Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 45

Regarding Hope Creek

Generating Station and 

Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2

Final Report 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1437

Supplement 45
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402B0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Publications Branch 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036B8002

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 45

Regarding Hope Creek 

Generating Station and 

Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: March 2011 

Date Published: March 2011 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1437

Supplement 45

 iii 

ABSTRACT 

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in 

response to an application submitted by PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) to renew the 

operating licenses for Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) for an additional 20 years. 

This final SEIS provides an analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include 

replacement power from a new supercritical coal-fired generation and natural gas 

combined-cycle generation plant; a combination of alternatives that includes natural gas 

combined-cycle generation, energy conservation/energy efficiency, and wind power; and 

not renewing the operating licenses (the no-action alternative). 

The recommendation is that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the 

adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Salem and HCGS are not so great 

that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be 

unreasonable.

v 

Table of Contents 

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ xv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... xxiii 

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Proposed Federal Action .................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action .......................................... 1-1

1.3 Major Environmental Review Milestones ............................................................ 1-2

1.4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement .......................................................... 1-3

1.5 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ................................................ 1-5

1.6 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................ 1-6 

1.7 Consultations ...................................................................................................... 1-6 

1.8 Correspondence ................................................................................................. 1-7 

1.9 Status of Compliance ......................................................................................... 1-8 

1.10 References ....................................................................................................... 1-16 

2.0 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the 

Renewal Term .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems ........................................................ 2-7

2.1.1.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station ........................................... 2-7 

2.1.1.2 Hope Creek Generating Station ............................................... 2-9 

2.1.2 Radioactive Waste Management .......................................................... 2-10 

2.1.2.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste ....................................................... 2-11 

2.1.2.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste .................................................. 2-12 

2.1.2.3 Radioactive Solid Waste ......................................................... 2-12 

2.1.2.4 Mixed Waste ........................................................................... 2-13 

2.1.3 Nonradioactive Waste Management ..................................................... 2-13 

2.1.3.1 Hazardous Waste ................................................................... 2-13 

2.1.3.2 Solid Waste ............................................................................ 2-14 

2.1.3.3 Universal Waste ..................................................................... 2-15 

2.1.3.4 Permitted Discharges ............................................................. 2-15 

2.1.3.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ........................ 2-16 

2.1.4 Facility Operation and Maintenance ..................................................... 2-16

2.1.5 Power Transmission System ................................................................ 2-17

2.1.5.1 North Corridor of New Freedom ............................................. 2-18

2.1.5.2 South Corridor of New Freedom ............................................. 2-18 

2.1.5.3 Corridor of Keeney ................................................................. 2-19 

2.1.6 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems ................................................... 2-21

2.1.6.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station ......................................... 2-22 

2.1.6.2 Hope Creek Generating Station ............................................. 2-24 

2.1.7 Facility Water Use and Quality ............................................................. 2-25

2.1.7.1 Groundwater Use ................................................................... 2-25 

2.1.7.2 Surface Water Use ................................................................. 2-26 

2.2 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 2-28

2.2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................. 2-28
Table of Contents 

vi 

2.2.2 Air Quality and Meteorology ................................................................. 2-29 

2.2.2.1 Meteorology ............................................................................ 2-29 

2.2.2.2 Air Quality ............................................................................... 2-30 

2.2.3 Groundwater Resources ....................................................................... 2-32 

2.2.3.1 Description .............................................................................. 2-32 

2.2.3.2 Affected Users ........................................................................ 2-33 

2.2.3.3 Available Volume .................................................................... 2-33 

2.2.3.4 Existing Quality ....................................................................... 2-34 

2.2.4 Surface Water Resources..................................................................... 2-36

2.2.4.1 Description .............................................................................. 2-36

2.2.4.2 Affected Users ........................................................................ 2-37

2.2.4.3 Water Quality Regulation ........................................................ 2-37 

2.2.4.4 Salem Nuclear Generating Station NJPDES Requirements .. 2-38 

2.2.4.5 Hope Creek Generating Station NJPDES Requirements ....... 2-41 

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources – Delaware Estuary ............................................... 2-44

2.2.5.1 Estuary Characteristics ........................................................... 2-44

2.2.5.2 Plankton .................................................................................. 2-45

2.2.5.3 Benthic Invertebrates .............................................................. 2-48

2.2.5.4 Fish ......................................................................................... 2-53

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................... 2-70

2.2.6.1 Artificial Island ........................................................................ 2-70

2.2.6.2 Transmission Line Right-of-Ways ........................................... 2-73

2.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................. 2-75 

2.2.7.1 Aquatic Species of the Delaware Estuary .............................. 2-75 

2.2.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Species ........................... 2-79 

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors ........................................................................ 2-94

2.2.8.1 Housing .................................................................................. 2-95

2.2.8.2 Public Services ....................................................................... 2-96

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use ................................................................... 2-100

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise ................................................. 2-102

2.2.8.5 Demography ......................................................................... 2-103

2.2.8.6 Economy ............................................................................... 2-108

2.2.9 Historic and Archeological Resources ................................................ 2-112

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background ............................................................. 2-112

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archeological Resources at the Salem/Hope 

Creek Site ............................................................................. 2-115

2.3 Related Federal Project Activities................................................................... 2-115 

2.4 References ..................................................................................................... 2-116 

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment ...................................................................... 3-1

3.1 References ......................................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation .............................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 4-2 

4.3.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (plants using >100 gpm) ............................. 4-2 

4.4 Surface Water .................................................................................................... 4-4

4.5 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................. 4-5 

4.5.1 Categorization of Aquatic Resources Issues .......................................... 4-5 

4.5.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages ........................... 4-7 
Table of Contents 

vii 

4.5.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish ........................................................ 4-20 

4.5.4 Heat Shock ........................................................................................... 4-32 

4.5.5 Restoration Activities ............................................................................ 4-44 

4.5.6 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 4-45 

4.6 Terrestrial Resources ....................................................................................... 4-47

4.7 Threatened or Endangered Species ................................................................ 4-48 

4.7.1 Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species of the Delaware 

Estuary ................................................................................................. 4-49 

4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered 

Species ................................................................................................. 4-52 

4.8 Human Health .................................................................................................. 4-53

4.8.1 Generic Human Health Issues .............................................................. 4-54

4.8.2 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ......................................... 4-54

4.8.3 Microbiological Organisms – Public Health .......................................... 4-59

4.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields – Acute Effects ................................................ 4-60

4.8.5 Electromagnetic Fields – Chronic Effects ............................................. 4-61

4.9 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 4-61 

4.9.1 Generic Socioeconomic Issues ............................................................ 4-62 

4.9.2 Housing Impacts ................................................................................... 4-62 

4.9.3 Public Services: Public Utilities ............................................................ 4-63 

4.9.4 Offsite Land Use - License Renewal Period ......................................... 4-63 

4.9.5 Public Services: Transportation Impacts ............................................. 4-65 

4.9.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources ................................................ 4-65 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice ........................................................................... 4-66 

4.10 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information .................................. 4-73 

4.11 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-74 

4.11.1 Cumulative Impacts on Water Resources ............................................ 4-74 

4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts on Estuarine Aquatic Resources .......................... 4-75 

4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial and Freshwater Resources ............ 4-80 

4.11.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts ...................................................... 4-82 

4.11.5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts ............................................................. 4-83 

4.11.6 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts ..................................................... 4-84 

4.11.7 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .......................................................... 4-85 

4.12 References ....................................................................................................... 4-88 

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Accidents .............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Design-Basis Accidents ...................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Severe Accidents ............................................................................................... 5-2 

5.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ............................................................. 5-4 

5.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 5-4

5.3.2 Estimate of Risk ...................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.3 Potential Plant Improvements ................................................................. 5-9

5.3.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements ..................... 5-9 

5.3.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison ...................................................................... 5-10

5.3.6 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 5-13

5.4 References ....................................................................................................... 5-13 

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management, 

and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle ..................................................................................... 6-1 
Table of Contents 

viii 

6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 6-2 

6.2.1 Existing Studies ...................................................................................... 6-2 

6.2.1.1 Qualitative Studies .................................................................... 6-3 

6.2.1.2 Quantitative Studies ................................................................. 6-3 

6.2.2 Conclusions: Relative Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................. 6-8 

6.3 References ......................................................................................................... 6-9 

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning ................................................................. 7-1 

7.1 References ......................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ........................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Alternative Energy Sources ................................................................................ 8-4

8.1.1 Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation ....................................................... 8-4

8.1.1.1 Air Quality ................................................................................. 8-5

8.1.1.2 Groundwater Use and Quality .................................................. 8-9 

8.1.1.3 Surface Water Use and Quality .............................................. 8-10 

8.1.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology .............................................. 8-10 

8.1.1.5 Human Health ......................................................................... 8-11 

8.1.1.6 Socioeconomics ..................................................................... 8-12 

8.1.1.7 Waste Management ............................................................... 8-16 

8.1.2 Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Generation ................................... 8-17

8.1.2.1 Air Quality ............................................................................... 8-18 

8.1.2.2 Groundwater Use and Quality ................................................ 8-20 

8.1.2.3 Surface Water Use and Quality .............................................. 8-21 

8.1.2.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology .............................................. 8-21 

8.1.2.5 Human Health ......................................................................... 8-22 

8.1.2.6 Socioeconomics ..................................................................... 8-23 

8.1.2.7 Waste Management ............................................................... 8-26 

8.1.3 Combination Alternative ........................................................................ 8-27 

8.1.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................... 8-28 

8.1.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality ................................................ 8-29 

8.1.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality .............................................. 8-29 

8.1.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology .............................................. 8-29 

8.1.3.5 Human Health ......................................................................... 8-30 

8.1.3.6 Socioeconomics ..................................................................... 8-30 

8.1.3.7 Waste Management ............................................................... 8-34 

8.2 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed ........................................................... 8-35

8.2.1 Offsite Coal- and Natural Gas-Fired ..................................................... 8-35 

8.2.2 New Nuclear ......................................................................................... 8-35

8.2.3 Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency ............................................... 8-36

8.2.4 Purchased Power ................................................................................. 8-36

8.2.5 Solar Power .......................................................................................... 8-37 

8.2.6 Wood-Fired ........................................................................................... 8-37 

8.2.7 Wind (Onshore/Offshore) ...................................................................... 8-37 

8.2.8 Hydroelectric Power .............................................................................. 8-38 

8.2.9 Wave and Ocean Energy...................................................................... 8-38 

8.2.10 Geothermal Power ................................................................................ 8-38 

8.2.11 Municipal Solid Waste .......................................................................... 8-39 

8.2.12 Biofuels ................................................................................................. 8-39 

8.2.13 Oil-Fired Power ..................................................................................... 8-39 

8.2.14 Fuel Cells .............................................................................................. 8-40 
Table of Contents 

ix 

8.2.15 Delayed Retirement .............................................................................. 8-40 

8.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 8-40 

8.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 8-41 

8.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality .............................................................. 8-41 

8.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality ............................................................ 8-41 

8.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................ 8-41 

8.3.5 Human Health ....................................................................................... 8-42 

8.3.6 Socioeconomics.................................................................................... 8-42 

8.3.7 Waste Management .............................................................................. 8-43 

8.4 Alternatives Summary ...................................................................................... 8-44 

8.5 References ....................................................................................................... 8-47 

9.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Environmental Impacts of License Renewal ....................................................... 9-1

9.2 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives ... 9-2

9.3 Resource Commitments ..................................................................................... 9-2 

9.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................ 9-2 

9.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment 

and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ...... 9-3 

9.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................... 9-3 

9.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 9-4 

10.0 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................... 10-1 

11.0 List of Agencies, Organizations,and Persons to whom copies of the Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement are Sent .................................................................. 11-1 

Appendices 

Appendix A. Comments Received on the Environmental Review ............................................ A-1

Appendix B. NEPA Issues Related to License Renewal ........................................................... B-1

Appendix C. Applicable Regulations, Laws, and Agreements .................................................. C-1

Appendix D. Consultation Correspondence .............................................................................. D-1

Appendix E. Chronological Environmental Review Correspondence ....................................... E-1

Appendix F. Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station Units 1 and 2 ..................................................................................................... F-1

Appendix G. Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Altermatives for Hope Creek Generating 

Station ........................................................................................................................... G-1 
Table of Contents 

x 

Figures 

Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process .............................................................................. 1-2 

Figure 1-2. Environmental Issues Evaluated During License Renewal .................................... 1-5 

Figure 2-1. Location of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating 

Station Site, within a 6-Mile Radius ................................................................................ 2-2 

Figure 2-2. Aerial Photo ............................................................................................................ 2-3 

Figure 2-3. Salem Nuclear Generating Station Facility Layout ................................................. 2-4 

Figure 2-4. Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Layout ..................................................... 2-5 

Figure 2-5. Location of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating 

Station Site, within a 50-Mile Radius .............................................................................. 2-6 

Figure 2-6. Simplified Design of a Pressurized Water Reactor ................................................. 2-8 

Figure 2-7. Simplified Design of a Boiling Water Reactor ....................................................... 2-10 

Figure 2-8. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Transmission Line System ........................................................................................... 2-20 

Figure 2-9. Plan View of Salem Discharge Pipes ................................................................... 2-24 

Figure 2-10. Aerial Photo Showing the Boundaries of Artificial Island (dotted), PSEG 

Property (dashed), and Developed Areas (solid) ......................................................... 2-71 

Figure 4-1. Plan View of Salem Discharge Pipes ................................................................... 4-36 

Figure 4-2. Section View of Salem Discharge Pipes .............................................................. 4-37 

Figure 4-3. Surface ΔT isotherms for Salem’s longest plume at the end of the flood on 

May 31, 1998 ............................................................................................................... 4-38 

Figure 4-4. Surface ΔT isotherms for Salem at the end of the ebb on June 2, 1998 .............. 4-39 

Figure 4-5. Bottom ΔT isotherms for Salem’s longest plume at the end of the flood on 

May 31, 1998 ............................................................................................................... 4-40 

Figure 4-6. Bottom ΔT isotherms for Salem at the end of the ebb on June 2, 1998 ............... 4-41 

Figure 4-7. Census 2000 minority block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and HCGS ... 4-69 

Figure 4-8. Census 2000 low-income block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and 

HCGS ........................................................................................................................... 4-70 
Table of Contents 

xi 

Tables 

Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................ xxi 

Table 1-1. List of Persons Who are Sent a Copy of the Draft SEIS .......................................... 1-8 

Table 1-2. Licenses and Permits .............................................................................................. 1-9 

Table 2-1. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Transmission System Components ............................................................................. 2-21

Table 2-2. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Salem Nuclear Generating Station ................. 2-39

Table 2-3. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Hope Creek Generating Station ...................... 2-42 

Table 2-4. Salinities in the Delaware Estuary in the Vicinity of Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station and Hope Creek Generating Station ................................................................ 2-45

Table 2-5. Designated Essential Fish Habitat by Species and Life Stages in NMFS' 

10' x 10' Square of Latitude and Longitude in the Delaware Estuary that includes 

Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station ..................... 2-65

Table 2-6. Potential Essential Fish Habitat Species Eliminated from Further Consideration 

due to Salinity Requirements ....................................................................................... 2-66

Table 2-7. Fish Species and Life Stages with Potentially Affected Essential Fish Habitat 

in the Vicinity of Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating 

Station .......................................................................................................................... 2-66

Table 2-8. Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species of the Delaware Estuary ............... 2-75

Table 2-9. Listed Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Species ............................................... 2-81

Table 2-10. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Employee Residence by County .................................................................................. 2-95

Table 2-11. Housing in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey, and 

New Castle County, Delaware ..................................................................................... 2-96

Table 2-12. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 

Counties, New Jersey .................................................................................................. 2-98

Table 2-13. Major Public Water Supply Systems in New Castle County, Delaware ............... 2-99

Table 2-14. Population and Percent Growth in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 

Counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware, from 1970 to 2000 

and Projected for 2010 to 2050 .................................................................................. 2-104

Table 2-15. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Region of Influence in 2000 ................. 2-105

Table 2-16. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Region of Influence, 2006–2008 

3-Year Estimate ......................................................................................................... 2-106 

Table 2-17. Seasonal Housing in the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope 

Creek Generating Station Region of Influence in 2000 .............................................. 2-107

Table 2-18. Migrant Farm Worker and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 Miles of Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station .............................. 2-108
Table of Contents 

xii 

Table 2-19. Major Employers in Salem County in 2007 ........................................................ 2-109

Table 2-20. Income Information for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope 

Creek Generating Station Region of Influence, 2008 ................................................. 2-110 

Table 2-21. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Property Tax Paid and Percentage of Lower Alloways Creek Township and 

Salem County Tax Revenues, 2003 to 2009 ............................................................. 2-111 

Table 2-22. Energy and Environmental Resource Center Property Tax Paid and 

Percentage of City of Salem Tax Revenues, 2003 to 2009 ....................................... 2-112 

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation .................................................... 3-2

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation .................................................... 3-3

Table 4-1. Land Use Issues ...................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2. Air Quality Issue ....................................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-3. Groundwater Use and Quality Issues ...................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-4. Surface Water Quality Issues .................................................................................. 4-5

Table 4-5. Aquatic Resources Issues ....................................................................................... 4-6

Table 4-6. Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses for Representative Species at 

Salem, 1978–1998 ....................................................................................................... 4-14

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual Entrainment and Annual Entrainament Losses for 

Representative Species at Salem, 2002–2004 ............................................................ 4-15

Table 4-8. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species at Salem, 1995–2008 ............ 4-16

Table 4-9. Species Entrained at Salem during Annual Entrainment Monitoring, 1995–2008 . 4-17

Table 4-10. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species at Salem, 1978–2008 .......... 4-19

Table 4-11. Estimated Impingement Mortality Rates by Species at Salem, 1977–1982 ........ 4-22 

Table 4-12. Estimated Annual Impingement Losses for Representative Species at 

Salem, 1978–1998 ....................................................................................................... 4-23 

Table 4-13. Estimated Annual Impingement and Annual Impingement Losses for 

Representative Species at Salem, 2002–2004 ............................................................ 4-24 

Table 4-14. Impingement Densities for Representative Species at Salem, 1995–2008 ......... 4-25 

Table 4-15. Species Impinged at Salem and Average Impingement Densities, Based on 

Annual Impingement Monitoring for 1995–2008 .......................................................... 4-26 

Table 4-16. Impingement Densities for Representative Species at Salem, 1978–2008 ......... 4-29 

Table 4-17. Comparison of Impingement Mortality Rates (percent) for Original Screens 

(1978–1982 and 1995 Studies) and Modified Screens (1995 and 1997–1998 

Studies) ........................................................................................................................ 4-31 

Table 4-18. Surface Area within Each ΔT Contour through the Tidal Cycle ........................... 4-35 

Table 4-19. Terrestrial Resources Issues Applicable to Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

and/or HCGS ................................................................................................................ 4-48 

Table 4-20. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During 

the Renewal Term ........................................................................................................ 4-48 
Table of Contents 

xiii 

Table 4-21. Impingement Data for Shortnose Sturgeon and Three Sea Turtle Species with 

Recorded Impingements at Salem Intakes, 1978–2008 .............................................. 4-51 

Table 4-22. Human Health Issues .......................................................................................... 4-53 

Table 4-23. Socioeconomic Issues ......................................................................................... 4-61 

Table 4-24. Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resource Areas ......................................... 4-86 

Table 5-1. Issues Related to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term ......................... 5-2 

Table 5-2. Issues Related to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term ......................... 5-3 

Table 5-3. Salem Nuclear Generating Station Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events ... 5-6

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode for Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station ............................................................................................ 5-6 

Table 5-5. Hope Creek Generating Station Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events ....... 5-7

Table 5-6. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode for Hope Creek 

Generating Station ......................................................................................................... 5-8 

Table 6-1. Issues Related to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management ............. 6-1 

Table 6-2. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal ........................................ 6-5

Table 6.3. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas ............................. 6-6

Table 6.4. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources .... 6-7

Table 7-1. Issues Related to Decommissioning ........................................................................ 7-1

Table 8-1. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Supercritical 

Coal-Fired Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station ............................................. 8-17

Table 8-2. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas 

Combined-Cycle Generation Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of 

Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station ..................... 8-27

Table 8-3. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Combination 

Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

and Hope Creek Generating Station ............................................................................ 8-35

Table 8-4. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of No Action 

Compared to Continued Operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station and 

Hope Creek Generating Station ................................................................................... 8-44

Table 8-5. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................ 8-46

Table 10-1. List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 10-1 

 
Table of Contents 

xiv 

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments during Scoping Comment Period ........................ A-2

Table A-2. Commenters on the Draft SEIS ............................................................................. A-26

Table B-1. Summary of Issues and Findings ............................................................................ B-1

Table C-1. State Environmental Requirements ........................................................................ C-2

Table C-2. Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements .................................. C-6 

Table D-1. Consultation Correspondences ............................................................................... D-1

Table F-1. Salem Nuclear Generating Station Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events... F-3

Table F-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode ............................. F-5

Table F-3. Salem Nuclear Generating Station PRA Historical Summary.................................. F-6 

Table F-4. Dominant Contributors to the Seismic Core Damage Frequency .......................... F-12

Table F-5. Important Fire Areas and Their Contribution to Fire Core Damage Frequency ..... F-14

Table F-6. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for Salem Nuclear Generating Station.... F-32

Table G-1. Hope Creek Generating Station Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events ..... G-3 

Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode ............................ G-4

Table G-3. Hope Creek Generating Station PRA Historical Summary ..................................... G-6 

Table G-4. Dominant Contributors to the Seismic Core Damage Frequency ......................... G-11

Table G-5 Important Fire Areas and Their Contribution to Fire Core Damage Frequency ..... G-12

Table G-6. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for Hope Creek Generating Station ....... G-29 
xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND 

By a letter dated August 18, 2009, PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG or the applicant) submitted an 

application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue renewed operating 

licenses for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek 

Generating Station (HCGS) for an additional 20-year period. 

The following document and the review it encompasses are requirements of NRC regulations 

implementing Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), of the 

United States Code (42 U.S.C. 4321), in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission indicates that issuing a 

renewed power reactor operating license requires preparation of an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) or a supplement to an existing EIS. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the 

EIS prepared at the operating license renewal stage will be a supplement to NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999a). 

Upon acceptance of the PSEG application, the NRC staff (staff) began the environmental review 

process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and 

conduct a public scoping process. The staff held public scoping meetings on November 5, 

2009, at the Salem County Emergency Services Building in Woodstown, New Jersey, and 

conducted a site regulatory audit of both facilities in March 2010. 

In preparing this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for Salem and HCGS, 

the staff performed the following: 

● reviewed PSEG’s environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 

and compared them to the GEIS 

● consulted with other agencies 

● conducted a review of the issues following the guidance set forth in 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental 

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal

(NRC, 1999b) 

● considered the public comments received during the scoping process 

PROPOSED ACTION 

PSEG initiated the proposed Federal action—issuance of a renewed power reactor operating 

license—by submitting applications for license renewal of Salem for which the existing licenses 

DPR-70 (Unit 1) and DPR-75 (Unit 2) expire on August 13, 2016, and April 18, 2020, 

respectively; and HCGS for which the existing license NPF-57 expires on April 11, 2026. The 

NRC’s Federal action is the decision of whether or not to renew each license for an additional 

20 years. 
Executive Summary 

xvi 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of renewed licenses) is to provide an 

option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power 

plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be 

determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision-makers. 

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are 

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) or findings in the 

NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to not grant a license renewal, the NRC 

does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as 

to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. 

