Text

Quarterly Remedial Action Progress Report, Fourth Quarter 2008 Pseg Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station
	ML091690304
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	03/26/2009
From:	Bernard R N; ARCADIS G&M, Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Tuccillo K; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of NJ, Dept of Environmental Protection
References
	SCH09-068
	Download: ML091690304 (106)
	v • d • e

e, ARCADIS Infrastructure, environment, buildings Imagine the result Quarterly Remedial Action Progress Report, Fourth Quarter 2008 PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancock Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 May 26, 20090 Nuclear LLC SCH09-068 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ARTICLE NUMBER: 7005 1160 0003 4381 7039 Karen Tuccillo Radiation Protection Programs Bureau of Nuclear Engineering New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 33 Arctic Parkway Trenton, New Jersey 08625 QUARTERLY REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRESS REPORT, FOURTH QUARTER 2008 PSEG NUCLEAR, LLC, SALEM GENERATING STATION

Dear Ms. Tuccillo:

PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) has prepared this Quarterly Remedial Action Progress Report (RAPR) summarizing groundwater remediation activities performed during 2008 at the PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station (Station).

The Station is located on Artificial Island in Hancock's Bridge, Salem County, New Jersey. Groundwater remediation activities are being conducted to address tritium detected in shallow groundwater adjacent to and south of the Salem Unit 1 Reactor Containment and Fuel Handling Building.

The Station site plan is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2 presents a detailed view of the area undergoing active remediation.

The release of tritium contaminated water to the environment ceased in February 2003 when the Salem Unit 1 telltale drains were cleared and the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) water that had accumulated behind the liner was drained. Routine maintenance of the spent fuel, pool (SFP) telltale drains has precluded further flow restrictions in those drains.The installed seismic gap drains continue to provide a hydraulic gradient into the building and to the waste treatment systems, and away from the environment.

The Groundwater Recovery System continues to control the flow of shallow groundwater in the shallow unconsolidated zone maintaining the plume to the on-site area while removing the remaining tritiated groundwater.

The monitoring program provides data to support the adaptive management program and analyze the efficiency of the program. Short-lived gamma-emitting radioisotopes have not been detected and tritium concentrations have continued to decline in groundwater samples, indicating that current activities meets the objectives of the program as provided in the RAWP.

W1 The annual recalculation of the mass ot tritium remaining in the plume produced an estimate of less than 1 Curie of tritium remaining in the plume where it exists above the NJDEP Ground Water Quality Criteria (NJGWQC).

The mass is estimated based upon a number of factors including:

the amount of tritium drawn back through the seismic gap by gap draining activities, the actual degree of variability in the tritium concentrations of the groundwater, and the amount of mass held in dead end pore space. Additionally, the existing monitoring network was designed to monitor a much more extensive plume;therefore the great reductions in plume mass achieved to date has resulted in the present situation where only a few wells indicate concentrations above the NJGWQC.The following sections present the background of environmental investigation and remedial action at the site, the details and results of activities conducted since the recent submittal of the 3 rd Quarter 2008 RAPR, and provide a discussion of upcoming activities projected for the next reporting period.1 Project Background In April 2004, a Remedial Investigation Report (RIR) was submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (NJDEP-BNE) presenting the details and results of a groundwater investigation conducted following the discovery of tritium in groundwater adjacent to Salem Unit 1. The results of the* remedial investigation indicated that the source of tritium detected in groundwater was the Spent Fuel Pool, the tritium release to the environment had been stopped, and that tritium had not migrated to the property boundary above the New Jersey GWQC.Based on the results of the remedial investigation a remedial action strategy was developed to hydraulically limit further migration and reduce the concentration of tritium remaining in groundwater adjacent to Salem Unit 1. In April 2004, PSEG initiated a pilot study designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of groundwater extraction for achieving remedial objectives.

The pilot study proved to be effective, and in July 2004, a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) proposing the operation of a full-scale groundwater extraction system was prepared and submitted to the NJDEP-BNE.

The RAWP was approved by the NJDEP-BNE in November 2004 and a full-scale groundwater extraction system was subsequently installed.

