2. Cooler temp verification:

3. Cooler media: Quality Control Preservatio

1. Trip Blank present/ cooler: 2. Trip Blank listed on COC: 3. Samples preserved properly: 4. VOCs headspace free: or N[]0]Y or N W] El Infared gun Ice (bag)Y or N N/A 0l 01 0l 0 W] -I 0] 03 W Sample Integrity

-Documentation

1. Sample labels present on bottles: 2. Container labeling complete: 3. Sample container label / COC agree: Sample Integrity

-Condition 1. Sample recvd within HT: 2. All containers accounted for: 3. Condition of sample: Sample Integrity

-Instructions

1. Analysis requested is clear 2. Bottles received for unspecified tests 3. Sufficient volume recvd for analysis:

4. Compositing instructions clear: 5. Filtering instructions clear Y or N 9 0 Y or N I ntact Y o r N N/A IJ E0 2 030 0: WJ[] 0 Comments Accutest Laboratories V:732.329.02002235 US Highway 130F: 732.329.3499Dayton, New Jersey www/accutest.corn JA28757: Chain of Custody Page 2 of 3 S 15 of 16 12ACCLTEST.

JA28757 ý L! I 11" Job Change Order: JA2875710/6/2009-Requested Date: 10/6/2009 Account Name: Arcadis Project

Description:

PSEG-Diesel, Salem, N CSR: MM Sample #M JA28757-1 Received Date: 9/24/2009 Due Date: 10/1/2009 J Deliverable:

REDT2 TAT (Days): 1 Change: Please relog for B8270TCL+.

24-hr or fastest available TAT.TP-10(2.0-2.5)092209 Above Changes Per: Jonathan Shafer Date: 10/6/2009 To Client: This Change Order is confirmation of the revisions, previously discussed with the Accutest Client Service Representative.Page 1 of 1 JA28757: Chain of Custody Page 3 of 3 AB 16 of16.9A0MLFFES1.

JA28757 Lt