If the renewed licenses are issued, State regulatory agencies and PSEG will ultimately decide 

whether or not the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or 

other matters within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the operating 

licenses are not renewed, then the facilities must be shut down on or before the expiration date 

of the current operating licenses: August 13, 2016, and April 18, 2020, for Salem Unit 1 and 

Unit 2, respectively; and April 11, 2026, for HCGS. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LICENSE RENEWAL 

The SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed action can be assigned values of SMALL, MODERATE, 

or LARGE. The staff established a process for identifying and evaluating the significance of any 

new and significant information on the environmental impacts of license renewal of Salem and 

HCGS. The staff did not identify information that is both new and significant related to Category 

1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GElS. Similarly, neither the scoping 

process nor the staff’s review has identified any new issue applicable to Salem or HCGS that 

has a significant environmental impact. The staff, therefore, relies upon the conclusions of the 

GElS for all the Category 1 issues applicable to Salem and HCGS. 

LAND USE 

SMALL. The staff did not identify any Category 2 impact issues for land use, nor did the staff 

identify any new and significant information during the environmental review; therefore, there 

would be no impacts beyond those discussed in the GElS. 

AIR QUALITY 

SMALL. The staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for the impact on air quality, nor did the 

staff identify any new or significant information during the environmental review; therefore, for 

plant operation during the license renewal term, there are no impacts beyond those discussed in 

the GElS. 

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY 

SMALL. Groundwater use conflicts: potable and service water plants using greater than 

100 gallons per minute (gpm) is a Category 2 issue related to license renewal at Salem and 

HCGS. Groundwater use conflicts were enough of a regional concern to cause designation of 

two Critical Areas, but the Salem and HCGS facility location was not included within either of the 

areas. Also, the success in allowing groundwater levels to recover suggests that groundwater 

use conflicts in western Salem County are likely to become less of a concern, rather than 
Executive Summary 

xvii 

greater. Therefore, although groundwater production at Salem and HCGS may be contributing 

to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability, this reduction is not likely to impact any 

potential groundwater users. 

SURFACE WATER USE AND QUALITY 

SMALL. The staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for the impact on surface water use 

and quality, nor did the staff identify any new or significant information during the environmental 

review; therefore, for plant operation during the license renewal term, there are no impacts 

beyond those discussed in the GElS. 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

SMALL to MODERATE. The staff reviewed studies conducted by PSEG on the impacts of 

entrainment, impingement, and heat shock on the aquatic environment. The results of the 

studies indicate that the processes of entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge 

collectively have not had a noticeable adverse effect on the aquatic resources. The staff 

considered these results and reviewed the available information, including that provided by the 

applicant, the staff’s site visit, the States of New Jersey and Delaware, the New Jersey Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permits and applications, and other public sources. 

The staff concludes that impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective effects of entrainment, 

impingement, and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

SMALL. With regard to the operation of Salem and HCGS during the license renewal term, 

the staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for terrestrial resources, nor did the staff 

identify any new or significant information during the environmental review; therefore, there 

are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GElS. The staff concludes that the level of 

impact due to direct and indirect impacts of Salem and HCGS on terrestrial communities 

would be SMALL.. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

SMALL. The staff reviewed information from the site audit, the ERs for Salem and HCGS, 

other reports, and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and State 

regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The staff concludes 

that the impacts on Federally-listed terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species from an additional 

20 years of operation and maintenance of the Salem and HCGS facilities and associated 

transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs) would be SMALL. 

HUMAN HEALTH 

SMALL. With regard to Category 1 human health issues during the license renewal term—

microbiological organisms (occupational health), noise, radiation exposures to public, 

occupational radiation exposures, and electromagnetic fields (chronic effects), the staff did 

not identify any new or significant information during the environmental review. Therefore, 

there are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GElS. 

The applicant has no plans to conduct refurbishment activities during the license renewal 

term, thus, no change to radiological conditions is expected to occur. Continued 
Executive Summary 

xviii 

compliance with regulatory requirements is expected during the license renewal term; 

therefore, the impacts from radioactive effluents are not expected to change during the 

license renewal term. 

The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines were not designated as 

Category 1 issues and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the health 

implications of these fields. The staff considers the GElS finding of “uncertain” for 

electromagnetic fields-chronic effects still appropriate and will continue to follow 

developments on this issue. 

Microbiological organisms (public health) and electromagnetic fields-acute effects (electric 

shock) are Category 2 human health issues which are discussed below. 

The staff concludes that thermophilic microbiological organisms are not likely to present a 

public health hazard as a result of discharges to the Delaware Estuary. The staff concludes 

that impacts on public health from thermophilic microbiological organisms from continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS in the license renewal period would be SMALL. 

The staff reviewed PSEG’s analysis of electromagnetic fields-acute shock resulting from 

induced charges in metallic structures and verified that there are no locations under the 

transmission lines that have the capacity to induce more than 5 milliamps (mA) in a vehicle 

parked beneath the line. No induced shock hazard to the public should occur, since the 

lines are operating within original design specifications and meet current National Electric 

Safety Code (NESC) clearance standards. The staff has reviewed the available 

information, including the applicant’s evaluation and computational results. Based on this 

information, the staff concludes that the potential impacts from electric shock during the 

renewal period would be SMALL. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

SMALL. The staff identified no Category 1 public services and aesthetic impacts, or new 

and significant information during the environmental review; therefore, there would be no 

impacts beyond those discussed in the GElS. Category 2 socioeconomic impacts include 

housing impacts, public services (public utilities), offsite land use, public services (public 

transportation), and historic and archaeological resources. 

Salem and HCGS are located in a high population area, and Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem, 

and New Castle Counties are not subject to growth control measures that would limit housing 

development. Any changes in employment at Salem and HCGS would have little noticeable 

effect on housing availability in these counties. Since PSEG has indicated that it has no plans 

to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, there would be no impact 

on housing during the license renewal term beyond what has already been experienced. 

Also, there would be no transportation impacts during the license renewal term beyond those 

already being experienced. 

PSEG operations during the license renewal term would also not increase plant-related 

population growth demand for public water and sewer services. Since there are no 

planned refurbishment activities at PSEG, there would be no land use impacts related to 

population or tax revenues, and no transportation impacts. As previously stated, PSEG has 

no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, and employment 

levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged. Therefore, there would be no 
Executive Summary 

xix 

increase in the assessed value of Salem and HCGS, and annual property tax payments to 

Lower Alloways Creek Township would be expected to remain relatively constant throughout the 

license renewal period. Based on this information, there would be no tax revenue-related 

land-use impacts during the license renewal term beyond those already being experienced. 

Based on the staff’s review of the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM) files, there are no 

previously recorded archaeological or aboveground historic architectural resources identified on 

the Salem/HCGS property. There is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to 

be present on most of the Salem/HCGS property. No new facilities, service roads, or 

transmission lines are proposed for the Salem/HCGS site as a part of this operating license 

renewal, nor are refurbishment activities proposed. Therefore, there is little potential for 

National Register-eligible historic or archaeological resources to be impacted by renewal of this 

operating license. 

With respect to environmental justice, an analysis of minority and low-income populations 

residing within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of Salem and HCGS indicated there would 

be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to these populations from the continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS during the license renewal period. Monitoring results have 

demonstrated that concentrations of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, soils and 

sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals in areas surrounding Salem and HCGS 

have been quite low (at or near the threshold of detection) and seldom above background 

levels. Consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts would 

be expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of 

subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. 

Based on this information, the staff concludes that the potential direct and indirect impacts 

to socioeconomics from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would be SMALL. 

 

SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 

Since Salem and HCGS had not previously considered alternatives to reduce the likelihood 

or potential consequences of a variety of highly uncommon but potentially serious 

accidents, NRC regulation 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that Salem and HCGS 

evaluate severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) in the course of license renewal 

review. SAMAs are potential ways to reduce the risk or potential impacts of uncommon but 

potentially severe accidents and may include changes to plant components, systems, 

procedures, and training. Based on the review of potential SAMAs, the staff concludes that 

Salem and HCGS made a reasonable, comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate 

SAMAs. Based on the review of the SAMAs for Salem and HCGS, and the plant 

improvements already made, the staff concludes that none of the potentially cost-beneficial 

SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended 

operation; therefore, they need not be implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant 

to 10 CFR Part 54. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license 

renewal. These alternatives include other methods of power generation and not renewing 

the Salem and HCGS operating licenses (the no-action alternative). Replacement power 
Executive Summary 

xx 

options considered were supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle 

generation, and, as part of the combination alternative, wind power generation combined 

with energy conservation/energy efficiency. Each alternative was evaluated using the 

same impact areas that were used in evaluating impacts from license renewal. The results 

of this evaluation are summarized in Table 1. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

A comparison of the impacts of Salem and HCGS license renewal with its three reasonable 

alternatives is provided in Table 1. In the staff’s best professional opinion, the coal-fired 

alternative is the least environmentally favorable alternative due to impacts to air quality 

from nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter (PM), polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and 

mercury, and also due to the corresponding human health impacts. Construction impacts 

to transportation, aquatic, and terrestrial resources are also factors that added to this 

conclusion. The gas-fired alternative would have lower air emissions, but 

construction-related impacts to transportation, aquatic, and terrestrial resources would be 

similar to those from the coal-fired alternative. The combination alternative would have lower 

air emissions and waste management impacts than both the gas-fired and coal-fired 

alternatives; however, it would have relatively higher construction impacts from aquatic and 

terrestrial resources and potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources, primarily as 

a result of the wind turbine component.

Under the no-action alternative, plant shutdown would begin to eliminate most of the 

approximately 1,614 jobs at Salem and HCGS and would reduce general tax revenue in the 

region. Depending on the jurisdiction, the economic loss could have a significant impact. 

Renewal of the Salem and HCGS licenses would have a small impact on environmentallyrelated issues; therefore, in the staff’s professional opinion, renewal of the licenses is the 

environmentally preferred action. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs 

currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed 

action involving license renewal. The no-action alternative does not meet the purpose and 

need of this SEIS. 
Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Alternative 

Impact Area 

Air Quality Groundwater Surface Water Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources Human Health Socio-econo- mics Waste Management 

License Renewal SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL(a)

Supercritical Coal-fired 

Alternative MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE 

Gas-fired Alternative SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Combination Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL 

No-Action Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL 

(a) For the Salem and HCGS license renewal alternative, waste management was evaluated in Chapter 6. Consistent with the findings in the GEIS, these 

impacts were determined to be SMALL with the exception of collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal. 

 xxi 

 Executive Summary 
Executive Summary 

xxii 

RECOMMENDATION 

The staff’s recommendation is that the Commission determines that the adverse environmental 

impacts of license renewals for Salem and HCGS are not so great that preserving the option of 

license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. This 

recommendation is based on: 

(1) analysis and findings in the GEIS 

(2) information submitted in the Salem and HCGS ERs 

(3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies 

(4) review of other pertinent studies and reports 

(5) consideration of public comments received during the scoping process 

REFERENCES 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, 

Washington, D.C., May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, 

Table 9.1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power 

Plants, Final Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., 

August 1999, ADAMS Accession No. ML04069720. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, 

NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C., October 1999, ADAMS Accession No. ML093340205. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. “Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

License Renewal Stage,” Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey, August 2009, ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, and ML092430231. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. “Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage,” Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey, August 2009, ADAMS Accession 

No. ML092430389. 
xxiii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

‘ minute(s) 

°C degree(s) Celsius 

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

∆T difference in temperature 

ac acre(s) 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

ADS automatic depressurization system 

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

AFCM Aggregated Food Chain Model 

AFW auxiliary feedwater 

AFWST auxiliary feedwater storage tank 

AIT alternative intake technology 

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable 

AMSAC anticipated transient without scram mitigating system actuation 

circuitry 

AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council 

ATWS anticipated transient without scram 

AWEA American Wind Energy Association 

BA Biological Assessment 

Barnwell Barnwell LLW Facility 

bgs below ground surface 

BMWP Biological Monitoring Work Plan 

BNE Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 

BP before present 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxiv 

BPJ best professional judgment 

BPU Board of Public Utilities 

BTA best technology available 

BTU British thermal unit(s) 

BWR boiling water reactor 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAFRA Coastal Areas Facility Review Act 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CCDP conditional core damage probabilities 

CCW component cooling water 

CDF core damage frequency 

CDM Clean Development Mechanism 

CDS Comprehensive Demonstration Study 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CET containment event tree 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane 

cm centimeter(s) 

cm/s centimeter(s) per second 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COLA combined operating license application 

CPC Center for Plant Conservation 

CR County Route 

CSS Colonial Swedish Society 

CST condensate storage tank 

CVCS chemical and volume controlled system 

CWA Clean Water Act 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxv 

CWIS cooling water intake structure 

CWS circulating water system 

DAW dry active waste 

DBA design-basis accident 

dBA decibels 

DCE dichloroethylene 

DCR discharge cleanup and removal 

DDL Delaware Department of Labor 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DM demineralized 

DMR discharge monitoring report 

DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DPC Delaware Population Consortium 

DPCC discharge prevention, containment, and countermeasure 

DPR demonstration power reactor 

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission 

DSC Discover Salem County 

DSM demand-side management 

DSN discharge serial number 

DVRPC Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

ECCS emergency core cooling system 

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online 

EDG emergency diesel generator 

EEP Estuary Enhancement Program 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE) 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxvi 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 

EO Executive Order 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ER environmental report 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESMP Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Program 

ESP early site permit 

F&O fact and observation 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act 

FES final environmental statement 

FHB fuel handling building 

FIVE fire-induced vulnerability evaluation 

FMP Fishery Management Plan 

fpm foot (feet) per minute 

fps foot (feet) per second 

FR Federal Register

FSAR final safety analysis report 

ft foot (feet) 

ft3 cubic foot 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FWW freshwater wetland 

gal gallon(s) 

GCPD Gloucester County Planning Division 

GE GE Power Systems 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxvii 

GHC Geo-Heat Center 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GL generic letter 

gpm gallon(s) per minute 

GRS groundwater recovery system 

H2O light water 

2

H2O heavy water 

ha hectare(s) 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCGS Hope Creek Generating Station 

HCLPF high confidence in low probability of failure 

HDA heat dissipation area 

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air 

HFC hydrofluorocarbons 

HFE hydrofluorinated ethers 

HFO high winds, flood, and other external 

HLW high-level waste 

hr hour 

HUD housing and urban development 

Hz hertz 

IBA important bird area 

IBMWP Improved Biological Monitoring Work Program 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 

INEEL Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory 

IPA integrated plant assessment 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPE individual plant examination 

IPEEE individual plant examination of external events 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxviii 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISLOCA interfacing-systems loss-of-coolant accident 

ITS incidental take statement 

J joule 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

km2

 square kilometer(s) 

kWh kilowatt(s) hour 

kV kilovolt(s) 

LACT Lower Alloways Creek Township 

lb pound(s) 

LERF large early release frequency 

LLRSF low-level radwaste storage facility 

LLW low-level waste 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LOOP loss of offsite power 

LUR Land Use Regulation 

LWMS liquid waste management system 

m meter(s) 

m2

 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

mA milliampere(s) 

MAAP Modular Accident Analysis Program 

MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 

MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

MBTU/hr million British thermal units per hour 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxix 

MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

mGy milligray 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MGD million gallons per day 

mi mile(s) 

mi2 square mile(s) 

min minute(s) 

mm millimeter(s) 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MOR model of record 

mps meter(s) per second 

mrad millirad 

mrem millirem 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSIV main steam isolation valve 

MSL mean sea level 

mSv millisievert 

MSX multinucleated sphere unknown 

MT metric ton(s) 

MW megawatt 

MW(d) megawatt days 

MW(e) megawatt-electric 

MW(h) megawatt hour 

MW(t) megawatt-thermal 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAB nuclear administration building 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NCES National Center for Educational Statistics 

NEFMC New England Fisheries Management Council 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxx 

NEFSC North East Fisheries Science Center 

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council 

NESC National Electric Safety Code 

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 

ng nanograms 

NHP National Heritage Program 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NJAC New Jersey Administrative Code 

NJAW New Jersey American Water 

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NJDFW New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife 

NJDLWD New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

NJGS New Jersey Geological Survey 

NJPDES New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NJSA New Jersey State Atlas 

NJSM New Jersey State Museum 

NJWSA New Jersey Water Science Center 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxide(s) 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxxi 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRLWDS nonradioactive liquid waste disposal system 

NUREG NRC Regulatory Guide 

NWFMC New England Fisheries Management Council 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PCE perchloroethene or tetrachloroethene 

pCi/L picocuries per liter 

PDP positive displacement pump 

PDS plant damage state 

PFC perfluorocarbons 

PHI Pepco Holdings, Inc. 

PJM Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter 

PNR Pinelands National Reserve 

POST Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology 

ppm parts per million 

ppt parts per thousand 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PRM Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 

PSA probabilistic safety analysis 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxxii 

PSEG PSEG Nuclear, LLC 

PSE&G Public Service Electric and Gas Company 

psia pound(s) per square inch 

PTE potential to emit 

PWR pressurized water reactor 

RACS reactor auxiliaries cooling system 

RAWP remedial action work plan 

RCP reactor coolant pump 

RCS reactor coolant system 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

Rem roentgen equivalent man 

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

RGPP radiological groundwater protection program 

RHR residual heat removal 

RIS representative important species 

RK river kilometer 

RLWS radioactive liquid waste system 

RM river mile 

ROI region of influence 

ROW(s) right-of-way(s) 

RPO regional planning organization 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard 

RRW risk reduction worth 

RS representative species 

SADC State Agriculture Development Committee 

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

Salem Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxxiii 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

SAR safety analysis report 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SBO station blackout 

SCR selective catalytic reduction 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER safety evaluation report 

SET seismic event tree 

SF6 hexafluoride 

SFP spent fuel pool 

SGTR steam generator tube rupture 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

Site combined site 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx sulfur oxides 

SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasure 

SSB spawning stock biomass 

SSBPR spawning stock biomass per recruit 

STP sewage treatment plant 

Sv sievert 

SW service water 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

SWS service water system 

TCPA Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TSP total suspended particles 

UO2 uranium dioxide 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

xxxiv 

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

U.S. United States 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. United States Code

USCB United Stated Census Bureau 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 

WQM water quality management 
1-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Pursuant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) environmental protection 

regulations in Title 10, Part 51, of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51), which 

implement the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) is required to be prepared for issuance of a new nuclear power plant operating 

license. 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) originally specified that licenses for commercial power 

reactors be granted for up to 40 years with an option to renew for up to another 20 years. The 

40-year licensing period is based on economic and antitrust considerations rather than on 

technical limitations of the nuclear facility.

The decision to seek a license renewal rests entirely with nuclear power facility owners and 

typically is based on the facility’s economic viability and the investment necessary to continue to 

meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The NRC staff (staff) makes the decision to 

grant or deny a license renewal, based on whether or not the applicant has demonstrated that 

the environmental and safety requirements in the NRC’s regulations can be met during the 

period of extended operation.

1.1 Proposed Federal Action

PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) initiated the proposed Federal action by submitting applications for 

license renewal of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) for which the 

existing licenses DPR-70 (Unit 1) and DPR-75 (Unit 2) expire on August 13, 2016, and April 18, 

2020, respectively and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), for which the existing license 

NPF-57 expires April 11, 2026. The NRC’s Federal action is the decision whether or not to 

renew these licenses for an additional 20 years.

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action

The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an 

option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power 

plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, which may be determined by 

applicable energy-policy decision-makers. This definition of purpose and need reflects the 

Commission’s recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the 

AEA or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to not grant a 

license renewal, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions as to whether

or not a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.

If the renewed license is issued, the appropriate regulatory agencies (other than the NRC) and 

PSEG will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on additional 

factors such as the need for power, other matters within the regulator’s jurisdiction, or the 

purview of the owners. If the operating license is not renewed, the appropriate facility must be 

shut down on or before the expiration date of the current operating licenses, August 13, 2016 for 

Unit 1 at Salem; April 18, 2020 for Unit 2 at Salem: and April 11, 2026 for HCGS.
Purpose and Need for Action

1-2

1.3 Major Environmental Review Milestones

As part of the license renewal 

application, PSEG submitted an 

environmental report (ER), dated 

August 18, 2009, for each Salem

unit (PSEG, 2009a) and HCGS 

(PSEG, 2009b). After reviewing 

the application and the ERs for 

sufficiency, the staff published a 

notice of acceptance for docketing 

of the application on October 23, 

2009, in the Federal Register (FR) 

(Volume 74, p. 54854, [74 FR 

54854] for Salem; and Volume 74, 

p. 54856, [74 FR 54856] for 

HCGS). Also, on October 23, 

2009, the NRC published another 

notice in the FR (74 FR 54859) on 

its intent to conduct scoping, 

thereby beginning the 60-day 

scoping period for the 

supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS).

The NRC conducted two public 

scoping meetings on November 5, 

2009, in Woodstown, New Jersey. 

The staff prepared an SEIS 

scoping process summary report 

dated September 2010, which 

presents the comments received 

during the scoping process (NRC,

2010). Appendix A to this SEIS 

presents comments considered to 

be within the scope of the 

environmental license renewal 

review and the NRC’s 

consideration of those comments.

To independently verify 

information provided in the ER, the 

staff conducted a site audit at the 

Salem and HCGS site in March

2010. During the site audit, the 

staff met with plant personnel, 

Figure 1-1. Environmental Review Process.

The environmental review provides opportunities

for public involvement.
Purpose and Need for Action

1-3

reviewed specific documentation, toured the facility, 

and met with interested Federal, State, and local 

agencies.

Upon completion of the scoping period and site 

audit, the staff compiled its findings in this draft 

SEIS. An illustration of this process is provided in 

Figure 1-1. This SEIS is made publicly available for 

a period of 45 days during which the staff will host 

public meetings and collect public comments. 

Based on the information gathered, the staff will 

amend the draft SEIS findings, as necessary, and 

then publish the final SEIS.

The staff has established a license renewal process 

that can be completed in a reasonable period of time with clear requirements to assure safe 

plant operation for up to an additional 20 years. The safety review, which documents its finding 

in a safety evaluation report (SER), is conducted simultaneously with the environmental review

process. Both the findings in the SEIS and the SER are factors considered in the Commission’s 

decision to either grant or deny the issuance of a new license.

1.4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

To improve the efficiency of the license renewal process, the staff prepared a generic 

assessment of the environmental impacts associated with license renewal. Specifically, the 

agency prepared NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement

(GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, which evaluates the environmental 

consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them 

for an additional 20 years (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999).

1

The GEIS establishes 92 separate issues for the staff to consider. Of these, the staff 

determined that 69 are generic to all plants (Category 1), while 21 issues do not lend 

themselves to generic consideration (Category 2). Two other issues, which must be evaluated 

on a site-specific basis, are environmental justice and the chronic effects of electromagnetic 

fields. Appendix B to this report lists all 92 issues. 

The staff analyzed those environmental 

issues that could be resolved generically in the GEIS.

For each environmental issue, the GEIS: (1) describes the activity that affects the environment,

(2) identifies the population or resource that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude 

of the impact on the affected population or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the 

effect for both beneficial and adverse effects, (5) determines whether the results of the analysis 

apply to all plants or not, and (6) considers whether additional mitigation measures are

warranted or not for impacts that would have the same significance level for all plants.

 1 The NRC originally issued the GEIS in 1996 and issued Addendum 1 to the GEIS in 1999. Hereafter, all 

references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and Addendum 1.

Significance indicates the 

importance of likely environmental 

impacts and is determined by 

considering two variables: context

and intensity. 

Context is the geographic, 

biophysical, and social context in 

which the effects will occur. 

Intensity refers to the severity of the 

impact, in whatever context it occurs. 
Purpose and Need for Action

1-4

The GEIS assesses the significance of these issues, using the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significant.” The GEIS established three levels of significance for 

potential impacts—SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The three levels of significance are 

defined below:

SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important 

attributes of the resource.

The GEIS includes a determination of whether or not the analysis of the environmental issue 

could be applied to all plants and whether or not additional mitigation measures are warranted 

(Figure 1-2). Issues are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the 

GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined 

to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific 

type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been 

assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from 

the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered 

in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific 

mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant 

implementation.