In April 2005, weekly draining of the Unit 1 seismic gap was initiated to ensure that the flow of water entering the seismic gap was directed toward the interior of the building for treatment rather than outward toward the environment.

Continuous draining of the Unit 1 seismic gap was initiated in February 2007 and the program has been continued to date.2 Continued Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater monitoring activities continued through this reporting period in accordance with the schedule provided to NJDEP-BNE.

The sampling program is- designed to 2 provide the representative data necessary to evaluate plume containment.

Monitoring activities include the periodic collection of groundwater samples from the 36 Station monitoring wells. A summary of monitoring well construction details is presented in Table 1. Results for Plume area monitoring well locations are depicted on Figure 2 and wells beyond the area of active remediation are shown on Figure 3.Groundwater samples are initially submitted to Salem Chemistry for analysis for tritium and gamma-emitting radioisotopes.

Samples indicating tritium concentrations less than 50,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) are sent to Maplewood Testing Services for more refined analysis yielding lower detection limits.Historical and current analytical data indicate that plant related gamma-emitting radioisotopes have not been detected in groundwater from any monitoring well since monitoring was initiated in 2003.Historical analytical tritium results for groundwater collected from the Station monitoring wells are presented on Figure 2 and Table 2. Included on Figure 2 are: panel 1) the extent of tritium in groundwater at the completion of the remedial investigation (Baseline Plume); panel 2) the extent of tritium in groundwater one year prior to the reporting period, December 2007; and, panel 3) the extent of tritium in groundwater in September 2008. Based on a review of Figure 2, it is apparent that the mass of tritium in groundwater has been significantly reduced by the remedial efforts conducted to date.Details regarding these activities are discussed below.The analytical results for groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells were evaluated based on the water-bearing zone in which they are screened.

The three primary water-bearing units investigated beneath the Station are: 1) the Vincentown Formation;

2) the shallow water-bearing unit within the limits of the cofferdam surrounding Salem Unit 1; and, 3) the shallow, water-bearing unit outside the limits of the cofferdam.

2.1 Tritium

Analytical Results for the Vincentown Formation The following wells are screened in the Vincentown Formation:

Well V, Well K, Well L, Well P, Well Q, and Well CB. Groundwater quality for Well K, Well L, Well P, and Well Q is currently monitored on a semi-annual basis. Groundwater quality for Well V and Well CB is currently monitored on a quarterly and monthly basis, respectively.

Tritium has consistently not been detected above laboratory detection limits or detected at relatively low levels in groundwater at all monitoring wells screened within the Vincentown formation since the initiation of monitoring at these locations with the recent exception of Well CB. As discussed in the Q3, 2008 RAPR concentrations of tritium increased slightly at well CB following the March/April 2008 outage, during which the* steam generators in Unit 2 were replaced.

The activities involved in the spring 2008 outage applied significant but temporary vibration and compressive stresses to the Kirkwood clay and overlying units as the steam generators were removed and replaced.3

The resulting vibration and compression of the Kirkwood Clay likely remobilized some tritiated water present in and above the immobile porosity fraction of the Kirkwood and overlying units as a result of historic above ground steam releases in this area. The tritium concentrations which may have been present within the Kirkwood are a result of concentration gradient driven diffusion into the immobile pore water of the clay.Following the removal and replacement of the turbines, tritium concentrations in groundwater exhibited a slight increase and subsequent decrease.

Tritium levels in Well CB are trending toward levels historically observed in other wells completed in the Vincentown formation with some variability in routine analytical results. At no time did tritium concentrations rise to a level approaching the New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria.

Thus, the groundwater monitoring results continue to indicate that the previous release of tritium impacted water from the SFP has not significantly migrated below the shallow water-bearing unit.2.2 Tritium Analytical Results for Wells Installed Within the Limits of the Cofferdam The following wells are screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit within the limits of the cofferdam:

Well M, Well N, Well 0, Well R, Well AC, Well AE, Well Al, Well AM, Well AN, and Well AO. Groundwater quality for these wells is currently monitored on a monthly basis. However, Well AO has been inaccessible due to site constraints and* has not been sampled since January 2007. During 2008 Well AW was only sampled in the months of March through September, although this well is typically sampled every month. Based on the results of groundwater analysis, the potential for reducing the frequency of sampling for these wells will be evaluated.

Groundwater collected from Well AC, Well AD, Well AM, and Well AN exhibit some of the highest concentrations of tritium remaining at the Site, likely due to their location relative to the original release. Tritium concentrations in groundwater at these wells exhibits general decreasing trends since the initiation of monitoring in 2003. Well AC, for example, the location of the historic highest concentrations, has exhibited steadily decreasing concentrations (from a maximum of 15,000,000 pCi/L in April 2003 to 26,934 pCi/L during the sampling event in December 2008). The decrease in tritium concentrations

-observed at Well AC provides confirmation that tritium impacted groundwater is no longer being released to the- environment and that the remedial groundwater recovery system (GRS) is effectively reducing concentrations of previously released tritium.The mobile extraction unit was moved from Well AM to Well 0 and then to Well AR during the second quarter of 2008 to address seasonal fluctuations.

The mobile system is only typically used during the period between March and November in order to avoid potential freeze damage.Tritium concentrations at Well N, Well R, and Well Al are below GWQC and generally show consistent declining temporal trends. Tritium concentrations at all well locations 4

' within the cofferdam have generally decreased by one order of magnitude or more since the initiation of monitoring, indicating that remedial activities are effectively removing mass from the areas of greatest concentration.

Variations in concentration occur primarily due to the complex flow patterns and limited flushing within the limits of the cofferdam.

2.3 Tritium

Analytical Results for Wells Installed Outside the Limits of the Cofferdam The wells installed in the shallow, water-bearing unit beyond the limits of the cofferdam are Well S, Well T, Well U, Well W, Well Y, Well Z, Well AA, Well AB, Well AD, Well AF, Well AG (Shallow and Deep), Well AH (Shallow and Deep), Well AJ, Well AL, Well AP, Well AQ, Well AR, Well AS, Well AT, and Well CA. These wells are screened either just above the clay confining unit that separates the shallow water-bearing unit from the Vincentown Formation, or in the interval indicating the highest tritium concentrations found in the shallow water-bearing unit at each boring location at the time of the Supplemental Investigation completed in August 2003.By 2007, tritium concentrations at Well AR had been reduced to approximately 80,000 pCi/L. In the spring of 2008, recovery Wells AS and AT began to lose efficiency as the pumps degraded.

As a result, slight increases in tritium concentration were observed at* Well AS and Well AT during the summer of 2008. These increases were later determined to be an artifact of reduced functionality of the pumps coupled with the location of the sampling ports. Subsequent servicing of the GRS (October 2008)revealed that by October these two wells were wholly non-functional and although the installed check valves prevented backflow into the well, the sampling ports were producing samples more representative of total system effluent than of the concentrations in Wells AR, AS and AT. Grab samples collected at the wells indicated that the concentrations in Well AS and AT were below GWQC which was inconsistent with some of the second and third quarter analytical results obtained from the samples collected at the sampling ports in the control shed.Tritium concentration trends for wells screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit indicate that the operation of the groundwater extraction system is achieving the remedial action objectives (i.e., reduce the mass of tritium in groundwater and maintain hydraulic control).

The distribution of tritium in groundwater in December 2008 is presented on Figure 2, along with the distribution of tritium prior to the initiation of the pilot study in March 2004, and in December 2007. As shown on Figure 2, the mass of tritium in groundwater has continued to decrease through the operation of the groundwater extraction pilot study system and operation of the full-scale system.3 Groundwater Extraction

Groundwater extraction as a remedial strategy at the site was initiated with the operation of a pilot test from April 2004 to February 2005. In accordance with the 5 RAWP, groundwater extraction activities completed to date consisted of the operation of the pilot-study from April 26, 2004 to February 11, 2005 and operation of the full scale GRS from February 16, 2005 to the present. As discussed above, system service was scheduled and performed in October 2008 to address valve and pump difficulties.

3.1 Full-Scale System The objectives of the full-scale GRS consist of: , maintaining hydraulic containment of the tritium plume; and" reducing tritium concentrations in groundwater.