For generic issues (Category 1), no additional site-specific analysis is required in this SEIS 

unless new and significant information is identified. Chapter 4 of this report presents the 

process for identifying new and significant information. Site-specific issues (Category 2) are 

those that do not meet one or more of the criterion for Category 1 issues and, therefore, 

additional site-specific review for these issues is required. The SEIS documents the results of 

that site-specific review.
Purpose and Need for Action

1-5

Figure 1-2. Environmental Issues Evaluated During License Renewal. 92 issues were 

initially evaluated in the GEIS. A site-specific analysis is required for 23 of those 

92 issues.

1.5 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

The SEIS presents an analysis that considers the environmental effects of the continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS, potential alternatives to license renewal, and potential mitigation 

measures for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Chapter 8 contains analysis and 

comparisons of the environmental impacts of alternatives. Chapter 9 presents the preliminary 

recommendation to the Commission as to whether or not the environmental impacts of license 

renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal would be unreasonable. The 

recommendation will be made after consideration of comments received during the public 

comment period for the draft SEIS.
Purpose and Need for Action

1-6

New and significant information

either:

(1) identifies a significant environmental 

issue not covered in the GEIS, or 

(2) was not considered in the analysis in 

the GEIS and leads to an impact finding 

that is different from the finding 

presented in the GEIS.

During the preparation of this SEIS, the staff:

• reviewed the information provided in the PSEG ERs

• consulted with other Federal, State, and local agencies

• conducted an independent review of the issues during the site audit

• considered public comments received during the scoping process and on the 

draft SEIS

New and significant information can be identified 

from a number of sources, including the staff, the 

applicant, other agencies, and public comments. 

If a new issue is revealed, it is first analyzed to 

determine whether or not it is within the scope of 

the license renewal evaluation. If it is not 

addressed in the GEIS, then the NRC determines 

its significance and documents its analysis in the 

SEIS.

1.6 Cooperating Agencies

During the scoping process, no Federal, State or local agencies were identified as cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of this SEIS.

1.7 Consultations

Pursuant to the following acts, Federal agencies are required to consult with applicable State 

and Federal agencies and groups before taking action that may affect endangered species, 

fisheries, or historic and archaeological resources, respectively:

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

• Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1996, as amended

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

Listed below are the agencies and groups that have been consulted; Appendix D of this report 

includes copies of consultation documents:

Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, Dover, Delaware

Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland

New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey

Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Purpose and Need for Action

1-7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Pleasantville, New Jersey

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Gloucester, Massachusetts

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Highlands, New Jersey

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Land Use Regulation, 

Trenton, New Jersey

Pocomoke Indian Nation, Mount Airy, Maryland

1.8 Correspondence

Table 1-1 lists persons and organizations to which a copy of this draft SEIS is sent. Appendix E 

to this report contains a chronological list of documents sent and received during the 

environmental review. During the course of the environmental review, the staff contacted the 

following Federal, State, regional, local, or tribal agencies:

Accohannock Indian Tribe, Salisbury, Maryland

Delaware Nation, Andarko, Oklahoma

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Eastern Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania, Mountville, Pennsylvania

Echota Chickamauga Cherokee Tribe of New Jersey, Irvington, New Jersey

Lenape Tribe of Delaware, Cheshold, Delaware

Nanticoke Indians Association, Inc., Millsboro, Delaware

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Brigeton, New Jersey

Nause-Waiwash Tribe, Cambridge, Maryland

Osprey Band of Free Cherokees, Mays Landing, New Jersey

Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tribes, Inc., LaPlata, Maryland

Piscataway Indian Nation, Accokeek, Maryland

Pocomoke Indian Nation, Mount Airy, Maryland

Powhatan Renape Nation, Rancocas, New Jersey

Ramapough Mountain Lenape, Mahway, New Jersey

Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape Nation, Bridgeton, New Jersey

Younghiogheny Shawnee Band, Bethesda, Maryland
Purpose and Need for Action

1-8

Table 1-1. List of Persons Who Recieved a Copy of the Draft SEIS

State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Delaware Division of 

Historical and Cultural 

Affairs, Dover, Delaware

Director and State Historic 

Preservation Officer, 

Maryland Historical Trust, 

Crownsville, Maryland

Historic Preservation 

Officer, New Jersey 

Historic Preservation 

Office, Trenton, New 

Jersey

Historic Preservation Officer, 

Pennsylvania Bureau for 

Historic Preservation, 

Harrisburg, PA

Delaware Division of 

Historical and Cultural 

Affairs, Dover, Delaware

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Services, Pleasantville, 

New Jersey

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Gloucester, 

Massachusetts

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Highlands, New 

Jersey

Joseph Sindoni, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, 

Division of Land Use 

Regulation, Trenton, New 

Jersey

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape 

Indians of New Jersey, 

Brigeton, New Jersey

Jerry Humphreys, 

New Jersey Bureau of 

Nuclear Engineering

Jamie Turner, 

Delaware Emergency

Management Agency

Cheryl Reardon, 

ANJEC

Tanya Baker, 

Office of Senator 

Kaufman

Jane Nogaki, 

New Jersey

Environmental 

Federation

Kate Roher, 

Kent/Sussex County Director

Garth Spencer, 

Office of Senator Tome 

Carper (DE)

Julie Acton, 

Salem County 

Freeholder

Karen Tuccillo, Kathryn Sutton, 

New Jersey Department 

of Environmental 

Protection

Morgan Lewis

Tom Figlio Michael Tuosto, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC

Al Fulvio, 

Exelon

Rich Pinney, 

State of New Jersey

James Stavely, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC

Nancy Ranek, 

Exelon

1.9 Status of Compliance

PSEG is responsible for complying with all NRC regulations and other applicable Federal, State, 

and local requirements; Appendix C describes some of the principal Federal statutes for which 

PSEG must comply. Table 1-2 lists the numerous permits and licenses issued by Federal, 

State, and local authorities for activities at Salem and HCGS, respectively. 
Purpose and Need for Action

1-9

Table 1-2. Licenses and Permits. Existing environmental authorizations for Salem and 

HCGS.

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency

Operating Licenses DPR-70 and 

DPR-75

Issued: 8/13/1976 

and 4/18/1980

Expires: 8/13/2016 

and 4/18/2020

U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission

Groundwater Allocation Permit D-90-71

Issued: 11/15/2000

Expires: 11/15/2010

Renewal request 

submitted 8/5/2010

Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Surface Water Permit

DRBC Docket 

No. D-68-20-CP 

(revision 2)

Issued: 09/13/2001

Expires: 09/13/2026

Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Water Use Contract 76-EP-482 Issued: 01/13/1977

Expires: None

Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Industrial Waste Treatment 

Facility

D-83-36

Issued: 01/25/1984

Expires: None

Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Approval of wells and 

installation/allocation of ground 

water

D75-94

Issued: 08/27/1975

Expires: None

Delaware River Basin 

Commission

Conditional Use 

Approval/Variance for 

temporary storage of spent 

nuclear fuel

SP-1-09;

VR-1-09

Issued: 08/26/2009

Expires: 08/26/2014 Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

Preliminary and Final Site Plan 

Approval – Operating a 

Shooting Range

SP-1-05

Issued: 05/25/2005

Expires: None

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

Preliminary and Final Site Plan 

Approval – Improvements to 

Employee Parking Lots B & C

SP-2-05

Issued: 08/24/2005

Expires: None

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township
Purpose and Need for Action

1-10

Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency

Minor Site Plan Approval –

Salem HCGS Demineralized 

Water (DM) Plant Upgrades

SP-3-04

Issued: 10/27/2004

Expires: None

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

Renewal of Conditional Use 

Permit – Continued Storage of 

Radioactive Material (Spent 

Fuel Storage Pools)

CU-07-1

Issued: 12/19/2007

Expires: 12/19/2012

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

New Jersey Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

Permit

NJ0005622

Issued: 06/29/2001

Effective: 08/01/2001

Expires: 07/31/2006

(Administratively 

continued while 

renewal application is 

being reviewed.)

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Discharge Prevention, 

Containment, and 

Countermeasure (DPCC) 

Plan; Discharge Cleanup and 

removal (DCR) Plan

170400041000

Issued: 03/04/2009 

Expires: 07/27/2011

Renewal request

submitted 01/25/2011

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Waterfront Development 

Permit

1704-02-0001.4 

WFD 050001

Issued: 08/16/2005

Expires: 08/16/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(DM Plant)

1704-02-0001.3 

CAF 040001

Issued: 09/23/2004

Expires: 09/23/2009

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(Maintenance and Project 

Support Building)

1704-02-0001.3 

CAF 040002

Issued: 03/24/2005

Expires: 03/24/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(Security Vehicle Barrier 

System)

1704-02-0001.4

CAF 050002

Issued: 08/16/2005

Expires: 08/16/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection
Purpose and Need for Action

1-11

Permit Number Dates Responsible Agency

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(Nuclear Administration 

Building (NAB) Parking Lot)

1704-02-0001.4

CAF 050003

Issued: 12/01/2005

Expires: 12/01/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Freshwater Wetland (FWW) 

Permit

(Security Vehicle Barrier 

System)

1704-02-0001.4 

FWW 050001

Issued: 08/16/2005

Expires: 08/16/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Freshwater Wetland (FWW) 

Permit

(NAB Parking Lot)

1704-02-0001.4 

FWW 050002

Issued: 12/01/2005

Expires: 12/01/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Water Allocation Permit for 

Salem and HCGS

Activity No: 

WAP04001

Program Interest 

ID: 2216P

Issued: 07/01/2010

Expires: 06/30/2020

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Public Water Supply 

Identification Number 1704300

Issued: 09/04/1980

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Air Pollution Control Operating 

Permit (Title V Operating 

Permit) 

BOP090004; 

Program Interest 

No. 65500

Issued: 02/02/2005

Modified: 07/21/2010

Expires: 02/01/2011

Renewal request 

submitted 10/03/2008

(Administratively 

continued while 

renewal application is 

being reviewed)

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Grant of Permanent Right-ofWay None

Issued: 11/04/1971

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Medical Waste Generator 

Certificate 34571 Issued: 08/14/1992

Expires: Renewed 

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 
Purpose and Need for Action

1-12

Permit Number Dates

annually

Responsible Agency

Protection

Riparian Easement Grant 68-12 Issued: 01/10/1974

Expires: None

The State of New 

Jersey

Riparian License 69-80

Issued: 08/29/1972

Expires: None

The State of New 

Jersey

South Carolina Radioactive 

Waste Transport Permit 0018-29-10-X

Issued: 12/29/2009

Expires: Renewed 

annually

South Carolina 

Department of Health 

and Environmental 

Control – Division of 

Waste Management

Tennessee Radioactive Waste 

Transport Permit T-NJ002-L10

Issued: 12/29/2009

Expires: Renewed 

annually

State of Tennessee 

Department of 

Environmental and 

Conservation 

Division of 

Radiological Health

Maintenance Dredging CENAP-OP-R2006-6232-45

Issued: 07/14/2008

Expires: 07/27/2020

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Deed of Easement None

Issued: 04/24/1968

Expires: None

U.S. Department of 

the Army

Incidental Take Statement –

sea turtles and shortnose 

sturgeon

N/A

Issued: 05/15/1993

Expires: None

U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, and 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

Hazardous Material Shipments 

Registration

US DOT ID 

997370 061908 

002 018QS

Issued: 07/01/2008

Expires: 06/30/2011

Renewed every 3 

years by fee payment

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan 

Approval

None

Pending

Renewal request 

submitted 01/25/2011

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Facility Response Plan 0200087 Submitted: U.S. Environmental 
Purpose and Need for Action

1-13

Permit Number Dates

Approval

Responsible Agency

02/15/2008

Status: Pending

Protection Agency

Renewal request 

submitted 01/25/2011

Hazardous Waste Generator NJD077070811

Acknowledged: 

09/13/1989

Expires: None

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency
Purpose and Need for Action

1-14

Hope Creek Generating Station

Permit Number Dates Responsible 

Agency

Operating Licenses NPF-57

Issued: 4/11/1986

Expires: 4/11/2026

U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission

Conditional Use and Variance 

for temporary storage of spent 

nuclear fuel

SP-1-09 and VR1-09

Issued: 08/26/2009

Expires: 08/26/2010

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

Preliminary and Final Site Plan 

Approval – Operating a 

Shooting Range

SP-1-05

Issued: 05/25/2005

Expires: None

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

Preliminary and Final Site Plan 

Approval – Improvements to 

Employee Parking Lots B & C

SP-2-05

Issued: 08/24/2005

Expires: None

Lower Alloways 

Creek Township

Discharge Prevention, 

Containment, and 

Countermeasure (DPCC) 

Plan; Discharge Cleanup and 

removal (DCR) Plan

170400041000

Issued: 03/04/2009 

Expires: 07/27/2011

Renewal request 

submitted 01/25/2011

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Waterfront Development 

Permit

1704-02-0001.4 

WFD 050001

Issued: 08/16/2005

Expires: 08/16/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(Land use associated with 

HCGS)

74-014

Issued: 09/03/1975

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(Land use associated with 

Sandblast Facility 

Modifications)

1704-90-0014-5-

CAM

Issued: 04/25/1995

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(DM Plant)

1704-02-0001.3 

CAF 040001

Issued: 09/23/2004

Expires: 09/23/2009

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection
Purpose and Need for Action

1-15

Permit Number Dates Responsible 

Agency

Consolidated Renewal Permit 

Industrial Wastewater

(HCGS)

NJ0025411

Issued: 01/2003

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Coastal Areas Facility Review 

Act (CAFRA) Permit

(NAB Parking Lot)

1704-02-0001.4 

CAF 050003

Issued: 12/01/2005

Expires: 12/01/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Freshwater Wetland (FWW) 

Permit

(NAB Parking Lot)

1704-02-001.4 

FWW 050002

Issued: 12/01/2005

Expires: 12/01/2010

Activity-based permit; 

no renewal required

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Water Allocation Permit for 

Salem and HCGS

Activity No: 

WAP09001

Program Interest 

ID: 2216P

Issued: 07/01/2010

Expires: 06/30/2020

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Public Water Supply 

Identification Number 1704306

Issued: 09/04/1980

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

Type “B” Wetlands Permit W74-02

Issued: 02/28/1975

Expires: None

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection 

Medical Waste Generator 

Certificate 34571

Issued: 08/14/1992

Expires: Renewed 

annually

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

South Carolina Radioactive 

Waste Transport Permit 0018-29-10-X

Issued: 12/29/2009

Expires: Renewed 

annually

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control – Division 

of Waste 

Management
Purpose and Need for Action

1-16

Permit Number Dates Responsible 

Agency

Tennessee Radioactive Waste 

Transport Permit T-NJ002-L10

Issued: 12/29/2009

Expires: Renewed 

annually

State of 

Tennessee 

Department of 

Environmental and 

Conservation 

Division of 

Radiological 

Health

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan None

Last Reviewed: 

02/29/2008

Next Scheduled 

Review: 02/28/2013

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Facility Response Plan 

Approval 0200087

Submitted: 

02/15/2008

Status: Pending

Renewal request 

submitted 01/25/2011

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Notification of Hazardous 

Waste Activity NJD077070811

Acknowledged: 

09/13/1989

Expires: None

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Surface Water Permit D-73-193 CP Issued: 04/27/1984

Expires: None 

Delaware River 

Basin Commission

Sewage Treatment Plant D-87-70

Issued: 11/27/1987

Expires: None

Delaware River 

Basin Commission

New Jersey Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

Permit

NJ0025411

Issued; 03/01/2003

Expires: 

Administratively 

Continued

1.10 References

New Jersey 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

74 FR 54854. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C, “Notice of Acceptance 

for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of 
Purpose and Need for Action

1-17

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for an Additional 20-Year Period; PSEG 

Nuclear LLC, Salem Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 1 and 2,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, 

No. 204, pp. 54854-54856, October 23, 2009.

74 FR 54856. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C, “Notice of Acceptance 

for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of 

Facility Operating License No. DPR-57 for an Additional 20-Year Period; PSEG Nuclear LLC 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 204, pp. 54856-54858, 

October 23, 2009.

74 FR 54859. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C, “PSEG Nuclear, LLC; 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct the Scoping 

Process for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek Generating 

Station,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 204, pp. 5485954860, October 23, 2009.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. 1855, et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act. 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C,May 

1996, Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. 

ML040690705 and ML040690738.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C, August 1999, ADAMS

Accession No. ML04069720.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. “Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

Process: Summary Report, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and Hope Creek 

Generating Station,” Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey, September 2010, ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102350323.

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. “Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

License Renewal Stage,” Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey, August 2009’ 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, and ML092430231

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. “Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage,” Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey, August 2009, ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092430389.

 2-1 

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) are 

located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem 

County, New Jersey. The facilities are located at River Mile (RM) 50 (River Kilometer 80 [RK 

80]) and RM 51 (RK 82) on the Delaware River, respectively, approximately 17 miles (mi) (27 

kilometers [km]) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Philadelphia is about 35 mi (56 km) 

northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey is 8 mi (13 km) northeast of the site (AEC, 1973). 

Figure 2-1 shows the location of Salem and HCGS within a 6-mi (10 km) radius, and Figure 2-2 

is an aerial photograph of the site. 

Because existing conditions are partially the result of past construction and operation at the 

plants, the impacts of these past and ongoing actions and how they have shaped the 

environment are presented in this chapter. Section 2.1 of this report describes Salem and 

HCGS as a combined site (site), the individual facilities, and their operations; Section 2.2 

discusses the affected environment; and Section 2.3 describes related Federal and State 

activities near the site. 

2.1 Facility and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the 

Renewal Term 

Artificial Island is a 1,500-acre (ac; 600 hectare [ha]) island that was created by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) beginning in the early 20th century. The island began as buildup 

of hydraulic dredge spoils within a progressively enlarged diked area established around a 

natural sandbar that projected into the river. The island is characterized by low and flat tidal 

marsh and grassland with an average elevation of about 9 feet (ft; 3 meters [m]) above mean 

sea level (MSL) and a maximum elevation of about 18 ft (5.5 m) above MSL (AEC, 1973). 

Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) owns approximately 740 

ac (300 ha) on the southern end of Artificial Island. The Salem and HCGS facilities occupy 373 

ac (150 ha; 220 ac [89 ha] for Salem and 153 ac [62 ha] for HCGS) in the southwestern corner 

of the island. The remainder of Artificial Island is undeveloped. 

The portion of Artificial island not owned by PSEG is owned by the U.S. Government and the 

State of New Jersey. The northern portion of Artificial Island, a very small portion of which is 

within the State of Delaware boundary, and a 1-mi (1.6-km) wide inland strip of land abutting the 

island are owned by the U.S. Government (AEC, 1973). The State of New Jersey owns the 

remainder of Artificial Island, as well as much of the nearby inland property. The distance to the 

PSEG property boundary from the two Salem reactor buildings is approximately 4,200 ft (1,300 

m). Distance to the PSEG property boundary from the HCGS reactor building is 2,960 ft (902 

m). 

There are no major highways or railroads within about 7 mi (11 km) of the site. Land access is 

provided via Alloway Creek Neck Road. The site is located at the end of Alloway Creek Neck 

Road and there is no traffic that bypasses the site. Barge traffic has access to the site by way 

of the Intracoastal Waterway channel maintained in the Delaware River (AEC, 1973). 

Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the property boundaries and facility layouts for the Salem and HCGS 

facilities, respectively. 
Affected Environment 

 2-2 

Figure 2-1. Location of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek 

Generating Station Site, within a 6-Mile Radius (Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 
Affected Environment 

 2-3 

Figure 2-2. Aerial Photo (Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 
Affected Environment 

 2-4 

Figure 2-3. Salem Nuclear Generating Station Facility Layout (Source: PSEG, 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-5 

Figure 2-4. Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Layout (Source: PSEG, 2009b) 
Affected Environment 

 2-6 

Three metropolitan areas lie within 50 mi (80 km) of the PSEG site: Wilmington, Delaware, the 

closest city, approximately 15 mi (24 km) to the northwest; Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia, 

approximately 35 mi (56 km) to the northeast; and Baltimore, Maryland, approximately 45 mi (72 

mi) to the southwest (Figure 2-5 shows a map of the site within a 50-mi [80 km] radius). 

Figure 2-5. Location of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek 

Generating Station Site, within a 50-Mile Radius (Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 
Affected Environment 

 2-7 

Industrial activities within 10 mi (16 km) of the site are confined principally to the west bank of 

the Delaware River, north of Artificial Island, in the cities of Delaware City, New Castle, and 

Wilmington. There is no significant industrial activity near the site. With little industry in the 

region, construction and retail trade account for nearly 40 percent of the revenues generated in 

the Salem County economy (USCB, 2006). Smaller communities in the vicinity of the site 

(Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey; Salem, New Jersey; Quinton, New Jersey; and Shenandoah, 

Delaware) consist primarily of small retail businesses. Much of the surrounding marshland is 

owned by the U.S. Government and the State of New Jersey and is further described in Section 

2.2.1. 

Located about 2 mi (3 km) west of the site on the western shore of the Delaware River is the 

Augustine State Wildlife Management Area, a 2,667 ac (1,079 ha) wildlife management area 

managed by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, 

2010a). Southwest of the site, also on the Delaware side of the Delaware River, is the 

Appoquinimink Wildlife Area. Located less than 1 mile (less than one km) northeast of the site 

is the upper section of the Mad Horse Creek Fish and Wildlife Management Area. This is a 

noncontiguous, 9,500-ac (3,800 ha) wildlife area managed by the New Jersey Division of Fish 

and Wildlife (NJDFW) with sections northeast, east, and southeast of the site (NJDFW, 2009a). 

Recreational activities at these wildlife areas within 10 mi (16 km) of the site consist of boating, 

fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, picnicking, and swimming. 

2.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems 

2.1.1.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

Salem is a two-unit plant, which uses pressurized water reactors (PWR) designed by 

Westinghouse Electric. Each unit has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 

3,459 megawatt-thermal (MW[t]). Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service June 1977 

and October 1981, respectively. At 100 percent reactor power, the currently anticipated net 

electrical output is approximately 1,195 megawatt-electric (MW[e]) for Unit 1 and 1,196 MW(e) 

for Unit 2. The Salem units have once-through circulating water systems for condenser cooling 

that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary through one intake structure located 

at the shoreline on the south end of the site. An air-cooled combustion turbine peaking unit 

rated at approximately 40 MW(e) (referred to as “Salem Unit 3”) is also present (PSEG, 2009a; 

2009b). 

In the PWR power generation system (Figure 2-6); reactor heat is transferred from the primary 

coolant to a lower pressure secondary coolant loop, allowing steam to be generated in the 

steam supply system. The nuclear steam supply for each unit includes a pressurized water 

reactor, reactor coolant (RCS), and associated auxiliary fluid systems. The RCS is arranged as 

four closed reactor reactor coolant loops connected in parallel to the reactor vessel , each with 

a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. Each steam generator is a vertical, Utube-and-shell heat exchanger that produces superheated steam at a constant pressure over 

the reactor operating power range. From the turbine the steam is directed to a turbine, causing 

it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, which generates electricity. The 

steam is directed to a condenser, where the steam is cooled and condensed back in liquid 

water. This cooled water is then cycled back to the steam generator, completing the loop. 
Affected Environment 

 2-8 

Figure 2-6. Simplified Design of a Pressurized Water Reactor 

The containment building serves as a biological radiation shield and a pressure container for the 

entire RCS. The reactor containment structures are vertical cylinders with 16-ft (4.9-m) thick flat 

foundation mats and 2- to 5-ft (0.6- to 1.5-m) thick reinforced concrete slab floors topped with 

hemispherical dome roofs. The side walls of each containment building are 142 ft (43.3 m) high 

and the inside diameter is 140 ft (43 m). The concrete walls are 4.5 ft (1.4 m) thick and the 

containment building dome roofs are 3.5 ft (1.1 m) thick. The inside surface of the reactor 

building is lined with a carbon steel liner with varying thickness ranging from 0.25 inch (0.64 

centimeter [cm]) to 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) (PSEG, 2007a). 