The present operation of the GRS consists of groundwater extraction from Wells AB, AD, AJ, AN, AS, and AT. Pumping at Well S has not occurred since 2006 as a result of low yield and resulting pump failures.

The system was inactive for several weeks during the first quarter of 2008 for system servicing and again at the end of the third quarter of 2008. A regular system service schedule will be planned and implemented to maximize system operation and efficiency.

Groundwater extracted from the wells is processed in accordance with the Station's United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)license and plant procedures.

Details of the extracted effluent are discussed below.3.2 Mobile Groundwater Recovery Unit The mobile groundwater recovery unit was designed and built to target specific areas of the groundwater plume exhibiting greater tritium concentrations.

The mobile unit typically operates between March and November (weather permitting).

The mobile unit collects water in nominal 1,000 gallon batches for handling in accordance with the station's permits. The mobile unit has historically been used successfully at Wells 0, AP, AM, and AR. In 2008 it was operated at Wells 0 and AR where relatively elevated concentrations were present during the early part of the year.3.3 Total System Effluent Data and Evaluation GRS operations were initiated on February 16, 2005. The system operated in various configurations as part of the optimization process for approximately the first month. The GRS discharges continuously in accordance with the Station's USNRC permit allowing the GRS to be more effective and efficient than the pilot-scale system. As of December 2008, the GRS has recovered greater than 23 million gallons of groundwater.

This is equivalent to an average recovery rate of approximately 10.8 gallons per minute or greater than 15 times the recharge rate for the extraction area (calculated to be 0.7 gallons per minute, based upon an assumed percentage of annual precipitation).

6 3.4 Water-Level Data and Evaluation Water level measurements from the extraction and select observation wells have been monitored to confirm hydraulic containment of the tritium groundwater plume. Water levels are periodically collected and evaluated according to the schedule described in the Q4 2006 RAPR submitted in March 2007. " Groundwater elevation contours developed from water level measurements collected in January, April, August and December of 2008 are presented in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

Because some operational issues arose in 2008 water levels were not as consistent as they have been in past years. The system was serviced in October with a second service event scheduled for spring 2009. The pump service performed in October restored the declining performance of several of the components of the GRS system. An additional servicing event was scheduled for the spring of 2009 and will be established on a regular schedule going forward. The partially rehabilitated system continues to control the flow of groundwater in the Salem Unit 1 yard area and therefore controls the distribution of the remnants of the tritium groundwater plume.3.5 Cumulative Curies Removed The various groundwater recovery activities conducted to date have been successful in controlling the plume and recovering tritium from groundwater at and downgradient of the Salem Unit 1 seismic gap.Figure 8 summarizes the results of groundwater remediation, activities conducted using the well field including both the pilot study and the permanent system. As Shown on Figure 8, greater than 2.8 curies of tritium have been recovered from the operation of the GRS through December 2008. Approximately 0.93 curies of tritium were removed by the pilot system. As the mass remaining in the plume continues to decrease so will the rate of tritium recovery by the GRS. The effectiveness of the GRS is emphasized by the decrease and stabilization of system effluent concentrations since the activation of the full scale system in February 2005. System effluent concentrations averaged 35,250 pCi/L during the fourth quarter 2008 (data available from October and December).

This indicates that the GRS has been successful at significantly decreasing tritium concentrations in groundwater as discharge concentrations are roughly 30 percent of the peak concentration (109,000 pCi/L) observed in March 2005.The average effluent concentration during 2008 was 48,626 pCi/L, indicating that the GRS continues to reduce the mass present in the subsurface of the Salem Unit 1 yard area. The mass of tritium in the plume was recalculated in late 2008 in order to provide an annual update of the remedial progress.

The annual recalculation interval was selected based upon the adaptively managed sampling program such that the most complete data set is used to calculate the mass remaining in the plume. At the end of 2008 the mass was estimated to be less than one curie. This calculation is based upon the concentration of tritium shown in the plume and the pore volume for that area. The endpoint for the mass calculation is the 20,000 pCi/L concentration isocontour.

Therefore it is expected that GRS operations will achieve end criteria for tritium removal 7 ahead of the previously communicated schedule although the system will likely remain in some form as a fail safe for the release mechanism.