The nuclear fueled cores of the Salem reactors are moderated and cooled by a moderator, 

which slows the speed of neutrons thereby increasing the likelihood of fission of an uranium-235 

atom in the fuel. The cooling water is circulated by the reactor coolant pumps. These pumps 

are vertical, single-stage centrifugal pumps equipped with controlled-leakage shaft seals 

(PSEG, 2007b). 

Both Salem units use slightly enriched uranium dioxide (UO2) ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy 

cladding (PSEG, 2007b). Fuel pellets are loaded into fuel rods, and fuel rods are joined 

together in fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies consist of 264 fuel rods arranged in a square 

array. Salem uses fuel that is nominally enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by 

weight). The combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of about 

60,000 megawatt-days (MW [d]) per metric ton uranium (PSEG, 2009a). 

The original Salem steam generators have been replaced. In 1997, the Unit 1 steam generators 

were replaced and in 2008 the Unit 2 steam generators were replaced (PSEG, 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-9 

2.1.1.2 Hope Creek Generating Station 

HCGS is a one-unit station, which uses a boiling water reactor (BWR) with a Mark I containment 

designed by General Electric. The power plant has a current licensed thermal power output of 

3,840 MW(t) with an electrical output estimated to be approximately 1, 265 MW(e) (73 FR 

13032). HCGS has a closed-cycle circulating water system for condenser cooling that consists 

of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities. 

HCGS withdraws brackish water with the service water system (SWS) from the Delaware 

Estuary (PSEG, 2009b). 

In the BWR power generation system (Figure 2-7), heat from the reactor causes the cooling 

water which passes vertically through the reactor core to boil, producing steam. The steam is 

directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, which 

generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser, where the steam is cooled and is 

condensed to liquid water. This water is then cycled back to the reactor core, completing the 

loop. 

The reactor building houses the reactor, the primary containment, and fuel handling and storage 

areas. The primary containment is a steel shell, shaped like a light bulb, enclosed in reinforced 

concrete, and interconnected to a torus-type steel suppression chamber. The reactor building is 

capable of containing any radioactive materials that might be released due to a loss-of-coolant 

accident. (PSEG 2009b) 

The HCGS reactor uses slightly enriched UO2 ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy cladding 

(PSEG, 2007b). Fuel pellets are loaded into fuel rods and fuel rods are joined together in fuel 

assemblies. HCGS uses fuel that is nominal enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by 

weight) and the combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of 

about 60,000 MW(d) per metric ton uranium. 
Affected Environment 

 2-10 

Figure 2-7. Simplified Design of a Boiling Water Reactor 

2.1.2 Radioactive Waste Management 

Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, or solid. 

Liquid radioactive wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the RCS 

or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the RCS. Gaseous radioactive wastes are 

generated from gases or airborne particulates vented from reactor and turbine equipment 

containing radioactive material. Solid radioactive wastes are solids from the RCS, solids that 

came into contact with RCS liquids or gases, or solids used in the RCS or steam and power 

conversion system operation or maintenance. 

The Salem and HCGS facilities include radioactive waste systems which collect, treat, and 

provide for the disposal of radioactive and potentially radioactive wastes that are byproducts of 

plant operations. Radioactive wastes include activation products resulting from the irradiation of 

reactor water and impurities therein (principally metallic corrosion products) and fission products 

resulting from defective fuel cladding or uranium contamination within the RCS. Radioactive 

waste system operating procedures ensure that radioactive wastes are safely processed and 

discharged from the plant within the limits set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Affected Environment 

 2-11 

Regulations (CFR) Part 20, “Standards for Protection against Radiation,” and 10 CFR Part 50, 

“Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

When reactor fuel has exhausted a certain percentage of its fissile uranium content, it is referred 

to as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core and replaced with 

fresh fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages, typically every 18 months. Spent fuel 

assemblies are stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP). Salem’s SFP storage capacity for each unit 

is 1,632 fuel assemblies, which will allow sufficient storage up to the year 2011 for Unit 1 and 

2015 for Unit 2 (PSEG, 2009a). The HCGS SFP facility is designed to store up to 3,976 fuel 

assemblies (PSEG, 2009b). 

In 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a 10 CFR Part 72 general 

license to PSEG, which authorized that spent nuclear fuel could be stored at an independent 

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at the PSEG site. The general license allows PSEG, as a 

reactor licensee under 10 CFR Part 50, to store spent fuel from both HCGS and Salem at the 

ISFSI, provided that such storage occurs in approved casks in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K (General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at 

Power Reactor Sites) (NRC, 2005). At this time, only HCGS spent fuel is stored at the ISFSI. 

However, transfers of spent fuel from the Salem SFP to the ISFSI are expected to begin 

approximately one year before the remaining capacity of the pool is less than the capacity 

needed for a complete offload to the SFP (PSEG, 2009b).

2.1.2.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste 

Both the Salem and HCGS facilities operate systems to provide controlled handling and 

disposal of small quantities of low-activity, liquid radioactive wastes generated during station 

operation. However, because the Salem units are cooled by a once-through circulating water 

system (CWS) and the HCGS unit is cooled by a closed-cycle CWS, the management of 

potentially radioactive liquids is different at each plant. Potentially radioactive liquid waste 

streams at the Salem facility are managed by the radioactive liquid waste system (RLWS) and 

the chemical and volume controlled system (CVCS). At HCGS, potentially radioactive liquid 

waste streams are managed under the liquid waste management system (LWMS). 

The bulk of the radioactive liquids discharged from the Salem RCS are processed and retained 

inside the plant by the CVCS recycle train. This minimizes liquid input to the RLWS. Liquid 

radioactive waste entering the RLWS is released in accordance with NRC regulations. Prior to 

release, liquids are collected in tanks, sampled, and analyzed. Based on the results of the 

analysis, the waste is processed to remove radioactivity before releasing it to the Delaware 

Estuary via the circulating water system and a permitted outfall. Discharge streams are 

monitored, and safety features are incorporated to preclude releases in excess of the limits 

prescribed in 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” (PSEG, 2009a). 

In 2003, PSEG identified tritium in groundwater from onsite sampling wells near the Salem Unit 

1 fuel handling building (FHB). The source of tritium was identified as the Salem Unit 1 SFP. In 

November 2004, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Bureau of 

Nuclear Engineering (BNE) approved a groundwater remediation strategy and by September 

2005, a full-scale groundwater recovery system (GRS) had been installed (PSEG, 2009a). The 

GRS pulls groundwater toward the recovery system and away from the site boundary. 
Affected Environment 

 2-12 

Since 2005, tritium-contaminated groundwater from the GRS is processed in the facility’s 

NRLWDS where it mixes with other liquid plant effluent before being discharged into the Salem 

once-through, condenser cooling water system discharge line. The recovered groundwater is 

sampled prior to entering the discharge line to demonstrate compliance with offsite dose 

requirements. The water is subsequently released to the Delaware Estuary via a permitted 

outfall in accordance with plant procedures and NRC requirements for the effluent release of 

radioactive liquids. Surface water sampling as part of the radiological environmental monitoring 

program (REMP) does not show an increase in measurable tritium levels since the GRS was 

initiated. 

Potentially radioactive liquid wastes entering the HCGS LWMS are collected in tanks in the 

auxiliary building. Radioactive contaminants are removed from the wastewater either by 

demineralization or filtration. This ensures that the water quality is restored before being 

returned to the condensate storage tank (CST) or discharged via the cooling tower blowdown 

line to the Delaware Estuary via a permitted outfall. If the liquid is recycled to the plant, it meets 

the purity requirements for CST makeup. Liquid discharges to the Delaware Estuary are 

maintained in compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation”

(PSEG, 2009b).

Radioactivity removed from the liquid wastes is concentrated in the filter media and ion 

exchange resins, which are managed as solid radioactive wastes. 

2.1.2.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste 

The Salem and HCGS radioactive gaseous waste disposal systems process and dispose of 

routine radioactive gases removed from the gaseous effluent and released to the atmosphere. 

Gaseous wastes are processed to reduce radioactive materials in gaseous effluents before 

discharge to meet the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and the dose design objectives in Appendix 

I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

At both facilities, radioactive gases are collected so that the short-lived gaseous isotopes 

(principally air with traces of krypton and xenon) are allowed to decay. At Salem, these gases 

are collected in tanks in the auxiliary building and released intermittently in a controlled manner. 

At HCGS, gases are held up in holdup pipes prior to entering a treatment section where 

adsorption of gases on charcoal provides additional time for decay. At HCGS, gases are then 

filtered using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters before being released to the 

atmosphere from the north plant vent. 

2.1.2.3 Radioactive Solid Waste 

Solid radioactive waste generated at the Salem and HCGS facilities are managed by a single 

solid radioactive waste system. This system manages radioactive solid waste, including 

packaging and storage, until the waste is shipped offsite. Offsite wastes are processed by 

volume reduction and/or shipped for disposal at a licensed disposal facility. PSEG provides a 

quarterly waste storage report to the Township of Hancocks Bridge. 

The State of South Carolina’s licensed low level waste (LLW) disposal facility, located in 

Barnwell, has limited the access from radioactive waste generators located in States that are 

not part of the Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. New Jersey is a 
Affected Environment 

 2-13 

member of the Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. To control releases to 

the environment, these wastes are packaged in the Salem and HCGS auxiliary buildings. 

The PSEG low-level radwaste storage facility (LLRSF) supports normal dry active waste (DAW) 

handling activities for HCGS and Salem. DAW consists of compactable trash, such as 

contaminated or potentially contaminated rags, clothing, and paper. This waste is generally 

bagged, placed in Sea-van containers, and stored prior to being shipped to a licensed offsite 

vendor for volume reduction. The volume-reduced DAW is repackaged at the vendor and 

shipped for disposal at a licensed LLW disposal facility (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). Class A nonresin waste is typically shipped to the Engery Solutions Class A disposal facility in Clive, Utah. 

The LLRSF also maintains an NRC-approved process control program. The process control 

program helps to ensure that waste is properly characterized, profiled, labeled, and shipped in 

accordance with the waste disposal facility’s waste acceptance criteria and U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and NRC requirements. The LLRSF is a large facility that was designed 

to store and manage large volumes of waste. However, the facility is operated well below its 

designed capacity. The facility is also designed to ensure that worker radiation exposures are 

controlled in accordance with facility and regulatory criteria. 

2.1.2.4 Mixed Waste 

The term “mixed waste” refers to waste that contains both radioactive and hazardous 

constituents. Neither Salem nor HCGS have processes that generate mixed wastes and there 

are no mixed wastes stored at either facility. 

2.1.3 Nonradioactive Waste Management 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the disposal of solid and 

hazardous waste. The RCRA regulations are contained in Title 40, “Protection of the 

Environment,” Parts 239 through 299 (40 CFR Part 239, et seq.). Parts 239 through 259 of 

these regulations cover solid (nonhazardous) waste, and Parts 260 through 279 regulate 

hazardous waste. RCRA Subtitle C establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from 

“cradle to grave,” and RCRA Subtitle D encourages States to develop comprehensive plans to 

manage nonhazardous solid waste and mandates minimum technological standards for 

municipal solid waste landfills. 

RCRA regulations are administered by the NJDEP and address the identification, generation, 

minimization, transportation, and final treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and 

nonhazardous wastes. Salem and HCGS generate nonradiological waste, including oils, 

hazardous and nonhazardous solvents and degreasers, laboratory wastes, expired shelf-life 

chemicals and reagents, asbestos wastes, paints and paint thinners, antifreeze, project-specific 

wastes, and routine and daily refuse (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

2.1.3.1 Hazardous Waste 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies certain nonradioactive wastes as 

“hazardous” based on characteristics, including ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity 

(identification and listing of hazardous wastes is available in 40 CFR Part 261). State-level 
Affected Environment 

 2-14 

regulators may add wastes to the EPA’s list of hazardous wastes. The RCRA provides 

standards for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste for hazardous waste 

generators (40 CFR Part 262). The Salem and HCGS facilities generate small amounts of 

hazardous wastes, including spent and expired chemicals, laboratory chemical wastes, and 

occasional project-specific wastes. 

PSEG is currently a small-quantity hazardous waste generator (PSEG, 2010b), generating less 

than 220 pounds (lb)/month (100 kilograms [kg]/month). Hazardous waste storage (180-day) 

areas include the hazardous waste storage facility, the combo shop, and two laydown areas 

east of the combo shop. 

Hazardous waste generated at the facility include: F003, F005 (spent non-halogenated 

solvents), F001, D001 (ignitable waste), D002 (corrosive wastes), D003 (reactive wastes), and 

wastes that leach metals including D005 (barium), D006 (cadium), D008 (lead), D009 (mercury), 

and D0011 (silver)(PSEG, 2008b). 

The EPA authorized the State of New Jersey to regulate and oversee most of the solid waste 

disposal programs, as recognized by Subtitle C of the RCRA. Compliance is assured through 

State-issued permits. The EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) 

database showed no violations for PSEG (EPA, 2010b). 

Proper facility identification numbers for hazardous waste operations include: 

● DOT Hazardous Materials Registration No. 061908002018QS 

● EPA Hazardous Waste Identification No. NJD 077070811 

● NJDEP Hazardous Waste Program ID No. NJD 077070811 

Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), applicable 

facilities are required to provide information on hazardous and toxic chemicals to local 

emergency planning authorities and the EPA (Title 42, Section 11001, of the United States 

Code [U.S.C.] [42 U.S.C. 11001]). PSEG is subject to Federal EPCRA reporting requirements, 

and thus submits an annual Section 312 (TIER II) report on hazardous substances to local 

emergency agencies. 

2.1.3.2 Solid Waste 

A solid waste is defined by New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:26-1.6 as, “any 

garbage, refuse, sludge, or any other waste material except it shall not include the following: 1. 

Source separated food waste collected by livestock producers, approved by the State 

Department of Agriculture, who collect, prepare and feed such wastes to livestock on their own 

farms; 2. Recyclable materials that are exempted from regulation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26A; 

[and] 3. Materials approved for beneficial use or categorically approved for beneficial use 

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.7(g).” The definition of solid waste in N.J.A.C. 7:26-1.6 applies only 

to wastes that are not also defined as hazardous in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26G. 

During the site audit, the NRC staff (staff) observed an active solid waste recycling program. 

Solid waste (“trash”) is segregated and about 55 percent is transferred to recycling vendors 

(PSEG, 2009a). The remaining volume of solid waste is disposed at a local landfill. 
Affected Environment 

 2-15 

A common sewage treatment system treats domestic wastewater from both facilities. Following 

treatment, solids (i.e., sludge) are either returned to the system’s oxidation ditch or removed to a 

sludge-holding tank, based upon process requirements. Sludge directed to the sludge-holding 

tank is aerated and dewatered before being trucked offsite for disposal. During the site audit, 

the staff viewed the PSEG sewage sludge waste volumes from 2005 through 2009. The 

average annual volume for these years was about 50,000 lbs (22,700 kg). Site officials stated 

that the disposal frequency in generally driven by the volume of sludge generated and the 

facilities’ budget. 

2.1.3.3 Universal Waste 

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26G-4.2, “Universal waste” means any of the following hazardous 

wastes that are managed under the universal waste requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:26A-7, whether 

incorporated prospectively by reference from 40 CFR Part 273, “Standards for Universal Waste 

Management,” or listed additionally by the NJDEP: paint waste, batteries, pesticides, 

thermostats, fluorescent lamps, mercury-containing devices, oil-based finishes, and consumer 

electronics. 

PSEG is a small quantity handler of universal waste (meaning the facility cannot accumulate 

more than 11,000 lbs (5,000 kg) of universal waste at any one time), generating common 

operational wastes, such as lighting ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

lamps, and batteries. Universal waste is segregated and disposed of through a licensed broker. 

Routine building space renovations and computer equipment upgrades can lead to substantial 

short-term increases in universal waste volumes. 

2.1.3.4 Permitted Discharges 

The Salem facility maintains a New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) 

permit, NJ0005622, which authorizes the discharge of wastewater to the Delaware Estuary and 

stipulates the conditions of the permit. HCGS maintains a separate NJPDES permit, 

NJ0025411 for discharges to the Delaware Estuary. All monitoring is conducted in accordance 

with the NJDEP’s “Field Sampling Procedures Manual” applicable at the time of sampling 

(N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.5 (b)4), and/or the method approved by the NJDEP in Part IV of the site 

permits (NJDEP, 2002a). 

As discussed previously, a common sewage treatment system treats domestic wastewater from 

both HCGS and Salem. The sewage treatment system liquid effluent discharges through the 

HCGS cooling tower blowdown outfall to the Delaware Estuary. The residual cooling tower 

blowdown dechlorination chemical, ammonium bisulfite, dechlorinates the sewage treatment 

effluent (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 

Salem and HCGS share the nonradioactive liquid waste disposal system (NRLWDS) chemical 

waste treatment system. The NRLWDS is located at the Salem facility and operated by Salem 

staff. The NRLWDS collects and processes nonradioactive secondary plant wastewater prior to 

discharge into the Delaware Estuary. The waste water originates during plant processes, such 

as demineralizer regenerations, steam generator blowdown, chemical handling operations, and 

reverse osmosis reject waste. The outfall is monitored in accordance with the current HCGS 

NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-16 

Oily waste waters are treated at HCGS using an oil water separator. Treated effluent is then 

discharged through the internal monitoring point, which is combined with cooling tower 

blowdown before discharge to the Delaware Estuary. The outfall is monitored in accordance 

with the current HCGS NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411. 

Section 2.1.7 of this report provides more information on the site’s NPDES permits and effluent 

limitations. 

2.1.3.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

As described in Section 2.1.3.2, PSEG operates an active solid waste recycling program that 

results in about 55 percent of its “trash” being recycled. PSEG also maintains a discharge 

prevention and response program. This program incorporates the requirements of the NJDEP, 

EPA Facility Response Plan, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Protocol. Specific documents making up the program 

include: 

● Spill/Discharge Prevention Plan 

● Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan 

● Spill/Discharge Response Plan 

● Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protection Plan 

PSEG also maintains the following plans to support pollution prevention and waste 

minimization: 

● Discharge Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan 

● Discharge Cleanup and Removal Plan 

● Facility Response Plan 

● Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

● Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

● Pollution Minimization Plan for PCBs 

2.1.4 Facility Operation and Maintenance 

Various types of maintenance activities are performed at the Salem and HCGS facilities, 

including inspection, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the 

facility and to ensure compliance with environmental and safety requirements. Various 

programs and activities currently exist at Salem and HCGS to maintain, inspect, test, and 

monitor the performance of facility equipment. These maintenance activities include inspection 

requirements for reactor vessel materials, boiler and pressure vessel inservice inspection and 

testing, a maintenance structures monitoring program, and maintenance of water chemistry. 

Additional programs include those implemented in response to NRC generic communications; 

those implemented to meet technical specification surveillance requirements; and various 

periodic maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are 

performed during the operation of the unit, while others are performed during scheduled 
Affected Environment 

 2-17 

refueling outages. Nuclear power plants must periodically discontinue the production of 

electricity for refueling, periodic inservice inspection, and scheduled maintenance. Salem and 

HCGS are on an 18-month refueling cycle (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

Aging effects at Salem and HCGS are managed by integrated plant assessments required by 

10 CFR 54.21. These programs are described in Section 2 of the facilities’ Nuclear Generating 

Station License Renewal Applications – Scoping and Screening Methodology for Identifying 

Structures and Components Subject to Aging Management Review, and Implementation 

Results (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

2.1.5 Power Transmission System 

Three right-of-way (ROW) corridors and four 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines connect Salem 

and HCGS to the regional electric grid. The four transmission lines are referred to in this 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) as follows: HCGS-New Freedom; SalemNew Freedom North; Salem-Keeney (consisting of the Salem-Red Lion and Red Lion-Keeney 

segments); and Salem-New Freedom South. The HCGS-New Freedom and Salem-New 

Freedom North lines share a single ROW corridor. Public Service Electric and Gas Company 

(PSE&G) (a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, which also owns PSEG Nuclear) 

owns and maintains the transmission lines in all three ROW corridors except the portion of the 

Salem-Keeney line that extends into Delaware. That portion of the Salem-Keeney line is owned 

and maintained by a subsidiary of Pepco Holdings Inc. (PHI). Each corridor is 350 ft (107 m) 

wide, with the exception of two-thirds of the Salem-Keeney line corridor, which narrow to 200 ft 

(61 m). Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of the power transmission system is adapted 

from the applicant’s environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) or information 

gathered at the NRC’s environmental site audit. 

For the operation of Salem, three transmission lines were initially built for the delivery of 

electricity: two lines connecting to the New Freedom substation near Williamston, New Jersey 

(Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-New Freedom South), and one line extending north 

across the Delaware River terminating at the Keeney substation in Delaware (Salem-Keeney). 

The Salem New Freedom North and South corridors pass through Salem and Gloucester 

Counties before terminating at the New Freedom substation in Camden County, New Jersey. 

The Salem-Keeney corridor originates in Salem County, New Jersey, crosses west across the 

Delaware River, and terminates at the Keeney substation in New Castle County, Delaware. 

After construction of HCGS, several changes were made to the existing Salem transmission 

system, including the disconnection of the Salem-Keeney line from Salem and its reconnection 

to HCGS, as well as the construction of a new substation (known as Red Lion) along the 

Salem-Keeney transmission line. The addition of this new substation divided the Salem-Keeney 

transmission line into two segments: one connecting HCGS to Red Lion and the other 

connecting Red Lion to Keeney. Consequently, these two segments are referred to in this SEIS 

as Salem-Red Lion and Red Lion-Keeney. The segment of the Salem-Keeney line located 

entirely within Delaware, Red Lion-Keeney, is owned and maintained by a subsidiary of PHI. 

The construction of HCGS also resulted in the re-routing of the Salem-New Freedom North line 

and the construction of a new transmission line, HCGS-New Freedom. The Salem-New 

Freedom North line was disconnected from Salem and re-routed to HCGS, leaving Salem 

without a northern connection to the New Freedom transmission system. Therefore, a new 
Affected Environment 

 2-18 

transmission line was required to connect Salem and the New Freedom substation; this line is 

known as the HCGS-New Freedom line and it shares a corridor with the Salem-New Freedom 

North line. Prior to and following the construction of HCGS, the Salem-New Freedom South line 

provides a southern-route connection between Salem and the New Freedom substation. 

The only new transmission lines constructed as a result of HCGS were the HCGS-New 

Freedom line, the line connecting HCGS and Salem (tie line), and short reconnections for 

Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney. The HCGS-Salem tie line and the short 

reconnections do not pass beyond the site boundary. 

Transmission lines considered in-scope for license renewal are those constructed specifically to 

connect the Salem and HCGS facilities to the transmission system (10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H)); 

therefore, the Salem-New Freedom North, Salem-Keeney (including Salem-Red Lion and Red 

Lion-Keeney segments), Salem-New Freedom South, and HCGS-New Freedom lines are 

considered in-scope for this SEIS and are discussed in detail below. Because the HCGS-Salem 

tie line, which is also considered in-scope, does not pass beyond the site boundary and does 

not cross undisturbed areas, it is not discussed further. 

Figure 2-8 illustrates the Salem and HCGS transmission system. The four transmission lines 

are described below within the designated ROW corridors (see Table 2-1): 

2.1.5.1 North Corridor of New Freedom 

● Salem-New Freedom North – This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, 

runs northeast from HCGS for 44 mi (71 km) within a 350-ft (107-m) wide corridor 

to the New Freedom switching substation north of Williamstown, NJ. This line 

shares the corridor with the 500-kV HCGS-New Freedom line. 

● HCGS-New Freedom – This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, extends 

northeast from Salem for 43 mi (69 km) within the shared North corridor to the 

New Freedom substation, 4 mi (6 km) north-northeast of Williamstown, New 

Jersey. In 2008, a new substation (Orchard) was constructed along this line. 

The Orchard substation is located approximately 4 mi (6 km) west of Elmer, a 

borough in Salem County, New Jersey, and serves to divide the line into two 

segments, one which runs southwest from Orchard to the site and is 

approximately 19 mi (31 km) in length, and one that runs northeast from Orchard 

to the New Freedom substation and is approximately 24 mi (39 km) in length. 

2.1.5.2 South Corridor of New Freedom 

● Salem-New Freedom South – This 500-kV line, which is operated by PSE&G, 

extends northeast from Salem for 42 mi (68 km) within a 350-ft (107-m) wide 

corridor from Salem to the New Freedom substation north of Williamstown, NJ. 

This line runs approximately 2 to 3 mi (3 to 5 km) south of and somewhat parallel 

to the North corridor to New Freedom. 
Affected Environment 

 2-19 

2.1.5.3 Corridor of Keeney 

● Salem-Red Lion segment – This 500-kV line extends north from HCGS for 13 mi 

(21 km) and then crosses over the New Jersey-Delaware State line. It continues 

west over the Delaware River about 4 mi (6 km) to the Red Lion substation. In 

New Jersey, the line is operated by PSE&G, and in Delaware it is operated by a 

subsidiary of PHI. Two thirds of the 17-mi (27-km) corridor is 200 ft (61 m) wide, 

and the remainder is 350-ft (107-m) wide. 

● Red Lion-Keeney segment – This 500-kV line, which is operated by a subsidiary 

of PHI, extends from the Red Lion substation 8 mi (13 km) northwest to the 

Keeney substation. Two thirds of the corridor is 200 ft (61 m) wide, and the 

remainder is 350-ft (107-m) wide. 

The ROW corridors comprise approximately 111 mi (179 km) and 4,220 ac (1,789 ha). The four 

lines cross within Camden, Gloucester, and Salem counties in New Jersey, and the SalemKeeney line extends into New Castle County in Delaware. All of the ROW corridors traverse the 

marshes and wetlands adjacent to the Salem and HCGS sites, including agricultural and 

forested lands. 

All transmission lines were designed and built in accordance with industry standards in place at 

the time of construction. All transmission lines will remain a permanent part of the transmission 

system and will be maintained by PSE&G and PHI (for its portion of the Salem-Keeney line) 

regardless of the Salem and HCGS facilities’ continued operation (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 

2009b). The HCGS-Salem line, which connects the two substations, would be de-activated if 

the Salem and HCGS switchyards were no longer in use and would need to be reconnected to 

the grid if they were to remain in service beyond the operation of Salem and HCGS. 

Four 500-kV transmission lines connect electricity from Salem and HCGS to the regional electric 

transmission system via three ROW corridors outside of the property boundary. The 

HCGS-Salem 500-kV tie-line, which connects the HSGS and Salem switch yards, spans 

approximately 2,000 ft (610 m). This tie-line does not pass beyond the site boundary and does 

not cross undisturbed land; therefore, it is not discussed as an offsite ROW. 
Affected Environment 

 2-20 

Figure 2-8. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Transmission Line System (Source: PSEG, 2009b) 
Affected Environment 

 2-21 

Table 2-1. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Transmission System Components 

Approximate Length Corridor width Approximate

Corridor area 

Line Owner kV mi (km) ft (m) ac (ha)

North Corridor of New Freedom 

Salem-New Freedom North PSEG 500 44 (71)

305 (107) 1,868 (756) 

HCGS–New Freedom PSE&G 500 43 (69) 

South Corridor of New Freedom

Salem–New Freedom South PSE&G 500 42 (68) 350 (107) 1,782 (721) 

Corridor of Keeney

Salem-Red Lion PSE&G 500 17 (27) 

(a)200/350 

(61/107) 521 (211) 

Red-Lion Keeney PHI 500 8 (13) 

(a)200/350 

(61/107) 249 (101) 

Total Acreage within 

corridors 4,420 (1,789) 

(a) two–thirds of the corridor is 200 ft (61 m) wide

Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b

2.1.6 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 

The Delaware Estuary provides condenser cooling water and service water for both Salem and 

HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Salem and HCGS use different systems for condenser 

cooling, but both withdraw from and discharge water to the estuary. Salem Units 1 and 2 use 

once-through CWS. HCGS uses a closed-cycle system that employs a single natural draft 

cooling tower. Unless otherwise noted, the discussions below were adapted from the Salem 

and HCGS ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) or information gathered at the site audit. 

Both sites use groundwater as the source for fresh potable water, fire protection water, industrial 

process makeup water, and for other sanitary water supplies. Under authorization from the 

NJDEP (NJDEP, 2004) and Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) (DRBC, 2000), PSEG 

can service both facilities with up to 43.2 million gallons (164,000 cubic meters [m3

]) of 

groundwater per month. 

Discussions on surface water and groundwater use and quality are provided in Section 2.1.7. 
Affected Environment 

 2-22 

2.1.6.1 Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

The Salem facility includes two intake structures, one for the circulating water system (CWS), 

and the other for the service water system (SWS). The CWS are equipped with the following 

features to prevent intake of debris and biota into the pumps (PSEG, 2006c): 

• Ice Barriers. During the winter, removable ice barriers are installed in front of the intakes to 

prevent damage to the intake pumps from ice formed on the Delaware Estuary. These 

barriers consist of pressure-treated wood bars and underlying structural steel braces. The 

barriers are removed early in the spring and replaced in the late fall. 

• Trash Racks. After intake water passes through the ice barriers (if installed), it flows through 

fixed trash racks. These racks prevent large organisms and debris from entering the pumps. 

The racks are made from 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) steel bars placed on 3.5-inch (8.9 cm) centers, 

creating a 3-inch (7.6 cm) clearance between each bar. The racks are inspected by PSEG 

employees, who remove any debris caught on them with mechanical, mobile, clamshell-type 

rakes. These trash rakes include a hopper that stores and transports removed debris to a 

pit at the end of each intake, where it is dewatered by gravity and disposed of off-site. 

• Traveling Screens. After the coarse-grid trash racks, the intake water passes through finer 

vertical travelling screens. These are modified Ristroph screens designed to remove debris 

and biota small enough to have passed through the trash racks while minimizing death or 

injury. The travelling screens have a fine mesh with openings 0.25 inch x 0.5 inch (0.64 cm 

x 1.3 cm). The velocity through the Salem intake screens is approximately 1 foot per 

second (fps) (0.3 meters per second [m/s]) at mean low tide. 

• Fish Return System. Each panel of the travelling screen has a 10-ft (3 m) long fish bucket 

attached across the bottom support member. As the travelling screen reaches the top of 

each rotation, fish and other organisms caught in the fish bucket slide along a horizontal 

catch screen. As the travelling screen continues to rotate, the bucket is inverted. A lowpressure water spray washes fish off the screen, and they slide through a flap into a twoway fish trough. Debris is then washed off the screen by a high-pressure water spray into a 

separate debris trough, and the contents of both fish and debris troughs return to the 

estuary. The troughs are designed so that when the fish and debris are released, the tidal 

flow tends to carry them away from the intake, reducing the likelihood of re-impingement. 

Thus, the troughs empty on either the north or south side of the intake structure depending 

on the direction of tidal flow. 

The CWS withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary using 12 circulating water 

pumps through a 12-bay intake structure located on the shoreline at the south end of the site. 

Water is discharged north of the CWS intake structure via a pipe that extends 500 ft (152 m) 

from the shoreline. No biocides are required in the CWS. The initial design included a sodium 

hypochlorinate addition system. However, operational experience indicated that use of sodium 

hypochlorite was not needed, so it is no longer injected. 

PSEG has an NJPDES permit for Salem from the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection. The permit sets the maximum water usage from the Delaware Estuary to a 30-day 

average of 3,024 million gallons per day (MGD; 11.4 million m3

/day) of circulating water. The 
Affected Environment 

 2-23 

CWS provides approximately 1,050,000 gallons per minute (gpm; 4,000 m3

/min) to each of 

Salem’s two reactor units. 

The total design flow is 1,110,000 gpm (4,200 m3

/min) through each unit. The intake velocity is 

approximately 1 ft/s (0.3 m/s) at mean low tide, which is a rate that is compatible with the 

protection of aquatic wildlife (EPA 2001). The CWS provides water to the main condenser to 

condense steam from the turbine and the heated water is returned back to the estuary. 

The service water system (SWS) intake is located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the 

CWS intake. The SWS intake has four bays, each containing three pumps. The 12 servicewater pumps have a total design rating of 130,500 gpm (494 m3

/min). The average velocity 

throughout the SWS intake is less than 1 fps (0.3 m/s) at the design flow rate. The SWS intake 

structure is equipped with trash racks, traveling screens, and filters to remove debris and biota 

from the intake water stream. Backwash water is returned to the estuary. 

To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, 

sodium hypochlorite is injected into the system. SWS water is discharged via the discharge 

pipe shared with the CWS. Residual chlorine levels are maintained in accordance with the 

site’s NJPDES Permit. 

 Circulating water from Salem is discharged through six adjacent pipes that are 7 ft (2 m) in 

diameter and spaced 15 ft (4.6 m) apart on center that merge into three pipes 10 ft (3 m) in 

diameter (PSEG, 2006c). The discharge piping extends approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the 

shore (PSEG, 1999). The discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they 

discharge horizontally into the water of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 35 ft 

(9.5 m). The discharge is approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. The plan view 

of the Salem discharge structures is included as Figure 2-9. At full power, Salem is designed to 

discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s) 

(PSEG, 1999). 
Affected Environment 

 2-24 

Figure 2-9. Plan View of Salem Discharge Pipes (Source: PSEG, 1999). 

2.1.6.2 Hope Creek Generating Station 

HCGS uses a single intake structure to supply water from the Delaware Estuary to the SWS. 

The intake structure consists of four active bays that are equipped with pumps and associated 

equipment (trash racks, traveling screens, and a fish-return system) and four empty bays that 

were originally intended to service a second reactor which was never built. Water is drawn into 

the SWS through trash racks and passes through the traveling screens at a maximum velocity 

of 0.35 fps (0.11 m/s). The openings in the wire mesh of the screens are 0.375 inches (0.95 
Affected Environment 

 2-25 

cm) square. After passing through the traveling screens, the estuary water enters the service 

water pumps. Depending on the temperature of the Delaware Estuary water, two or three 

pumps are normally needed to supply service water. Each pump is rated at 16,500 gpm (62 

m3/min). To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the 

SWS, sodium hypochlorite is continuously injected into the system. 

The SWS also provides makeup water for the CWS by supplying water to the cooling tower 

basin. The cooling tower basin contains approximately 9 million gallons (34,000 m3

) of water 

and provides approximately 612,000 gpm (2,300 m3

/min) of water to the CWS via four pumps. 

The CWS provides water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine and the 

heated water is returned back to the Estuary (Figure 2-4). 

The cooling tower blowdown and other facility effluents are discharged to the estuary through an 

underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS SWS intake. The HCGS 

discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3.0 m) offshore and is situated at mean tide level. The discharge 

from HCGS is regulated under the terms of NJPDESPermit No. NJ0025411 (NJDEP, 2001b). 

The HCGS cooling tower is a 512-foot (156-meter) high single counterflow, hyperbolic, natural 

draft cooling tower (PSEG, 2008b). While the CWS is a closed-cycle system, water is lost due 

to evaporation. Monthly losses average from 9,600 gpm (36 m3

/min) in January to 13,000 gpm 

(49 m3

/min) in July. Makeup water is provided by the SWS. 

2.1.7 Facility Water Use and Quality 

The Salem and HCGS facilities rely on the Delaware Estuary as their source of makeup water 

for its cooling water system, and they discharge various waste flows to the Estuary. An onsite 

well system provides groundwater for other site needs. A description of groundwater resources 

at the facility location is provided in Section 2.2.8, and a description of the surface water 

resources is presented in Section 2.2.9. The following sections describe the water use from 

these resources. 

2.1.7.1 Groundwater Use 

The Salem and HCGS facilities access groundwater through production wells to supply fresh 

water for potable, industrial process makeup, fire protection, and sanitary purposes 

(PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Facility groundwater withdrawal is authorized by the NJDEP 

and the DRBC. The total authorized withdrawal volume is 43.2 million gallons (164,000 m3) per 

month for both the Salem and HCGS sites combined (NJDEP, 2004; DRBC, 2000). Although 

each facility has its own wells and individual pumping limits, the systems are interconnected so 

that water can be transferred between the facilities, if necessary (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

The NJDEP permit is a single permit which establishes a combined permitted limit for both 

facilities of 43.2 million gallons (164,000 m3

) per month (NJDEP, 2004). 

The groundwater for Salem is produced primarily from two wells, PW-5 and PW-6. PW-5 is 

installed at a depth of 840 ft (256 m) below ground surface (bgs) in the Upper Raritan 

Formation, and PW-6 is installed at a depth of 1,140 ft (347 m) in the Middle Raritan Formation. 

PW-5 has a capacity of 800 gpm (3 m3

/min), and PW-6 has a capacity of 600 gpm (2.3 m3/min) 

(DRBC, 2000). The average water withdrawal from these two wells between 2002 and 2008 

was 114 million gallons (432,000 m3

) per year (TetraTech, 2009). These wells are used to 
Affected Environment 

 2-26 

maintain water volume within two 350,000 gallon (1,300 m3

) storage tanks, of which 600,000 

gallons (2,300 m3

) is reserved for fire protection (PSEG, 2009a). In addition to these two 

primary wells, two additional wells, PW-2 and PW-3, exist at Salem. These wells are installed 

within the Mount Laurel-Wenonah aquifer at depths of about 290 ft (88 m) bgs (DRBC, 2000). 

These wells are classified as standby wells by NJDEP (NJDEP, 2004), and had only minor 

usage during the period from 2002 to 2008 (TetraTech, 2009). 

The groundwater for HCGS is produced from two production wells, HC-1 and HC-2, which are 

installed at depths of 816 ft (249 m) bgs in the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

(DRBC, 2000). Each well has a pumping capacity of 750 gpm (2.8 m3

/min), and the average 

water withdrawal from the two wells between 2002 and 2008 was 84million gallons (320,000 m3

) 

per year (TetraTech, 2009). The wells are used to maintain water supply within two 350,000 

gallon (1,300 m3

) storage tanks. The bulk of the water in the storage tanks (656,000 gallons 

[2,500 m3

]) is reserved for fire protection, and the remainder is used for potable, sanitary, and 

industrial uses (PSEG, 2009b). 

Overall, the combined water usage for the two facilities has averaged 199 million gallons 

(752,000 m3

) per year, or 16.6 million gallons (63,000 m3) per month (TetraTech, 2009). This 

usage is approximately 41 percent of the withdrawal permitted under the DRBC authorization 

and NJDEP permit (DRBC, 2000; NJDEP, 2004). 

2.1.7.2 Surface Water Use 

Salem and HCGS are located on the eastern shore of the DelawareEstuary, approximately 18 

mi (29 km) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The Delaware Estuary at the facility 

location is an estuary approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide. The Delaware River is the source of 

condenser cooling water and service water for both the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 

2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

The Salem units are both once-through circulating water systems that withdraw brackish water 

from the Delaware Esuary through a single CWS intake located at the shoreline on the 

southern end of Artificial Island. The CWS intake structure consists of 12 bays, each outfitted 

with removable ice barriers, trash racks, traveling screens, circulating water pumps, and a fish 

return system. The pump capacity of the Salem CWS is 1,110,000 gpm (4,200 m3

/min) for each 

unit, or a total of 2,220,000 gpm (8,400 m3

/min) for both units combined. Although the initial 

design included use of sodium hypochlorite biocides, these were eliminated once enough 

operational experience was gained to indicate that they were not needed. Therefore, the CWS 

water is used without treatment (PSEG, 2009a). 

In addition to the CWS intake, the Salem units withdraw water from the Delaware River for the 

SWS, which provides cooling for auxiliary and reactor safeguard systems. The Salem SWS is 

supplied through a single intake structure located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the 

CWS intake. The Salem SWS intake is also fitted with trash racks, traveling screens, and filters 

to remove debris and biota from the intake water stream. The pump capacity of the Salem SWS 

is 65,250 gpm (247 m3/min) for each unit, or a total of 130,500 gpm (494 m3/min) for both units 

combined (PSEG, 2009a). 

The withdrawal of Delaware River water for the Salem CWS and SWS systems is regulated 

under the terms of Salem NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622 and is also authorized by the DRBC. 
Affected Environment 

 2-27 

The NJPDES permit limits the total withdrawal of Delaware Estuary water to 3,024 MGD (11.4 

million m3/day), for a monthly maximum of 90,720 million gallons (342 million m3) (NJDEP, 

2001a). The DRBC authorization allows withdrawals not to exceed 97,000 million gallons (367 

million m3/day) in a single 30-day period (DRBC, 1977; DRBC, 2001). The withdrawal volumes 

are reported to NJDEP through monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), and copies of the 

DMRs are submitted to DRBC. Water usage reports also submitted to the DRBC (DRBC, 2001). 

Both the CWS and SWS at Salem discharge water back to the Delaware River through a single 

return that serves both systems. The discharge location is situated between the CWS and 

Salem SWS intakes, and consists of six separate discharge pipes; each extending 500 ft 

(152 m) into the river and discharging water at a depth of 35 ft (11 m) below mean tide. The 

pipes rest on the river bottom with a concrete apron at the end to control erosion and discharge 

water at a velocity of 10.5 fps (3.2 m/s) (PSEG, 2006c). The discharge from Salem is regulated 

under the terms of NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622 (NJDEP, 2001a). The locations of the 

intakes and discharge for the Salem facility are shown in Figure 2-3. 

The HCGS facility uses a closed-cycle circulating water system, with a natural draft cooling 

tower, for condenser cooling. Like Salem, HCGS withdraws water from the Delaware Estuary 

to supply the SWS, which cools auxiliary and other heat exchange systems. The outflow from 

the HCGS SWS is directed to the cooling tower basin, and serves as makeup water to replace 

water lost through evaporation and blowdown from the cooling tower. The HCGS SWS intake is 

located on the shore of the river and consists of four separate bays with service water pumps, 

trash racks, traveling screens, and fish-return systems. The structure includes an additional 

four bays that were originally intended to serve a second HCGS unit, which was never 

constructed. The pump capacity of the HCGS SWS is 16,500 gpm (62 m3

/min) for each pump, 

or a total of 66,000 gpm (250 m3

/min) when all four pumps are operating. Under normal 

conditions, only two or three of the pumps are typically operated. The HCGS SWS water is 

treated with sodium hypochlorite to prevent biofouling (PSEG, 2009b). 

The discharge from the HCGS SWS is directed to the cooling tower basin, where it acts as 

makeup water for the HCGS CWS. The natural draft cooling tower has a total capacity of 9 

million gallons (34,000 m3

) of water, and circulates water through the CWS at a rate of 612,000 

gpm (2,300 m3

/min). Water is removed from the HCGS CWS through both evaporative loss 

from the cooling tower and from blowdown to control deposition of solids within the system. 

Evaporative losses result in consumptive loss of water from the Delaware River. The volume of 

evaporative losses vary throughout the year depending on the climate, but range from 

approximately 9,600 gpm (36 m3

/min) in January to 13,000 gpm (49 m3/min) in July. Blowdown 

water is returned to the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 2002b). 

The withdrawal of Delaware Estuary water for the HCGS CWS and SWS systems is regulated 

under the terms of HCGS NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 and is also authorized by the DRBC. 

Although it requires measurement and reporting, the NJPDES permit does not specify limits on 

the total withdrawal volume of Delaware River water for HCGS operations (NJDEP, 2003). 

Actual withdrawals average 66.8 MGD (253,000 m3

/day), of which 6.7 MGD (25,000 m3/day) are 

returned as screen backwash, and 13 MGD (49,000 m3

/day) is evaporated. The remainder 

(approximately 46 MGD [174,000 m3

/day]) is discharged back to the river (PSEG, 2009b). 

The HCGS DRBC contract allows withdrawals up to 16.998 billion gallons (64 million m3

) per 

year, including up to 4.086 billion gallons (15 million m3

) of consumptive use (DRBC, 1984a; 
Affected Environment 

 2-28 

1984b). To compensate for evaporative losses in the system, the DRBC authorization requires 

releases from storage reservoirs, or reductions in withdrawal, during periods of low-flow 

conditions at Trenton, NJ (DRBC, 2001). To accomplish this, PSEG is one of several utilities 

which owns and operates the Merrill Creek reservoir in Washington, NJ. Merrill Creek reservoir 

is used to release water during low-flow conditions, as required by the DRBC authorization 

(PSEG, 2009b). 

The SWS and cooling tower blowdown water from HCGS is discharged back to the Delaware 

River through an underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS SWS 

intake. The HCGS discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3 m) offshore, and is situated at mean tide 

level. The discharge from HCGS is regulated under the terms of NJPDES Permit No. 

NJ0025411 (NJDEP, 2001a). The locations of the intake and discharge for the HCGS facility 

are shown in Figure 2-4. 

2.2 Affected Environment 

This section provides general descriptions of the environment near Salem and HCGS as 

background information and to support the analysis of potential environmental impacts in 

Chapter 4. 

2.2.1 Land Use 

Salem and HCGS are located at the southern end of Artificial Island located on the east bank of 

the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The river 

is approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide at this location. Artificial Island is a man-made island 

approximately 1500-ac (600 ha) in size consisting of tidal marsh and grassland. The island was 

created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), beginning early in the twentieth 

century, by the deposition of hydraulic dredge spoil material atop a natural sand bar that 

projected into the river. The average elevation of the island is about 9 ft (3 m) above MSL with 

a maximum elevation of approximately 18 ft (5.5 m) MSL (AEC, 1973). The site is located 

approximately 17 mi (27 km) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 35 mi (56 km) southwest 

of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 8 mi (13 km) southwest of the City of Salem, NJ. 

PSEG owns approximately 740 ac (300 ha) at the southern end of the island, with Salem 

located on approximately 220 ac (89 ha) and HCGS occupying about 153 ac (62 ha). The 

remainder of Artificial Island, north of the PSEG property, is owned by the the U.S. Government 

and the State of New Jersey; this portion of the island remains undeveloped. The land adjacent 

to the eastern boundary of Artificial Island consists of tidal marshlands of the former natural 

shoreline. The U.S. Government owns the land adjacent to the PSEG property and the State of 

New Jersey owns the land adjacent to the U.S. Government-owned portion of the island. The 

northernmost tip of Artificial Island (owned by the U. S. Government) is within the State of 

Delaware boundary, which was established based on historical land grants (LACT, 1988a; 

1988b; PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-29 

The area within 15 mi (24 km) of the site is primarily utilized for agriculture. The area also 

includes numerous parks and wildlife refuges and preserves such as Mad Horse Creek Fish and 

Wildlife Management Area to the east; Cedar Swamp State Wildlife Management Area to the 

south in Delaware; Appoquinimink, Silver Run, and Augustine State Wildlife Management areas 

to the west in Delaware; and Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge to the north. The 

Delaware Bay and estuary is recognized as wetlands of international importance and an 

international shorebird reserve (NJSA, 2008). The nearest permanent residences are located 

3.4 mi (5.5 km) south-southwest and west-northwest of Salem and HCGS across the river in 

Delaware. The nearest permanent residence in New Jersey is located 3.6 mi (5.8 km) eastnortheast of the facilities (PSEG, 2009c). The closest densely populated center (with 25,000 

residents or more) is Wilmington, Delaware, located 15 mi (24 km) north of Salem and HCGS. 

There is no heavy industry in the area surrounding Salem and HCGS; the nearest such 

industrial area is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northwest of the site near Delaware City, 

Delaware (PSEG, 2009d). 