4.0 Operation

of the Seismic Gap Drain In addition to the operation of the GRS and mobile groundwater recovery unit, the seismic gap drains in Salem Unit 1 and Unit 2 are being used to continuously drain the water from these gaps, resulting in the recovery of residual tritium concentrations from the seismic gap. The operation of these permanent gap drains creates an inward gradient towards the gaps facilitating the recovery of water from low accessibility areas and minimizing the potential for this water to enter the environment.

Water samples from the seismic gap drains are periodically collected for tritium analysis.

Table 3 and Figure 9 summarize the results of periodic tritium analysis from the seismic gap. A comparison of Figure 1 and Figure 9 indicates that concentrations of tritium in water recovered in the Unit 1 seismic gap have been consistently significantly higher than those detected in groundwater samples collected from Well AC and Well AM located to the southeast and southwest of the seismic gap, respectively.

Thus, continuous operation of the Unit 1 seismic gap drain is effectively removing residual SFP water in the seismic gap, resulting in the reduction of tritium concentrations in groundwater adjacent to the seismic gap. Tritium concentrations in water presently being removed from the gap are close to the concentrations present in the pool indicating that the continuous draining program has been successful in establishing a more direct flow path between the seismic gap drain and any SFP water.Continuous or nearly continuous draining (resulting in a hydraulic head less than that which is present in the geologic materials present outside the seismic gap) provides positive assurance that the engineering control established by the seismic gap drain is effective at capturing any SFP water that enters the seismic gap. The gap drain creates an inward gradient such that groundwater flows into the seismic gap assuring that no further potential exists for a discharge to the environment from the gap. This is further supported by the reversal in the concentration relationship between Wells AC and AM suggesting that the plume is detaching from the location of the original release.Concentrations of tritium from the Unit 1 seismic gap (summarized by week) are shown on Figure 9.Monitoring of water drained from the Unit 2 seismic gap acts as a screen for a potential release from the Unit 2 SFP. Water collected in the Unit 2 seismic gap drain indicate tritium levels several orders of magnitude below the Unit 1 seismic gap drain concentration, and consistent with the trends in the Unit I seismic gap drain.Water samples will continue to be periodically obtained from the Unit 1 and Unit 2 seismic gap drain to evaluate the potential for the release of radioisotopes to the environment.

8 Upcoming Activities Activities projected for the first half of 2009 (January through June) include the following: , Continue to monitor continuous draining of seismic gap drains;* Ongoing evaluation of the data to refine the procedures and protocols as necessary to adaptively manage the operation and sampling of the GRS;" Continue to measure groundwater levels and evaluate flow and plume containment;

Perform calculations of the residual tritium remaining in the plume and estimate the time remaining to completing the remediation;, Continued groundwater sampling and analysis; and, Continued operation and evaluation of the GRS performance.

Based on the decreasing trends in most wells, PSEG recommends modifying the minimum sampling frequency of wells that are routinely below the NJGWQC. It is recommended that wells W, AA, AF, Al, AL, and AP have the sampling frequency reduced by one step, i.e, monthly to quarterly, or quarterly to semi-annually.

It is also recommended that operating wells connected to the GRS system be sampled on a monthly basis to aid in the adaptive management of the GRS system.If you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at (856) 339-1636.Since 7 Robert N. Bernard Manager -Salem Chemistry, Environmental, and Radwaste C Ron Nimitz- NRC NRC -Salem Resident Inspector NRC -Document Room 9 BC: George Gellrich S05 Edward Keating N21 Jeffrey Pantazes T1I7A John Valeri Jr. T5C Christine Neely N21 Helen Gregory N21 File#Groundwater EXTERNAL Peter Milionis, ARCADIS Bradley Pierce, ARCADIS'Scott Potter, PhD., ARCADIS Christopher Sharpe, ARCADIS 10 1 of2 Table 01.Well Construction Details, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Installation Construction Diameter Total Depth Monitoring Monitored MP MP Northing Easting Well ID Date Details (inches) (feet bgs) Interval Hydrogeologic Elevation Elevation (NAD 83) (NAD 83)(feet bgs) Unit (feet RPD) (feet amsl)Well K Feb-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown 1 102.00 12.08 231,435. 199,697 Well L Jan-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown 1 101.46 11.54 230,933 199,263 Well M May-03 Sch-40 PVC 1 20.0 10.0-20.0 Cofferdam 2 102.17 12.25 230,843 199,546 Well N Jan-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 20.0 10.0-20.0 Cofferdam 2 101.65 11.73 230,777 199,661 Well 0 Jan-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 20.0 10.0 -20.0 Cofferdam 2 101.33 11.41 230,804 199,839 Well P Mar-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown 1 101.13 11.21 230,336 200,000 Well Q Mar-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 80.0 70.0-80.0 Vincentown

' 106.59 16.67 230,645 201,196 Well R Jun-03 Sch-40 PVC 1 19.0 9.0- 19.0 Cofferdam 2 102.35 12.43 230,906 199,640 Well S 4 May-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 34.7 24.7- 34.7 Shallow 3 99.04 9.12 230,711 199,613 Well T Jun-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 31.2 21.2-31.2.

Shallow 3 104.13 14.21 231,575 199,575 Well U4 May-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 32.2 27.2-32.2 Shallow 3 98.57 8.65 231,370 199,618 Well V4 Jun-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 79.5 69.5-79.5 Vincentown' 98.74 8.82 231,355 199,548 Well W 4 Jun-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 35.0 25.0-35.0 Shallow 3 98.26 8.34 230,777 199,450 Well Y Sep-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 37.0 27.0-35.0 Shallow 3 101.81 11.89 230,771 199,343 Well Z Sep-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 37.5 27.5-37.5 Shallow 3 101.86 11.94 230,681 199,399 Well AA4 Sep-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 36.0 26.0-36.0 Shallow 3 99.07 9.15 230,603 199,541 Well AB 4 Oct-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 42.0 32.0- 42.0 Shallow 3 98.93 9.01 230,623 199,677 Well AC 4 Sep-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 24.0 14.0-24.0 Cofferdam 2 98.77 8.85 230,724 199,725 Well AD 4 Oct-03 Sch-40 PVC 6 43.0 33.0-43.0 Shallow 3 98.99 9.07 230,684 199,607 Well AE Oct-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 37.5 27.5-37.5 Cofferdam 2 101.54 11.62 230,829 199,845 Notes: MP bgs RPD amsl 1 2 3 4 Measuring Point Below ground surface Relative to plant datum Relative to mean sea level (NAVD 1988)Monitoring well is screened in the Vincentown Formation.

Monitoring well is screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit at a location within the limits of the cofferdam.

Monitoring well is screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit at a location outside the limits of the cofferdam.

The surface completions of Monitoring Wells S, U, V, W, AA, AB, AC,'and AD were converted from above-grade to flush-grade in February 2004.

0 2 of 2 Table 01.Well Construction Details, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey.Installation Construction Diameter Total Depth. Monitoring Monitored MP MP Northing Easting WellID Date Details (inches) (feet bgs) Interval Hydrogeologic Elevation Elevation (NAD 83) (NAD 83)(feet bgs) Unit (feet RPD). (feet amsl)Well AF Oct-03 Sch-40 PVC 2 45.0 35.0-45.0 Shallow 3 101.61 11.69 230,491 199,702 Well AGrShallow