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456 (c)(3)(A)) requires 

that applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone provide to the 

licensing agency a certification that the proposed activity is consistent with the enforceable 

policies of the State’s coastal zone program. A copy of the certification is also to be provided to 

the State. Within six months of receipt of the certification, the State is to notify the Federal 

agency whether the State concurs with or objects to the applicant’s certification. Salem and 

HCGS are within New Jersey’s coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

PSEG’s certifications that renewal of the Salem and HCGS licenses would be consistent with 

the New Jersey Coastal Management Program were submitted to the NJDEP Land Use 

Regulation Program concurrent with submittal of the license renewal applications for the two 

facilities. Salem and HCGS are not within Delaware’s coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). Correspondence related to the certification is in 

Appendix D of this SEIS. By letters dated October 8, 2009, the NJDEP Division of Land Use 

Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Regulation concurred with the applicant’s consistency of 

certification for Salem and HCGS. 

2.2.2 Air Quality and Meteorology 

2.2.2.1 Meteorology 

The climate in New Jersey is generally a function of topography and distance from the Atlantic 

Ocean, resulting in five distinct climatic regions within the State. Salem County is located in the 

Southwest Zone, which is characterized by low elevation near sea level and close proximity to 

the Delaware Bay. These features result in the Southwest Zone generally having higher 

temperatures and receiving less precipitation than the northern and coastal areas of the State. 

Wind direction is predominantly from the southwest, except in winter when winds are primarily 

from the west and northwest (NOAA, 2008). 

The only NOAA weather station in Salem County with recent data is the Woodstown Pittsgrove 

Station, located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northeast of the Salem and NCGS facilities 

(NOAA, 2010a). A summary of the data collected from this station from 1971 to 2001 indicates 

that winter temperatures average 35.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1.8 degrees Celsius [°C]) and 
Affected Environment 

 2-30 

summer temperatures average 74.8 °F (23.8 °C). Average annual precipitation in the form of 

rain and snow is 45.76 inches (116 cm), with the most rain falling in July and August and the 

most snow falling in January (NOAA, 2004). 

Queries of the National Climate Data Center database for Salem County for the period January 

1, 1950 to November 30, 2009 identified the following information related to severe weather 

events: 

● 33 flood events with the majority (24) being coastal or tidal floods 

● numerous heavy precipitation and prolonged rain events which also resulted in 

several incidences of localized flooding, but which are not included in the flood 

event number 

● five funnel cloud sightings and two tornados ranging in intensity from F1 to F2 

● 148 thunderstorm and high wind events 

● 14 incidences of hail greater than 0.75 inches (1.9 cm) (NOAA, 2010b) 

In 2001, unusually dry conditions were related to two wildfires that burned a total of 54 ac 

(22 ha). In 2009, a series of brush fires destroyed approximately 15 ac (6.1 ha) of farmland and 

wooded area in Salem County (NOAA, 2010c). 

Climate data are available for the Woodstown Pittsgrove Station from 1901 through 2004, at 

which time monitoring at this location was ended (NOAA, 2010a). The closest facility which 

currently monitors climate data, and has an extensive historic record, is the station located at 

the Wilmington New Castle County Airport, located on the opposite side of the Delaware River, 

approximately 9 mi (14 km) northwest of the facilities (NOAA, 2010d). 

2.2.2.2 Air Quality 

Salem County is included in the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region 

(AQCR), which encompasses the area geographically located in five counties of New Jersey, 

including Salem and Gloucester counties; New Castle County, DE; and five counties of 

Pennsylvania (40 CFR 81.15). Air quality is regulated by the NJDEP through their Bureau of Air 

Quality Planning, Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring, and Bureau of Air Quality Permitting 

(NJDEP, 2009a). The Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring operates a network of monitoring 

stations for the collection and analysis of air samples for several parameters, including carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), 

and meteorological characteristics. The closest air quality monitoring station to the Salem and 

HCGS facilities is in Millville, located approximately 23 mi (37 km) to the southeast 

(NJDEP, 2009a). 

In order to enforce air quality standards, the EPA has developed National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) under the Federal Clean Air Act. The requirements examine the six criteria 

pollutants, including particle pollution (PM), ground-level ozone, CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and lead; permissible limits are established based on human health 

and/or environmental protection. When an area has air quality equal to or better than the 

NAAQS, they are designated as an “attainment area” as defined by the EPA; however, areas 

that do not meet the NAAQS standards are considered “nonattainment areas” and are required 

to develop an air quality maintenance plan (NJDEP, 2010a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-31 

Salem County is designated as in attainment/unclassified with respect to the NAAQSs for 

particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), SOx, NOx, CO, and lead. The 

county, along with all of southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area with respect to the 

1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, 

Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment 

area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware-Maryland) non-attainment area. Of the adjacent 

counties, Gloucester County, NJ is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

standards, as well as the annual and daily PM2.5 standard (NJDEP, 2010a). New Castle 

County, DE is considered to be in moderate non-attainment for the ozone standards and 

non-attainment for PM2.5 (40 CFR 81.315). 

Sections 101(b)(1), 110, 169(a)(2), and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7410, 7491(a)(2), 7601(a)), established 156 mandatory Class I Federal areas where 

visibility is an important value that cannot be compromised. There is one mandatory Class I 

Federal area in the State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

(40 CFR 81.420), located approximately 58 mi (93 km) southeast of the Salem and HCGS 

facilities. There are no Class I Federal areas in Delaware, and no other areas located within 

100 mi (160 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400). 

PSEG has a single Air Pollution Control Operating Permit (Title V Operating Permit), 

No. BOP080001, from the NJDEP to regulate air emissions from all sources at Salem and 

HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). This permit was last issued on February 2, 2005, and expired 

on February 1, 2010. PSES was required to submit an application for renewal no later than 

February 2009. An application for a new Title V permit was submitted in October 2008 and the 

EPA review was scheduled to begin on May 20, 2010 (EPA, 2010a). The expired permit 

remains in effect until the new permit is approved and issued. The facilities qualify as a major 

source1 under the Title V permit program and, therefore, are operated under a Title V permit 

(NJDEP, 2009b). The air emissions sources regulated by permit and located at Salem, include: 

● a boiler for heating purposes 

● Salem Unit 3, a 40 MW fuel-oil fired peaking unit used intermittently 

● six emergency generators, tested monthly 

● a boiler at the circulating water house, used for heating only in winter 

● miscellaneous volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from fuel tanks 

 

1 Under the Title V Operating Permit program, the EPA defines a major source as a stationary source with the 

potential to emit (PTE) any criteria pollutant at a rate greater than 100 tons/year (91 metric tons [MT]/year), or any 

single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) at a rate of greater than 10 tons/year (9.1 MT/year)or a combination of HAPs at 

a rate greater than 25 tons/year (23 MT/year). 
Affected Environment 

 2-32 

The air emissions sources located at HCGS, which are regulated under the permit, include: 

● the cooling tower 

● a boiler for house heating and use for startup steam for the BWR 

● four emergency generators, tested monthly 

● miscellaneous VOC emissions from fuel tanks 

● a small boiler used to heat the service water house 

Meteorological conditions at the facilities are monitored at a primary and a backup 

meteorological tower located at the entrance of the facilities, on the southeast side of the 

property. The primary tower is a 300-ft (91-m) high tower supported by guy wires, and the 

backup tower is a 33-ft (10-m) high telephone pole located approximately 500 ft (152 m) south 

of the primary tower. Measurements collected at the primary tower include temperature, wind 

speed, and wind direction at elevations of 300, 150, and 33 ft (91, 46, and 10 m) above ground 

level; dew point measured at the 33-ft (10-m) level; and rainfall, barometric pressure, and solar 

radiation measured at less than 10 ft (3 m) above the ground surface. Measurements collected 

at the backup tower include wind speed and wind direction (PSEG, 2006b). 

2.2.3 Groundwater Resources 

2.2.3.1 Description 

Groundwater at the Salem and HCGS facilities is present in Coastal Plain sediments, an 

assemblage of sand, silt, and clay formations that comprise a series of aquifers beneath the 

facilities. Four primary aquifers underlie the facility location. The shallowest of these is the 

shallow water-bearing zone, which is contained within the dredge spoil and engineered fill 

sediments of Artificial Island. Groundwater is found within this zone at a depth of 10 to 40 ft (3 

to 12 m) below ground surface (bgs) (PSEG, 2007a). The groundwater in the shallow zone is 

recharged through direct infiltration of precipitation on Artificial Island and is brackish. 

Groundwater in the shallow zone flows toward the southwest, toward the Delaware River 

(PSEG, 2009b). 

Beneath the shallow water-bearing zone, the Vincentown Aquifer is found at a depth of 55 to 

135 ft (17 to 41 m) bgs. The aquifer is confined and semi-confined beneath Miocene clays of 

the Kirkwood Formation. Groundwater within the Vincentown Aquifer flows toward the south. 

Water within the Vincentown Aquifer is potable and accessed through domestic wells in eastern 

Salem County, upgradient of the facility. In western Salem County, including near the facility, 

saltwater intrusion from the Delaware River has occurred, resulting in brackish, non-potable 

groundwater within this aquifer (PSEG, 2007a). 

The Vincentown Aquifer is underlain by the Hornerstown and Navesink confining units, which in 

turn overlie the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. The Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer exists at a 

depth of 170 to 270 ft (52 to 82 m) bgs and is recharged through leakage from the overlying 

aquifers (Rosenau et al., 1969). 

Beneath the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer is a series of clay and fine sand confining units and 

poor quality aquifers, including the Marshalltown Formation, Englishtown Formation, Woodbury 

Clay, and Merchantville Formation. These units overlie the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) 
Affected Environment 

 2-33 

Aquifer, which is found at a depth of 450 ft (137 m), with freshwater encountered to a depth of 

900 ft (274 m) bgs at the facility location (PSEG, 2007a). The PRM Aquifer is a large aquifer of 

regional importance for municipal and domestic water supply. In order to protect groundwater 

resources within this aquifer, the State of New Jersey has established Critical Water-Supply 

Management Area 2, in which groundwater withdrawals are limited and managed through 

allocations (USGS, 2007). Critical Water-Supply Management Area 2 includes Ocean, 

Burlington, Camden, Atlantic, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties, as well as the eastern 

portion of Salem County. The area does not include the western portion of Salem County 

where the facility is located, so groundwater withdrawals at the facility location are not subject to 

withdrawal restrictions associated with this management area. 

2.2.3.2 Affected Users 

The use of groundwater by the facility is discussed in Section 2.1.7.1. Groundwater is the 

source of more than 75 percent of the freshwater supply within the Coastal Plain region, and 

wells used for public supply commonly yield 500 to more than 1,000 gpm (1.9 to 3.8 m3

/min) 

(EPA, 1988). The water may have localized concentrations of iron in excess of 460 miligrams 

per liter (mg/L) and may be contaminated locally by saltwater intrusion and waste disposal; 

however, water quality is considered satisfactory overall (NJWSC, 2009). 

Groundwater is not accessed for public or domestic water supply within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the 

Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). However, groundwater is the 

primary source of municipal water supply within Salem and the surrounding counties. There are 

18 public water supply systems in Salem County. New Jersey American Water (NJAW) is the 

largest of these, providing groundwater from the PRM Aquifer to more than 14,000 customers in 

Pennsgrove, located approximately 18 mi (29 km) north of the Salem and HCGS facilities (EPA, 

2010e; NJAW, 2010). The other two major suppliers are Pennsville Township and the City of 

Salem (EPA, 2010e). The City of Salem is the closest public water supply system in Salem 

County to the facilities, but provides water from surface water sources (EPA, 2010e). The 

Pennsville Township water system is located approximately 15 mi (24 km) north of the Salem 

and HCGS facilities and supplies water to approximately 13,500 residents from the PRM Aquifer 

(EPA, 2010e; NJDEP, 2007). 

There are 27 water systems in New Castle County, Delaware. Municipal and investor-owned 

utilities provide drinking water to the county. The majority of the potable water supply is 

provided from surface water sources (EPA, 2010e). The nearest offsite use of groundwater for 

potable water supply is located approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) west of the site, in New Castle 

County, Delaware (Arcadis, 2006). This water supply consists of two wells installed within the 

Mt. Laurel aquifer, serving 132 residents (DNREC, 2003). 

2.2.3.3 Available Volume 

Groundwater within the PRM Aquifer is an important resource for water supply in a region 

extending from Mercer and Middlesex counties in New Jersey to the north, and toward Maryland 

to the southwest. Groundwater withdrawal from the early part of the 20th century through the 

1970s resulted in the development of large-scale cones of depression in the elevation of the 

piezometric surface and, therefore, the available water quantity within the aquifer (Walker, 
Affected Environment 

 2-34 

1983). Large scale withdrawals of water from the aquifer are known to influence water 

availability at significant lateral distances from pumping centers (Walker, 1983). In reaction to 

these observations, water management measures, including limitations on pumping, were 

instituted by the NJDEP (although not including the Salem and HCGS facility area). As of 2003, 

NJDEP-mandated decreases in water withdrawals had resulted in general recovery of water 

level elevations in both the Upper and Middle PRM aquifers in the Salem County area (DePaul 

et al., 2009). Future restrictions on water use would be regulated by NJDEP. 

2.2.3.4 Existing Quality 

Annual REMP reports document regular sampling of groundwater as required by the NRC. In 

support of this SEIS, the annual REMP reports for 2006, 2007, and 2008 were reviewed 

(PSEG, 2007b; 2008a; 2009c). The program includes the collection and analysis of 

groundwater at one or two locations that may be affected by station operations. Although the 

facility has determined that there are no groundwater wells in locations that could be affected by 

station operations, they routinely collect a sample from one location, well 3E1 at a nearby farm, 

as a management audit sample. These samples, collected on a monthly basis, are analyzed for 

gamma emitters, gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium. In 2006 through 2008, no results were 

identified which would suggest potential impacts from facility operations. 

In 2003, a release of tritium to groundwater from the Salem Unit 1 SFP was identified. The 

release was caused from the blockage of drains by mineral deposits. Response measures, 

including removal of the mineral deposits and installation of additional drains, were taken and 

the release was stopped (Arcadis, 2006). 

A site investigation was initiated in 2003, and included the installation and sampling of 29 

monitoring wells in the shallow and Vincentown aquifers (PSEG, 2004a). The tritium was 

released into groundwater inside of the cofferdam area that surrounds the Salem containment 

unit. Groundwater within the cofferdam area is able to flow outside of the cofferdam through a 

low spot in the top surface, which allowed the tritium plume to enter the flow system outside of 

the cofferdam. From that location, the plume followed a preferential flow path along the high 

permeability sand and gravel bed beneath the circulating water discharge pipe and, thus, toward 

the Delaware River. Tritium was detected in shallow groundwater at concentrations up to 

15,000,000 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L). The extent of the impact was limited to within the PSEG 

property boundaries and no tritium was detected in the Vincentown aquifer, indicating that the 

release was limited to the shallow water-bearing aquifer (PSEG, 2009d). The release did not 

include any radionuclides other than tritium. 

In 2004, PSEG developed a remedial action workplan, and a GRS was approved by NJDEP 

and became operational by September 2005. The GRS operates by withdrawing 

tritium-impacted groundwater from six pumping wells within the plume, and a mobile pumping 

unit that can be moved between other wells as needed to maximize withdrawal efficiency. The 

pumping system reverses the groundwater flow gradient and stops the migration of the plume 

toward the property boundaries. The tritium-impacted water removed from the groundwater is 

processed in the facility’s NRLWDS. As part of this system, the groundwater is collected in 

tanks, sampled, and analyzed to identify the quantity of radioactivity and the isotopic 

breakdown. Upon verification that the groundwater meets NRC discharge requirements, it is 

released under controlled conditions to the Delaware River through the circulating water system 
Affected Environment 

 2-35 

(PSEG, 2009a). Operation of the groundwater extraction system is monitored by a network of 

36 monitoring wells (PSEG, 2009e). This monitoring indicates that maximum tritium 

concentrations have dropped substantially, from a maximum of 15,000,000 pCi/L to below 

100,000 pCi/L. Some concentrations still exceed the New Jersey Ground Water Quality 

Criterion for tritium of 20,000 pCi/L (PSEG, 2009e). However, groundwater that exceeds this 

criterion does not extend past the property boundaries (PSEG, 2009a). 

To verify the status of the groundwater remediation program, NRC interviewed NJDEP staff 

during the site audit in March 2010. The NJDEP staff confirmed that both NJDEP and the New 

Jersey Geological Survey (NJGS) had been substantially involved in assisting PSEG in 

developing a response to the tritium release, and that NJDEP conducts ongoing confirmation 

sampling. Both NJDEP and NJGS review PSEG’s Quarterly Remedial Action Progress 

Reports, including confirmation of the analytical results and verification of plume configurations 

based on those results. NJDEP staff confirmed that the GRS is operating in a satisfactory 

manner. 

In response to an industry-wide initiative sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 

PSEG implemented a facility-wide radiological groundwater protection program (RGPP) at the 

Salem and HCGS facilities in 2006. The program, which is separate from the monitoring 

associated with the GRS, included the identification of station systems that could be sources of 

radionuclide releases, installation of monitoring wells near and downgradient of those systems 

and installation of wells upgradient and downgradient of the facility perimeter. The monitoring 

program consists of 13 monitoring wells at Salem (5 pre-existing and 8 new) and 13 wells at 

HCGS (all new). The results of the program are reported in the facility’s annual Radiological 

Environmental Operating Reports. The wells are sampled on a semiannual basis and have 

detected no plant-related gamma-emitters. In the 2008 annual program, tritium was detected in 

5 of the 13 wells at Salem, and 6 of the 13 wells at HCGS. All sample results were lower than 

1,000 pCi/L, which is less than the 20,000 pCi/L EPA drinking water standard and New Jersey 

Ground Water Quality Criterion (PSEG, 2009c). These levels of detection are not high enough 

to trigger voluntary reporting that would be made under the guidelines of the NEI guidance 

(PSEG, 2009a). 

During the site audit, PSEG provided information indicating that elevated tritium concentrations 

had been detected in six RGPP wells at the HCGS facility in November 2009. This included 

detection of tritium at concentrations up to 1,200 pCi/L in four wells, and at approximately 

3,500 pCi/L in two wells (wells BH and BJ). The wells were all re-sampled in December 2009, 

and the tritium concentrations had dropped to levels of approximately 500 to 800 pCi/L, which 

still exceeded their levels prior to November 2009. The wells involved are located at the HCGS 

facility and are not related to the tritium plume being managed at Salem. PSEG has instituted a 

well inspection and assessment program to identify the source of the tritium, which is thought to 

be from either analytical error or rain-out of gaseous emissions in precipitation. Based on the 

locations of the wells and identification of cracked caps on some wells, it is possible that 

collection of rainwater run-off entered the wells, causing the increased concentrations. In 

response, PSEG has replaced all well caps with screw caps and is working with NJDEP and the 

staff to implement a well inspection program. 

During the site audit, PSEG also provided information on a small-scale diesel pump and treat 

remediation system being operated near Salem Unit 1 to address a leak of diesel fuel at that 
Affected Environment 

 2-36 

location. NJDEP is also involved in the operation of that system, and NJDEP staff confirmed 

that the remediation system is operating in a satisfactory manner. 

2.2.4 Surface Water Resources 

2.2.4.1 Description 

The Salem and HCGS facilities are located on Artificial Island, a man-made island constructed 

on the New Jersey (eastern) shore of the Delaware River (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). All surface 

water in Salem County drains to the Delaware River and Bay. Some streams flow directly to the 

river, while others join subwatersheds before reaching their destination. The tides of the Atlantic 

Ocean influence the entire length of the Delaware River in Salem County. Tidal marshes are 

located along the lower stretches of the Delaware River and are heavily influenced by the tides, 

flooding twice daily. Wetland areas, such as Mannington and Supawna Meadows, make up 

roughly 30 percent of the county. The southwestern portion of Salem County is predominately 

marshland, and to the north, tidal marshes are found in the western sections of the county at the 

mouths of river systems, including the Salem River and Oldmans Creek (Salem County, 2008). 

The Division of Land Use Regulation (LUR) is managed by the NJDEP and seeks to preserve 

quality of life issues that affect water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection, open space, and 

the tourism industry. Coastal waters and adjacent land are protected by several laws, including 

the Waterfront Development Law (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3), the Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A), 

New Jersey Coastal Permit Program Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7), Coastal Zone Management Rules 

(N.J.A.C. 7:7E), and the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19), which regulates 

almost all coastal development and includes the Kilcohook National Wildlife Refuge that is 

located in Salem County (NJDEP, 2010b). 

The facilities are located at River Mile (RM) 51 on the Delaware River. At this location, the river 

is approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide. The facilities are located on the Lower Region portion of 

the river, which is designated by the DRBC as the area of the river subject to tidal influence, and 

between the Delaware Bay and Trenton, NJ (DRBC, 2008a). The Lower Region and the 

Delaware Bay together form the Estuary Region of the river, which is included as the 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary within the EPA’s National Estuary Program (EPA, 2010d). 

Water use from the river at the facility location is regulated by both the DRBC and the State of 

New Jersey. The DRBC was established in 1961, through the Delaware River Basin Compact, 

as a joint Federal and State body to regulate and manage water resources within the basin. 

The DRBC acts to manage and regulate water resources in the basin by: (1) allocating and 

regulating water withdrawals and discharges; (2) resolving interstate, water-related disputes; 

(3) establishing water quality standards; (4) managing flow; and (5) watershed planning 

(DRBC, 1961). 

As facilities that use water resources in the basin, Salem and HCGS water withdrawals are 

conducted under contract to the DRBC. The Salem facility uses surface water under a DRBC 

contract originally signed in 1977 (DRBC, 1977), and the DRBC Docket most recently and 

approved for a 25-year term in 2001 (DRBC, 2001). Surface water withdrawals by the HCGS 

facility were originally approved for two units in 1975, and then revised for a single unit in 1985 

following PSEG’s decision to build only one unit (DRBC, 1984a). The withdrawal rates are also 
Affected Environment 

 2-37 

regulated by NJDEP, under NJPDES Permit Nos. NJ0025411 (for HCGS) and NJ0005622 (for 

Salem). 

2.2.4.2 Affected Users 

The Delaware River Basin is densely populated, and surface water resources within the river 

are used for a variety of purposes. Freshwater from the non-tidal portion of the river is used to 

supply municipal water throughout New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, including the 

large metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and New York City. Approximately 75 percent of the 

length of the non-tidal Delaware River is designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. The river is economically important for commercial shipping, as it includes port 

facilities for petrochemical operations, military supplies, and raw materials and consumer 

products (DRBC, 2010). 

In the tidal portion of the river, water is accessed for use in industrial operations, including 

power plant cooling systems. A summary of DRBC-approved water users on the tidal portion of 

the river from 2005 lists 22 industrial facilities and 14 power plants in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

and Delaware (DRBC, 2005). Of these facilities, Salem is by far the highest volume water user 

in the basin, with a reported water withdrawal volume of 1,067,892 million gallons (4.042 billion 

m3

) in 2005 (DRBC, 2005). This volume exceeds the combined total withdrawal for all other 

industrial, power, and public water supply purposes in the tidal portion of the river. The 

withdrawal volume for HCGS in 2005 was much lower, at 19,561 million gallons (74 million m3

). 

2.2.4.3 Water Quality Regulation 

To regulate water quality in the basin, the DRBC has established water quality standards, 

referred to as Stream Quality Objectives, to protect human health and aquatic life objectives. 

To account for differing environmental setting and water uses along the length of the river basin, 

the DRBC has established Water Quality Management (WQM) Zones, and has established 

separate Stream Quality Objectives for each zone. The Salem and HCGS facilities are located 

within Zone 5, which extends from RM 48.2 to RM 78.8. 

The NJPDES regulations at N.J.C.A 7:14A-1 et seq. and the DRBC Stream Quality Objectives 

are used by the NJDEP to establish effluent discharge limits for discharges within the basin. 

The EPA granted the State of New Jersey the authority to issue NPDES permits, and such a 

permit implies water quality certification under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401. 