.Feb-04 Sch-40 PVC 1 24.2 14.2-24.2 Shallow 3 99.29 9.37 230,496 199,508 WellAG-Deep Feb-04 Sch-40 PVC 1 40.0 30.0-40.0 Shallow 3 99.20 9.28 230,496 199,508 Well AH-Shallow Feb-04 Sch-40 PVC 1 24.5 14.5 -24.5 Shallow 3 102.58 12.66 230,450 199,596 Well AH-Deep Feb-04 Sch-40 PVC 1 40.0 30.0 -40.0 Shallow 3 102.70 12.78 230,450 199,596 Well Al Jan-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 22.0 12.0-22.0 Cofferdam 2 98.79 8.87 230,798 199,521 Well AJ Jan-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 35.3 15.3-35.3 Shallow 3 98.85 8.93 230,670 199,665 Well AL Jan-04 Scl1-40 PVC 2 25.3 15.3-25.3 Shallow 3 99.13 9.21 230,594 199,806 Well AM Jan-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 20.9 10.9-20.9 Cofferdam 2 98.55 8.63 230,762 199,680 Well AN Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 25.0 10.0-25.0 Cofferdam2 98.76 8.84 230,727 199,735 Well AO Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 21.0 11.0- 21.0 Cofferdam2 98.82 8.90 230,765 199,556 Well AP Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC' 4 40.0 15.0-40.0 Shallow3 98.65 8.73 230,694 199,464 Well AQ Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 45.0 20.0-45.0 Shallow3 99.05 9.13 230,526 199,540 Well AR Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 43.0 18.0-43.0 Shallow3 99.22 9.30 230,622 199,626 Well AS Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 41.5 16.5-41.5 Shallow3 99.44 9.52 230,566 199,604 Well AT Jun-04 Sch-40 PVC 4 44.0 19.0-44.0 Shallow3 99.25 9.33 230,546 199,566 Well BW Dec-06 Sch-40 PVC 1 10 5-10 Shallow1 98.72 8.80 231563.00 199,864 Well BX Dec-06 Sch-40 PVC 1 10 5-10 Shallowi 98.72 8.80 231582.00 199,876 Well CA Dec-06 Sch-40 PVC 4 38 28.0- 38.0 Shallow' 98.87 8.95 231318.00 199,791 Well CB Dec-06 Sch-40 PVC 2 80 70.0-80.0 Vincentown 3 98.98 9.06 231328.00 199,787 Notes: MP bgs RPD amsl 1 2 3 4 Measuring Point Below ground surface Relative to plant datum Relative to mean sea level (NAVD 1988)Monitoring well is screened in the Vincentown Formation.

Monitoring well is screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit at a location within-the limits of the cofferdam.

Monitoring well is screened in the shallow, water-bearing unit at a location outside the limits of the cofferdam.

The surface completions of Monitoring Wells S, U, V, W, AA, AB, AC, and AD were converted from above-grade to flush-grade in February 2004.

Table 02. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station.for Samples collected between 01/22/2003 and 12/31/2008 Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Ainion Identification Date Note lResult (pCiIL) I'LLD IDeviation Boron(mg/L)

ISodium(mg/L Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K Well- K 01/29/03 02/03/03 02/05/03 02/12/03 02/27/03 03/14/03 03/18/03 03/26/03 03/31/03 04/09/03 04/17/03 04/21/03 04/29/03 05/05/03 05/20/03 05/28/03 06/04/03 06/10/03 06/17/03 06/24/03 06/30/03 07/16/03 07/29/03 08/12/03 08/27/03 09/09/03 09/25/03 10/06/03 11/09/03-153<153 1,120 506 1,170 937 875 822 677 1,010 1,170 911 833 948 878 859 921 897 894 783 914 870 950 845 852 653 713 880 891 153 153 147 148 145 144 144 140 155 140 141 140 142 135 145 141 141 138 141 141 142 140 140 142 141 147 139 143 141 90 91 104 96 104 100 99 97 103 99 102 98 97 96 100 97 98 97 98 96 99 97 98 98 97 98 94 99 98 0.74 0.8 1.38 1.19 1,060 1,210 1,200 1,060 1,190 1,220 1,170 1,280 1,250 1,330 1.13 1.02 1.16 0.82 1.15 0.92 Notes: LLD Lower Limit of Detection mg/L Milligrams per liter pCi/L Picocuries per liter 1 Reported analytical results are from Salem Chemistry.

< Constituent was not detected above the indicated laboratory detection limit.762 Constituent was detected above the laboratory method detection limit.L Constituent was detected above its New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria.Not Available

-Deviation and/or LLD were not reported.-- Constituent not analyzed.04/03/2009 10:37 AM Page I of 81 Table 02. Groundwater Analytical Results, PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station.for Samples collected between 01/22/2003 and 12/31/2008 Well Sample Tritium Major Cations and Anions Identification Date Note Result (pCi/L) LLD Deviation Boron(mg/L)

ML091690304

Text

Dear Ms. Tuccillo:

2.1 Tritium

2.3 Tritium

4.0 Operation

Navigation menu

Search