The water quality and temperature of the discharges for both the Salem and HCGS discharges 

are regulated by NJDEP under NJPDES Permit Nos. NJ0025411 (for HCGS) and NJ0005622 

(for Salem). In addition, industrial facilities in New Jersey are required, under the New Jersey 

Administrative Code (NJAC) Title 7:1E – 5.3, to provide notification to NJDEP whenever any 

hazardous substance, as defined in NJAC 7:1E Appendix A is released.
Affected Environment 

 2-38 

2.2.4.4 Salem Nuclear Generating Station NJPDES Requirements 

The current NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622 for the Salem facility was issued with an effective 

date of August 1, 2001, and an expiration date of July 31, 2006 (NJDEP, 2001a). The permit 

requires that a renewal application be prepared at least 180 days in advance of the expiration 

date. Correspondence provided with the applicant’s ER indicates that a renewal application 

was filed on January 31, 2006. During the site audit, NJDEP staff confirmed that the application 

was still undergoing review. 

The Salem NJPDES permit regulates water withdrawals and discharges associated with nonradiological industrial wastewater, including intake and discharge of once-through cooling water. 

The once-through cooling water, service water, non-radiological liquid waste, radiological liquid 

waste, and other effluents are discharged through the circulating water system discharge. The 

specific discharge locations, and their associated reporting requirements and discharge limits, 

are presented in Table 2-2. 

Stormwater discharge is not monitored through the Salem NJPDES permit. Stormwater is 

collected and discharged through outfall discharge serial numbers (DSNs) 489A (south), 488 

(west), and 487/487B (north). The NJPDES permit requires that stormwater discharges be 

managed under an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and, therefore, 

does not specify discharge limits. The same SWPPP is also applicable to stormwater 

discharges from the HCGS facility. The plan includes a listing of potential sources of pollutants 

and associated best management practices (NJDEP, 2003). 

Industrial wastewater from Salem is regulated at nine specific locations, designated outfall 

DSNs 048C, 481A, 482A, 483A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 487B, and 489A. Outfall DSN 048C is the 

discharge system for the NRLWDS, and also receives stormwater from DSN 487B. For 

DSN 048C, the permit establishes reporting requirements for discharge volume (in millions of 

gallons per day), and compliance limits for total suspended solids, ammonia, petroleum 

hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2001a). 

Outfall DSNs 481A, 482A, 483A, 484A, 485A, and 486A are the discharge systems for cooling 

water, service water, and the radiological liquid waste disposal system. Outfall DSNs 481A, 

482A, and 483A are associated with Salem Unit 1, while outfall DSNs 484A, 485A, and 486A 

are associated with Salem Unit 2. The permit establishes similar, but separate, requirements 

for each of these six outfalls. For each, the permit requires reporting of the discharge volume 

(in MGD), the pH of the intake, and the temperature of the discharge. The permit also 

establishes compliance limits for the discharge from each outfall for pH and chlorine-produced 

oxidants (NJDEP, 2001a). 

Outfall DSN 487B is the discharge system for the #3 skim tank. The permit establishes 

reporting requirements for discharge volume (in MGD) and compliance limits for pH, total 

suspended solids, temperature of effluent, petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon 

(NJDEP, 2001a). 

 
Affected Environment 

 2-39 

Table 2-2. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits

DSN 048C Input is NRLWDS and Outfall 

DSN 487B 

Discharges to outfall DSNs 

481A, 482A, 484A, and 485A 

Effluent flow volume None 

Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average 

100 mg/L daily maximum 

Ammonia (Total as N) 35 mg/L monthly average 

70 mg/L daily maximum 

Petroleum hydrocarbons 10 mg/L monthly average 

15 mg/L daily maximum 

Total organic carbon Report monthly average 

50 mg/L daily maximum 

DSNs 481A, 

482A, 483A, 

484A, 485A, 

and 486A (the 

same 

requirements 

for each) 

Input is cooling water, service 

water, and DSN 048C 

Outfall is six separate 

discharge pipes 

Effluent flow volume None 

Effluent pH 6.0 daily minimum 

9.0 daily maximum 

Intake pH None 

Chlorine-produced oxidants 0.3 mg/L monthly average 

0.2 and 0.5 mg/L daily maximum 

Temperature None 

DSN 487B #3 skim tank, and stormwater 

from north portion 

Effluent flow None 

pH 6.0 daily minimum 

9.0 daily maximum 

Total suspended solids 100 mg/L daily maximum 

Temperature 43.3°C daily maximum 

Petroleum hydrocarbons 15 mg/L daily maximum 

Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum 

Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits

DSN 489A Oil/water separator, turbine 

sumps, and stormwater from 

south portion 

Effluent flow None 

pH 6.0 daily minimum 

9.0 daily maximum 

Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average 

100 mg/L daily maximum 

Petroleum hydrocarbons 10 mg/L monthly average 

15 mg/L daily maximum 

Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum 

DSN Outfall 

FACA 

Combined for discharges 

481A, 482A, and 483A 

Net temperature (year round) 15.3°C daily maximum 

Gross temperature 

(June to September) 

46.1°C daily maximum 

Gross temperature 

(October to May) 

43.3°C daily maximum 

DSN Outfall 

FACB 

Combined for discharges 

484A, 485A, and 486A 

Net temperature (year round) 15.3°C daily maximum 

Gross temperature 

(June to September) 

46.1°C daily maximum 

Gross temperature 

(October to May) 

43.3°C daily maximum 

 
Affected Environment 

 2-40 

Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits

DSN Outfall 

FACC 

Combined for discharges 

481A, 482A, 483A, 484A, 

485A, and 486A 

Influent flow 3,024 MGD monthly average 

Effluent thermal discharge 30,600 MBTU/hr daily maximum 

MBTU/hr = million British thermal units per hour 

Source: NJDEP, 2001a 

Outfall DSN 489A is the discharge system for the oil/water separator. The permit establishes 

reporting requirements for discharge volume (in MGD) and compliance limits for pH, total 

suspended solids, petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2001a). 

In addition to the reporting requirements and contaminant limits for these individual outfalls, the 

permit establishes temperature limits for Salem Unit 1 as a whole, Salem Unit 2 as a whole, and 

the Salem facility as a whole. Outfall FACA is the combined discharge from outfalls 481A, 

482A, and 483A to represent the overall thermal discharge from Salem Unit 1. For outfall 

FACA, the permit establishes an effluent net temperature difference of 15.3 °C (27.5°F), a gross 

temperature of 43.3 °C (110°F) from October to May, and a gross temperature of 46.1 °C 

(115°F) from June to September (NJDEP, 2001a). 

Similarly, outfall FACB is the combined discharge from outfall DSNs 484A, 485A, and 486A to 

represent the overall thermal discharge from Salem Unit 2. The temperature limits for outfall 

FACB are the same as those established for outfall FACA (NJDEP, 2001a). 

Outfall FACC is the combined results from outfall DSNs 481A through 486A, representing the 

overall thermal discharge and flow volume for the Salem facility as a whole. The permit 

establishes an overall intake volume of 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m3

/day) on a monthly average 

basis, and an effluent thermal discharge limit of 30,600 million British thermal units (BTUs) per 

hour as a daily maximum (NJDEP, 2001a). 

In addition to the outfall-specific reporting requirements and discharge limits, the Salem 

NJPDES permit includes a variety of general requirements (NJDEP, 2001a). These include 

requirements for the following: 

● additives that may be used, where they may be used, and procedures for 

proposing changes to additives 

● toxicity testing of discharges and, depending on results, toxicity reduction 

measures 

● implementation and operations of intake screens and fish return systems 

● wetland restoration and enhancement through the estuary enhancement program 

● implementation of a biological monitoring program 

● installation of fish ladders at offsite locations 

● performance of studies of intake protection technologies 

● implementation of entrainment and impingement monitoring 

● conduct of special studies, including intake hydrodynamics and enhancements to 

entrainment and impingement sampling 
Affected Environment 

 2-41 

● funding of construction of offshore reefs 

● compliance with DRBC regulations, NRC regulations, and the NOAA Fisheries 

Biological opinion 

In the permit, the NJDEP reserves the right to re-open the requirements for intake protection 

technologies (NJDEP, 2001a). 

2.2.4.5 Hope Creek Generating Station NJPDES Requirements 

The current NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 for the HCGS facility was issued in early 2003, 

with an effective date of March 1, 2003, and an expiration date of February 29, 2008 

(NJDEP, 2003). The permit requires that a renewal application be prepared at least 180 days in 

advance of the expiration date. Correspondence provided with the applicant’s ER indicates that 

a renewal application was filed on August 30, 2007. During the site audit, NJDEP staff 

confirmed that the application was still undergoing review. 

The HCGS NJPDES permit regulates water withdrawals and discharges associated with both 

stormwater and industrial wastewater, including discharges of cooling tower blowdown 

(NJDEP, 2003). The cooling tower blowdown and other effluents are discharged through an 

underwater pipe located on the bank of the river, 1,500 ft (457 m) upstream of the SWS intake. 

The specific discharge locations, and their associated reporting requirements and discharge 

limits, are presented in Table 2-3. 

Stormwater discharge is not monitored through the HCGS NJPDES permit. Stormwater is 

collected and discharged through outfall DSNs 463A, 464A, and 465A. These outfalls were 

specifically regulated, and had associated reporting requirements, in the HCGS NJPDES permit 

through 2005. However, the revision of the permit in January 2005 modified the requirements 

for stormwater, and the permit now requires that stormwater discharges be managed under an 

approved SWPPP and, therefore, does not specify discharge limits. The same SWPPP is also 

applicable to stormwater discharges from the Salem facility. The plan includes a listing of 

potential sources of pollutants and associated best management practices (NJDEP, 2003). 

Industrial wastewater is regulated at five locations, designated DSNs 461A, 461C, and 462B, 

Discharge DSN 461A is the discharge for the cooling water blowdown, and the permit 

established reporting and compliance limits for intake and discharge volume (in MGD), pH, 

chlorine-produced oxidants, intake and discharge temperature, total organic carbon, and heat 

content in millions of BTUs per hour, in both summer and winter (NJDEP, 2003). 

Discharge DSN 461C is a discharge for the oil/water separator system and has established 

reporting and compliance limits for discharge volume, total suspended solids, total recoverable 

petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2003). 
Affected Environment 

 2-42 

Table 2-3. NJPDES Permit Requirements for Hope Creek Generating Station 

Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits 

DSN 461A Input is cooling 

water blowdown and 

DSN 461C 

Outfall is discharge 

pipe 

Effluent flow None 

Intake flow None 

Effluent pH 6.0 daily minimum 

9.0 daily maximum 

Chlorine-produced oxidants 0.2 mg/L monthly average 

0.5 mg/L daily maximum 

Effluent gross temperature 36.2o

C daily maximum 

Intake temperature None 

Total organic carbon (effluent 

gross, effluent net, and intake) 

None 

Heat content (June to August) 534 MBTU/hr daily maximum 

Heat content (September to May) 662 MBTU/hr daily maximum 

DSN 461C Input is low volume 

oily waste from 

oil/water separator 

Outfall is to DSN 

461A 

Effluent flow None 

Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average 

100 mg/L daily maximum 

Total recoverable petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

10 mg/L monthly average 

15 mg/L daily maximum 

Total organic carbon 50 mg/L daily maximum 

DSN 462B Sewage treatment 

plant effluent, 

discharges to 461A 

Effluent flow None 

Total suspended solids 30 mg/L monthly average 

45 mg/L weekly average 

85% removal daily minimum 

Biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD) 

8 kg/day monthly average 

30 mg/L monthly average 

45 mg/L weekly average 

87.5 percent removal daily minimum 

Oil and grease 10 mg/L monthly average 

15 mg/L daily maximum 

Fecal coliform 200 /100 ml monthly geometric 

400 /100 ml weekly geometric average 

6 separate metal and inorganic 

contaminants (cyanide, nickel, zinc, 

cadmium, chromium, and copper) 

None 

S16A Oil/water separator 

residuals from 461C 

24 separate metal and inorganic 

contaminants 

None 

24 separate organic contaminants None 

Volumes and types of sludge 

produced and disposed 

None 

 
Affected Environment 

 2-43 

Discharge Description Required Reporting Permit Limits 

SL1A STP system 

residuals from 462B 

17 separate metal and inorganic 

contaminants 

None 

Volumes and types of sludge 

produced and disposed 

None 

Source: NJDEP, 2005c 

Discharge DSN 462B is the discharge for the onsite sewage treatment plant. The permit 

includes limits for effluent flow volume, total suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, 

and six inorganic contaminants (NJDEP, 2005c). 

Discharge 516A is the discharge from the oil/water separator system. This discharge has 

reporting requirements established for 48 inorganic and organic contaminants, for the volume of 

sludge produced, and for the manner in which the sludge is disposed (NJDEP, 2003). 

Discharge SL1A is the discharge from the STP system. This discharge has reporting 

requirements established for 17 inorganic contaminants, as well as sludge volume and disposal 

information (NJDEP, 2003). 

In addition to the outfall-specific reporting requirements and discharge limits, the HCGS 

NJPDES permit includes a variety of general requirements. These include requirements for 

additives that may be used, where they may be used, and procedures for proposing changes to 

additives; and compliance with DRBC regulations and NRC regulations (NJDEP, 2003). 

In the permit, the NJDEP reserves the right to revoke the alternate temperature provision for 

outfall DSN 461A if the NJDEP determines that the cooling tower is not being properly operated 

and maintained (NJDEP, 2003). 

Spill Reporting under NJAC 7:1E

As discussed above, industrial facilities in New Jersey are required to provide notification to 

NJDEP whenever any hazardous substance, as defined in NJAC 7:1E Appendix A, is released. 

The list of hazardous substances in NJAC 7:1E Appendix A includes almost 2,000 substances 

that are commonly used at industrial facilities, including many chemicals that Salem and HCGS 

are specifically permitted to use in accordance with their NJPDES permits. This includes 

chemicals which are added to the steam systems for corrosion protection, including ammonium 

hydroxide and hydrazine. In compliance with NJAC 7:1E – 5.3, the facilities occasionally report 

releases of these chemicals, including hydrazine, ammonium hydroxide, and sodium 

hypochlorite, to NJDEP, and those reports are publicly available. In two recent instances, the 

facilities have been subject to enforcement action associated with these releases. In 

September 2005, the facilities paid a penalty of $7,500 associated with a release of 5,000 

gallons (19 m3

) of boiler feed water containing 7 parts per million (ppm) hydrazine and 20 ppm 

ammonia. In April 2008, they paid a penalty of $15,000 associated with the May 10, 2006 

release of 5,000 gallons (19 m3

) of water containing hydrazine and ammonium hydroxide, and 

with a separate release of sodium hypochlorite. A separate penalty of $8,250 was paid in 

February 2007, associated with the same May 10, 2006 release (NJDEP, 2010c). 
Affected Environment 

 2-44 

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources – Delaware Estuary 

2.2.5.1 Estuary Characteristics 

Salem and HCGS are located at the south end of Artificial Island on the New Jersey shore of 

the Delaware Estuary, about RM 51 (north of the mouth of the Delaware Bay (Figure 2-5). The 

estuary is the source of the cooling water for both facilities and receives their effluents. The 

Delaware Estuary supports an abundance of aquatic resources in a variety of habitats. Open 

water habitats include salt water, tidally-influenced water of variable salinities, and tidal 

freshwater areas. Moving south from the Delaware River to the mouth of the bay, there is a 

continual transition from fresh to salt water. Additional habitat types occur along the edges of 

the estuary in brackish and freshwater marshes. The bottom of the estuary provides many 

different benthic habitats, with their characteristics dictated by salinity, tides, water velocity, and 

substrate type. Sediments in the estuary near Artificial Island are primarily mud, muddy sand, 

and sandy mud (PSEG, 2006c). 

At Artificial Island, the estuary is tidal with a net flow to the south and a width of approximately 

2.5 mi (4 km) (Figure 2-1). The USACE maintains a dredged navigation channel near the 

center of the estuary and about 6,600 ft (2,000 m) west of the shoreline at Salem and HCGS. 

The navigation channel is about 40 ft (12 m) deep and 1,300 ft (400 m) wide. On the New 

Jersey side of the channel, water depths in the open estuary at mean low water are fairly 

uniform at about 20 ft (6 m). Predominant tides in the area are semi-diurnal, with a period of 

12.4 hours and a mean tidal range of 5.5 ft (1.7 m). The maximum tidal currents occur in the 

channel, and currents flow more slowly over the shallower areas (NRC, 1984; 

Najarian Associates, 2004). 

Salinity is an important determinant of biotic distribution in estuaries, and salinity near the Salem 

and HCGS facilities depends on river flow. The NRC (1984) reported that average salinity in 

this area during periods of low flow ranged from 5 to 18 parts per thousand (ppt) and during 

periods of higher flow, ranged from 0 to 5 ppt. Najarian Associates (2004) and PSEG Nuclear, 

LLC (2005c) characterized salinity at the plant as ranging between 0 and 20 ppt and, in the 

summer during periods of low flow, as typically exceeding 6 ppt. Based on temperature and 

conductivity data collected by the USGS at Reedy Island, just north of Artificial Island, Najarian 

Associates (2004) calculated salinity from 1991 through 2002. According to Figure B6 in the 

Najarian Associates 2004 report, the median salinity was approximately 5 ppt and salinity 

exceeded 12 ppt in only two years, exceeded 13 ppt in only one year, and never exceeded 15 

ppt during the 11 year period. Based on these observations, the staff assumes that salinity in 

the vicinity of Salem and HCGS typically ranges from 5 to 12 ppt during periods of low flow 

(usually, but not always, in the summer) and from 0 to 5 ppt during periods of high flow because 

salinity will be lower during high fresh water flow periods(Table 2-4). Within these larger 

patterns, salinity at any specific location also varies with the tides (NRC, 2007). 
Affected Environment 

 2-45 

Table 2-4. Salinities in the Delaware Estuary in the Vicinity of Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Condition Salinity Range (ppt)

Low Flow 5-12 

High Flow 0-5 

Source: NRC, 2007

Monthly average surface water temperatures in the Delaware Estuary vary with season. 

Between 1977 and 1982, water temperatures ranged from -0.9°C (30°F) in February 1982 to 

30.5°C (86.9°F) in August 1980. Although the estuary in this reach is generally well mixed, it 

can occasionally stratify, with surface temperatures 1° to 2°C (2° to 4°F) higher than bottom 

temperatures and salinity increasing as much as 2 ppt per meter of water depth (NRC, 1984). 

Cowardin et al. (1979) classified estuaries into five categories based on salinity, varying from 

fresh (zero ppt) to hyperhaline (greater than 40 ppt). They further subdivide the brackish 

category (0.5 to 30 ppt) into three subsections: oligohaline (0.5 to 5 ppt), mesohaline (5 to 18 

ppt), and polyhaline (18 to 30 ppt). These categories describe zones within the estuary. The 

estuary reach adjacent to Artificial Island is at the interface of the oligohaline and mesohaline 

zones; thus, it is oligohaline during high flow and mesohaline during low flow conditions. Based 

on water clarity categories of good, fair, or poor, the EPA (1998) classified the water clarity in 

this area of the estuary as generally fair (meaning that a wader in waist-deep water would not 

be able to see his feet). The EPA classified the water clarity directly upstream and downstream 

of this reach as poor (meaning that a diver would not be able to see his hand at arm’s length). 

EPA (1998) classified most estuarine waters in the Mid-Atlantic as having good water clarity and 

stated that lower water clarity typically is due to phytoplankton blooms and suspended 

sediments and detritus (organic particles and debris from the beakdown of vegetation). 

Delaware Bay is a complex estuary, with many individual species playing different roles in the 

system. Additionally, most estuarine species have complex lifecycles, and are present in the 

bay at different stages, so many species play several ecological roles throughout their lifecycles. 

Changes in the abundance of these species can have far reaching effects, both within and 

without the bay, including major trends in commercial fisheries. Major assemblages of 

organisms within the estuarine community include plankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish. 

2.2.5.2 Plankton 

Plankton are organisms that are moved throughout the water column by tides and currents. 

They are relatively unable to control their own movements (Moisan et al., 2007). Plankton can 

be primary producers (phytoplankton) or consumers (zooplankton and microbes). 
Affected Environment 

 2-46 

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton are microscopic, single-celled algae that are responsible for the majority of 

primary production in the water column. In the Delaware Estuary near the Salem and HCGS 

sites, primary production is typically limited to the upper 2 m (7 ft) of the water column due to 

light limitation from high turbidity (NRC, 1984). Water quality parameters such as salinity, 

temperature, and nutrient availability regulate species composition, abundance, and distribution. 

Seasonal changes in these parameters cause fluctuations in the density of plankton populations 

(Versar, 1991). . In the highly variable, tidally influenced zone, species with a high tolerance for 

widely fluctuating environments are found. Species composition also fluctuates seasonally 

(DRBC, 2008b). 

Phytoplankton were sampled in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of the pre-operational 

ecological investigations for Salem performed by Ichthyological Associates (PSEG, 1983). In 

1978, NJDEP agreed that Salem operation had no effect on phytoplankton populations, and 

phytoplankton studies related to the operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 were discontinued 

(PSEG, 1984). Versar (1991) conducted a major literature survey for the Delaware Estuary 

Program to assess the various biological resources of the estuary and possible trends in their 

abundance or health. This study found that phytoplankton formed the basis of the primary 

production in the estuary. More recently, Monaco and Ulanowicz (1997) established that 

pelagic phytoplankton in the Delaware Bay are responsible for most of the primary production. 

Sutton et al (1996) determined that phytoplankton in the lower bay (polyhaline zone) where the 

water is less turbid account for most of the primary production in the system. The Delaware 

Estuary contains several hundred phytoplankton species, a few of which are highly abundant 

(Sutton et al., 1996). Skeletonema potamos and various cyanobacteria and green algae are 

numerically dominant in the oligohaline zone. 

NJDEP currently surveys phytoplankton in the Delaware estuary. These surveys monitor 

harmful algal blooms by collecting samples for chlorophyll analysis. The occurrence of blooms 

is highly variable between years, but blooms most often occur in the spring (NJDEP, 2005b). 

Algal blooms can have large consequences for the entire estuary because they can contain 

flagellates that may make fish and shellfish inedible, and they can deplete the oxygen in the 

water column so severely that large fish kills can result. The EPA also monitors algal blooms 

using helicopter surveys (NJDEP, 2005a). 

Zooplankton

Zooplankton are heterotrophic plankton that consume phytoplankton, other types of 

zooplankton, and detritus (Moisan et al., 2007). They serve as a vital link between the micro 

algae, detritus, and larger organisms in the Delaware Estuary. Zooplankton are very small, 

have limited mobility, and provide a source of food for many other organisms, including filter 

feeders, larvae of fish and invertebrates, and larger zooplankton. They are dependent on 

phytoplankton, detritus, or smaller zooplankton for food. In turn, they are either eaten by larger 

organisms or contribute to the energy web by being decomposed by the detritivores after they 

settle to the substrate. Zooplankton show seasonal and spatial variability in abundance and 

species composition (PSEG, 1983). Their distribution can be affected by factors such as 

currents, salinity, temperature, and light intensity (NRC, 1984). 
Affected Environment 

 2-47 

Some zooplankton spend their entire life cycle in the water column and others spend only part 

of their life cycle in the water column. Among the former are invertebrates such as shrimp, 

mysids, amphipods, copepods, ctenophores (comb jellies), jellyfish, and rotifers. Among the 

animals that spend a only portion of their life cycle as plankton are larval fish and invertebrates 

that have a planktonic stage before their development into adult forms. The planktonic stage 

provides for these organisms an important dispersal mechanism, ensuring that larvae arrive in 

as many appropriate habitats as possible (Sutton et al., 1996). Studies in the Salem 

pre-operational phase found many such zooplankton in large numbers, including the larval 

stages of the estuarine mud crab (Rhithropanopeus harrisii), fiddler crab (Uca minax), grass 

shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), and copepods (PSEG, 1983). 

Zooplankton were sampled by Ichthyological Associates as part of the pre-operational 

ecological studies for Salem Units 1 and 2. Studies related to plant operations in the early to 

mid 1970s found that two types of crustaceans, opossum shrimp and amphipods of the genus 

Gammarus, constituted the numerical majority of the taxa collected. Due to the abundance of 

these two taxa, they were selected by NJDEP and NRC for future ecological studies related to 

Salem operations. They also are important as prey items for many of the fishes in the estuary. 

As a result, general studies of the zooplankton in the estuary were discontinued by PSEG in 

favor of an approach more focused on individual species (PSEG, 1984). Studies reviewed in 

Sutton et al (1996) did not show a major change in the zooplankton assemblage since the early 

1960s. Copepods generally are the most abundant organisms and are a major prey resource 

for larval and adult fish in the Delaware Estuary (Sutton et al., 1996). 

Since many of the fish species found in the Delaware Estuary are managed either Federally or 

by individual States, there have been extensive studies of ichthyoplankton (larval fish and eggs). 

Additionally, fish have been monitored by PSEG and the States of New Jersey and Delaware 

since before the operation of Salem Units 1 and 2. Initial ichthyoplankton studies were general 

surveys. Later studies focused on the 11 target species established during the NPDES 

permitting process. These studies included impingement and entrainment studies and general 

sampling consisting of plankton tows and beach seines (PSEG, 1984). Versar (1991) reviewed 

several studies with respect to ichthyoplankton. This review included both the power plant 

studies and more general surveys focused on managed fish species. The review revealed that 

ichthyoplankton of the tidal freshwater region (corresponding to the oligohaline region) had a 

high abundance of the alosid fishes, including the American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory 

shad (A. mediocris), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), and blueback herring (A. aestivalis), as well 

as other anadromous species. Due to alosid lifecycles, both eggs and larvae have seasonal 

peaks in abundance and distribution that vary with the species. The bay anchovy (Anchoa 

mitchilli) is abundant in the transitional region (corresponding to the mesohaline region) in which 

Artificial Island is located. Other common ichthyoplankton species in the Delaware Estuary 

include the naked goby (Gobiosoma bosc), blueback herring, alewife, Atlantic menhaden 

(Brevoortia tyrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia). 

The number of species was highest in the spring and summer months, and bay anchovy always 

constituted a large portion of the ichthyoplankton samples (Versar, 1991). The lifecycles, 

habitats, and other characteristics of fish species identified among the ichthyoplankton are 

described in Section 2.2.5.4. 
Affected Environment 

 2-48 

2.2.5.3 Benthic Invertebrates 

Benthic invertebrates (or benthos) are organisms that live within (infauna) or on (epifauna) the 

substrates at the bottom of the water column, including groups such as worms, mollusks, 

crustaceans, and microorganisms (CAML, 2008). Parabenthos are organisms that spend some 

time in or on the substrate but can also be found in the water column, including crabs, 

copepods, and mysids (Versar, 1991). The species composition, distribution, and abundance of 

the benthic invertebrate community are affected by physical conditions, such as salinity, 

temperature, water velocity, and substrate type, and by interactions between individuals and 

species. Substrates within the Delaware Estuary include mud, sand, clay, cobble, shell, rock, 

and various combinations of these; those near Salem and HCGS are mostly fine-grained silts 

and clays with small areas of sand (USACE, 1992). 

The benthic invertebrate community of the estuary performs many ecological functions. Some 

benthic species or groups of species form habitats by building reefs (such as oysters and some 

polychaete worms) or by stabilizing or destabilizing soft substrates (such as some bivalves, 

amphipods, and polychaetes). Some benthic organisms are filter feeders that clean the 

overlying water (such as oysters, other bivalves, and some polychaetes), and others consume 

detritus. While the benthic community itself contains many trophic levels, it also provides a 

trophic base for fish and shellfish (such as crabs) valued by humans. 

A review of benthic data for the Delaware Estuary was included in a report for the Delaware 

Estuary Program (Versar, 1991). Benthic data have been collected in the estuary since the 

early 1800s. Most of the earlier reports were surveys describing species; however, large 

amounts of quantitative data were collected in the 1970s. Generally, benthic invertebrate 

species distributions were found to be limited by salinity and substrate type (Versar, 1991). 

Additionally, localized poor water quality can have a major effect on species composition. 

Species found in the lower bay are limited by salinity gradients; estuarine species, such as the 

razor clam (Ensis directus) and the polychaete Heteromastus filiformis, are found throughout the 

entire bay; and freshwater and oligohaline species, such as the clam Gemma gemma, occur in 

lower salinity waters in the upper bay. Pre-operational studies by Ichthyological Associates also 

concluded that species composition varied seasonally, reflecting higher diversity and 

abundance during periods of higher salinity. The authors postulated that this was a result of 

both recruitment dynamics and immigration from the lower bay (PSEG, 1983). 

The benthos of the tidal fresh portion (oligohaline) of the estuary includes tubificid worms, 

chironomid larvae, sphaerid clams, and unionid mussels. These assemblages are greatly 

influenced by anthropogenic impacts to the water quality in the area due to proximity of pollutant 

sources on the river. Highly tolerant species are found here, often with only one extremely 

dominant species. In the transition zone (mesohaline) oligochaetes and amphipods generally 

are numerically dominant. The bay region (polyhaline) has abundant bivalves and polychaetes 

(Versar, 1991). As reported in the applicant’s initial environmental report (PSEG, 1983), 

pre-operational studies for Salem Units 1 and 2 found mostly euryhaline ( tolerating a wide 

range of salinities) species in the vicinity of the facility, including polychaetes, oligochaetes, and 

isopods (NRC, 1984). 
Affected Environment 

 2-49 

Species composition and abundance of benthic organisms are often used as indicators of 

ecosystem health. Generally, the greater the diversity of species and the more abundant those 

species are, the healthier the system is considered. EPA collected benthic samples in the 

Delaware Estuary between 1990 and 1993 in an effort to assess the health of the system. As a 

result of this sampling effort, EPA determined that 93 percent of the tidal river between the 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and Trenton, NJ was either degraded or severely degraded. 

South of this area, EPA classified only 2 percent of the benthic invertebrate community as 

impaired, and none of the area was considered severely impaired (Delaware Estuary Program, 

1995). More recently, EPA released a report describing the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia coastal 

bays as impacted over one-fourth of their total area. In the Delaware Bay itself, EPA considered 

the upper portion as severely impacted, the transition area as impacted, and the lower bay as 

mostly in good condition. The report described a large central area of the bay as impacted, 

possibly due to scouring from high currents or eutrophication resulting in high organic carbon 

levels in the sediments (EPA, 1998). 

PSEG and its consultants conducted studies during the 1984 NPDES 316(b) permitting process 

(PSEG, 1984). They collected over 1,000 grab samples in the Delaware Estuary and identified 

a total of 57 taxa in 8 phyla. The most abundant group were the same as those found in 

previous studies. General densities of benthic organisms ranged between 17,000 per square 

meter (m2

; 183,000 per ft2) and 25,000 per m2 (269,000 per ft2). As a result of the PSEG 

studies, NJDEP determined that benthic invertebrates no longer needed to be sampled as part 

of the monitoring effort (PSEG, 1984). 

Mysids, such as opossum shrimp are a key biological resource in Delaware Bay because they 

are highly abundant and are prey for many other species, especially fish. They also are 

important predators of other invertebrates. Opossum shrimp are found in water with a salinity of 

4 ppt or higher (mesohaline and polyhaline regions), most often in deeper areas. They migrate 

vertically into the water column at night and settle on the sediments during the day. Sand 

shrimp are more common in shallower waters and play the same ecological role as opossum 

shrimp. Amphipods are numerous in the transition region and are primarily represented by the 

genus Gammarus. These crustaceans also form a link between the smaller plankton and the 

larger fish species in this part of the estuary (Versar, 1991). 

The benthos of the Delaware estuary also include mollusks and large crustaceans such as the 

blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus). These species can 

be difficult to sample with the equipment typically used for benthos sampling, sediment grab 

samplers (PSEG, 1984). PSEG monitoring survey efforts often caught blue crabs in the bottom 

trawl samples. Opossum shrimp and Gammarus spp. also are difficult to sample because they 

often inhabit vegetation in shallow marsh areas. These species were selected as target species 

during PSEG’s early ecological studies with respect to the operation of Salem Units 1 and 2, but 

NJDEP and PSEG later determined that there was no need for them to continue to be 

specifically monitored (PSEG, 1999). 
Affected Environment 

 2-50 

Several benthic invertebrate species have been given special attention by Federal, regional, or 

State organizations. For example, the blue crab has been extensively monitored at Salem as 

an important species, the horseshoe crab has been the focus of several restoration efforts 

within Delaware Bay due to its general decline and the fact that the bay is considered a major 

nursery and spawning area for the species, and both the horseshoe crab and the oyster were 

noted as important species by NMFS (NMFS, 2010a). These three species are discussed 

below. 

Blue Crab

The blue crab is an important ecological, cultural, commercial, and recreational resource in the 

Delaware Bay (Hill et al., 1989). Blue crabs mate in low-salinity portions of estuaries during the 

summer, usually from May through October (ASMFC, 2004). Males can mate several times, but 

females mate only once (ASMFC, 2004). Once the female has been fertilized, she migrates to 

higher salinity regions to complete the spawning process. The fertilized eggs are extruded over 

several months and remain attached to the abdomen of the female. The eggs hatch and are 

released after 1 to 2 weeks, initiating a series of larval transitions. In the first larval stage, the 

zoea, the larvae are planktonic filter feeders and develop in the higher-salinity waters outside of 

the estuary. These larvae molt seven to eight times in 31 to 49 days before progressing to the 

next stage, the megalops, which are more like crabs, with pincers and jointed legs (Hill et al., 

1989). After 6 to 20 days, the megalops stage molts into the first crab stage, resembling an 

adult crab. Over a period of 1 year, these juveniles migrate up the estuary into lower-salinity 

regions until they have reached the adult stage (Hill et al., 1989). Initially, sea grass beds are 

an important habitat, but crabs then make extensive use of marsh areas as nurseries (ASMFC, 

2004). Natural mortality rates for the blue crab are hard to define as they vary non-linearly with 

life stage and are influenced by an array of hydrological and biological factors. The maximum 

age reached by blue crabs has been estimated to be 8 years (ASMFC, 2004). 

The blue crab is an omnivore, feeding on many other commercially important species, such as 

oysters and clams. Young blue crabs also are prey for other species, especially those that use 

the estuary as a nursery area (Hill et al., 1989). Blue crabs are important in energy transfer 

within estuarine systems (ASMFC, 2004). They play different roles in the ecosystem depending 

on their life stage. Zoea larvae consume other zooplankton as well as phytoplankton. 

Megalops larvae consume fish larvae, small shellfish, aquatic plants, and each other. 

Post-larval stages consume detritus, carcasses, fish, crabs, and mollusks. Crab eggs are eaten 

by fish. Larval stages are eaten by other planktivores, including fish, jellyfish, and shellfish. 

Juvenile crabs are consumed by shore birds, wading birds, and fish. Adult crabs are consumed 

by mammals, birds, and large fish, including the striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American eel 

(Anguilla rostrata), and sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) (Hill et al., 1989). 

Blue crab population estimates are difficult, as recruitment is highly variable and dependent on 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, rainfall, oceanographic conditions, parasitism, and contaminant 

and predation levels (Hill et al., 1989; ASMFC, 2004). Landings of blue crabs on the east coast 

were in decline in the early 2000s, prompting a symposium led by the ASMFC in an attempt to 

assess the status of the fishery and to assist in developing sustainable landing limits. 

Participants in the symposium theorized that declines in blue crab populations could be a result 

of attempts to increase populations of other fish species that prey upon crabs (ASMFC, 2004). 
Affected Environment 

 2-51 

Horseshoe Crab

The horseshoe crab is an evolutionarily primitive species that has remained relatively 

unchanged for 350 million years. It is not a true crab but is more closely related to spiders and 

other arthropods (FWS, 2006). The largest spawning population in the world inhabits the 

Delaware Bay. They migrate offshore during the winter months and return to shore in spring to 

spawn on beaches (ASMFC, 2008a). Spawning peaks in May and June, and crabs spawn 

repeatedly during the season (ASMFC, 2010a). Spawning occurs during high spring tides on 

sandy beaches with low wave action (ASMFC, 2008a). The female will partially burrow into the 

sand and deposit several thousand eggs. Eggs hatch in 3 to 4 weeks, and the larvae (which 

resemble the adult crabs without tails) will enter the water about 1 month later (FWS, 2006). 

They spend their first 6 days swimming in shallow water, and then settle to the bottom (FWS, 

2006; ASMFC, 1998a). Juveniles will spend their first 2 years on intertidal sand flats. Older 

juveniles and adults inhabit subtidal habitats (ASMFC, 2010a). Molting continues after the 

juvenile stage, with each molt increasing the crab’s size by up to 25 percent. After about 17 

molts, or 9 to 12 years, the crabs are sexually mature (ASMFC, 2008a). Crabs can live up to 10 

additional years after the last molt (ASMFC, 2010a). Horseshoe crabs exhibit limited beach 

fidelity, usually returning to their native beaches to spawn (FWS, 2003). However, crabs tagged 

in the Delaware Bay have been recaptured in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia 

(ASMFC, 2008b). 

Horseshoe crabs play a major ecological role in the migration patterns of shore birds from the 

Arctic to the southern Atlantic. Many bird species eat horseshoe crab eggs during their 

seasonal migrations on the Atlantic flyway (ASMFC, 2008a; FWS, 2006). Juvenile and adult 

horseshoe crabs eat mostly mollusks, such as clams and mussels, but also arthropods, 

annelids, and nemerteans. Larvae consume small polychaetes and nematodes (ASMFC, 

1998a). In addition to providing a rich food source for birds, eggs and larvae are consumed by 

fish, crabs, gastropods, and loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) (ASMFC, 1998a). Seagulls 

often eat overturned adults on the beach (FWS, 2003). 

Commercial uses for horseshoe crabs include applications in the fishing, biomedical, and 

livestock and fertilizer industries. Fisherman use horseshoe crabs as bait in the American eel 

and conch (Busycon carica and B. canaliculatum) fisheries. The biomedical industry uses their 

blood to detect bactorial toxins in certain drugs and medical devices. This captures, bleeds and 

releases the crabs (FWS 2003). At the turn of the 20th century, between 1.5 and 4 million 

horseshoe crabs were harvested annually for use by the livestock and fertilizer industries. 

Variations and reductions in harvests since that time are partially due to management and 

partially due to a decrease in demand. Stock status is currently unknown due to lack of 

commercial fishing data. Evidence from trawl surveys suggests that the population is growing in 

Delaware Bay. Harvests have been reduced in Delaware, but are increasing in Massachusetts 

and New York (ASMFC, 2008a). The management plan for the horseshoe crab provides limits 

on harvest seasons for male and female crabs, and for total hauls (ASMFC, 2008b). 

Threats to horseshoe crab habitat include coastal erosion, development (particularly shoreline 

stabilization structures such as bulkheads, groins, seawalls, and revetments), sea level rise/land 

subsidence, channel dredging, contaminants, and oil spills in spawning areas. Habitats of 

concern include nearshore shallow water and intertidal sand flats, and beach spawning areas 

(ASMFC, 2010a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-52 

American Oyster

The American oyster is also known as the eastern oyster and the Atlantic oyster. Oysters 

inhabit the Delaware Bay from the mouth of the bay to Bombay Hook on the Delaware side and 

to just south of Artificial Island on the New Jersey side (USACE, 2007). There are three 

physiological races recognized coast wide, each spawning at different temperatures. The 

oysters in the Delaware Bay are part of the population that spawns at 20 °C (68 °F). Spawning 

occurs in the summer months, with several events per season. During spawning events, males 

release their sperm and a pheromone into the water column and the females respond by 

releasing their eggs. Larvae remain in the water column for 2 to 3 weeks, dispersing with the 

water currents. Larvae pass through several morphological changes before settling, preferably 

on other oyster shells. Adult oysters are sessile and found in beds or reefs in dense masses. 

They often are the only large organism in the bed and can change water currents enough to 

affect the sediment deposition rate of the local environment. They are dioecious, but are 

capable of changing sex, with more oysters becoming female as they age. Growth is affected 

by environmental variables, such as temperature, salinity, intertidal exposure, turbidity, and food 

availability (Sellers and Stanley, 1984). 

Oysters are tolerant of a wide array of environmental variables, as they have evolved to live in 

estuaries, which experience high and low temperatures, high and low salinities, submersion and 

exposure, and clear to muddy water. Optimal temperatures for adults are between 20°C and 

30°C (68°F and 86°F). Salinities higher than 7.5 ppt are required for spawning, but adults will 

tolerate salinities between 5 and 30 ppt. Because oysters are filter feeders, water velocity is 

highly important. The water above a bed must be recharged 72 times every 24 hours for 

maximum feeding. Tidal flows of greater than 5 to 8.5 fps (152 to 259 centimeters per second 

[cm/sec]) provide for optimal growth (Sellers and Stanley, 1984). 

Oyster larvae feed on plankton. Adults are stationary filter feeders, feeding on plankton as well 

as detritus and other particulate matter. They can filter up to 1.5 liters of water an hour, making 

them an important ecological resource. Due to their reef building abilities, they are also 

important because they create three-dimensional habitats, which can be home to over 300 other 

species. A wide variety of other filter feeders eat oyster larvae. Predators of adult oysters 

include gastropod oysterdrills (Urosalpinx cinerea and Eupleura caudata), the whelk Busycon 

canaliculatum, the starfish Asterias forbesi, the boring sponge (Cliona sp.), the flatworm 

Stylochus ellipticus, and crabs. Competitors for resources include slipper limpets (Crepidula

sp.), jingle shells (Anomia sp.), barnacles, and the mussel Brachiodontes exustus (Sellers and 

Stanley, 1984). 

The oyster is a commercially important species that has been harvested in Delaware Bay since 

the early 1800s (Delaware Estuary Program, 2010). By the mid 1850s, oyster fisherman had 

begun transplanting oysters from the naturally occurring seed beds of New Jersey to other 

areas in the bay for growth, due to concern over the smaller size of oysters being harvested. 

The natural seed beds are now protected outside of the leasing system, as these are the 

sources of the oysters transplanted to other beds. In the early 1900s, one to two million bushels 

were harvested from the bay annually, concurrent with the use of the new oyster dredge. 

Production remained relatively stable until the mid 1950s when disease decimated the 

population. Currently, the oyster harvest remains limited due mainly to diseases such as MSX 

(“multinucleated sphere unknown,” later classified as Haplosporidium nelson) and Dermo 
Affected Environment 

 2-53 

(caused by the southern oyster parasite, Perkinsus marinus). Oysters now are directly 

harvested from the seed beds (Delaware Estuary Program, 2010). 

Delaware, New Jersey, and the USACE currently are undertaking a joint effort to reestablish 

oyster beds and an oyster fishery in Delaware Bay. The majority of these efforts are focused on 

increasing recruitment and sustaining a population by shell and bed planting and seeding. 

Since 2001, despite management, oyster abundance has continued to decline due to below 

average recruitment. Recruitment enhancement is deemed important to stabilize stock 

abundance, to permit continuation and expansion of the oyster industry, to guarantee increased 

abundance that produces the shell necessary to maintain the bed, and to minimize the control of 

oyster population dynamics by disease. These goals will allow the oyster to play its ecological 

role as a filterer that enhances general water quality (USACE, 2007). 

2.2.5.4 Fish 

The Delaware Bay, Estuary, and River make up an ecologically and hydrologically complex 

system that supports many fish species. Most estuarine fish species have complex life cycles 

and are present in the estuary at various life stages; thus, they may play several ecological roles 

during their lives. Changes in the abundance of these species can have far-reaching effects, 

both within the bay and beyond, including effects on commercial fisheries. Given the complexity 

of the fish community of this system, the description below is based on species considered to be 

of particular importance for a variety of reasons. 

Representative Species

To determine the impacts of operation from Salem and HCGS on the aquatic environment of the 

Delaware Estuary, monitoring has been performed in the estuary annually since 1977. The 1977 

EPA Draft Development Document for Section 316(b) of the CWA included a provision to select 

representative species (RS) to focus such investigations (the terms target species or 

representative important species have also been used) (PSEG, 1984; 1999). RS were selected 

based on several criteria: susceptibility to impingement and entrainment at the facility, 

importance to the ecological community, recreational or commercial value, and threatened or 

endangered status. PSEG currently monitors 12 species as RS: blueback herring (Alosa 

aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), bay anchovy 

(Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spot 

(Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias

undulatus), white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and bluefish 

(Pomatomus saltatrix). These species are described below.
Affected Environment 

 2-54 

Blueback Herring and Alewife

The blueback herring and alewife can be difficult to differentiate and are collectively known and 

managed as “river herring.” The NMFS currently classifies both species as species of concern 

(NMFS, 2009). 

The entire length of the Delaware River and portions of Delaware Bay are confirmed spawning 

runs for river herring (NJDEP, 2005d). River herring are anadromous, migrating inshore to 

spawn in freshwater rivers and streams in a variety of habitats. They are reported to return to 

their natal rivers, suggesting a need for management more focused on specific populations as 

opposed to establishing fishery-wide limits. Spawning migration begins in spring, with the 

alewife arriving inshore approximately one month before the blueback herring (NMFS, 2009). 

The adults of both species return to the ocean after spawning (ASMFC, 2009a). 

Blueback herring can reach 16 inches (41 cm) long and have an average life span of 8 years. 

Males usually mature at 3 to 4 years of age, females at 5 years. Young of the year and 

juveniles of less than 2 inches (5 cm) are found in fresh and brackish estuarine nursery areas. 

They then migrate offshore to complete their growth. The juveniles use many habitats in the 

estuaries, including submerged aquatic vegetation, rice fields, swamps, and small tributaries 

outside the tidal zone (NMFS, 2009). Blueback herring prefer swiftly flowing water for spawning 

in their northern range. 

Alewife reach maturity at approximately 4 years and can live 10 years, reaching up to 15 inches 

(38 cm) long (NMFS, 2009). They spawn over gravel, sand, detritus, and submerged aquatic 

vegetation in slow-moving water. Spawning is more likely to occur at night, and a single female 

may spawn with 25 males simultaneously. The eggs initially stick to the bottom, but they soon 

become pelagic and hatch within 2 to 25 days. The yolk sac is absorbed within 5 days and the 

larvae may remain in the spawning areas or migrate downstream to more brackish waters. 

Juveniles inhabit the brackish areas in estuaries, near their spawning location. As they develop 

and the temperature drops, they migrate toward the ocean, completing this process in the 

beginning of the winter months (NMFS, 2009). 

While at sea, many predators eat river herring, including marine mammals, sharks, tuna, and 

mackerel. While in the estuaries, American eel, striped bass, largemouth bass, mammals, and 

birds consume them. The blueback herring and alewife minimize interspecies competition using 

several mechanisms, including the timing of spawning, juvenile feeding strategies and diets, and 

ocean emigration timing (ASMFC, 2009a). Blueback juveniles feed on benthic organisms and 

copepods, cladocerans, and larval dipterans at or just below the water surface (ASMFC, 

2009a). While offshore, blueback herring feed on plankton, including ctenophores, copepods, 

amphipods, mysids, shrimp, and small fish (NMFS, 2009). During the spawning migration 

(unlike the alewife, which does not feed), the blueback herring feeds on invertebrates and fish 

eggs (ASMFC, 2009a). Juveniles are opportunistic feeders on a variety of invertebrates 

(ASMFC, 2009a). Alewife are schooling, pelagic omnivores while offshore, feeding mainly on 

zooplankton but also small fishes and their eggs and larvae (NMFS, 2009). Alewife not only 

migrate seasonally to spawn in response to temperatures but also migrate daily in response to 

zooplankton availability (NMFS, 2009). Adult alewife are eaten by many other fish. Alewife are 

also important as hosts to parasitic larvae of freshwater mussels, some species of which are 

threatened or endangered (ASMFC, 2009a). Both species are ecologically important due to 
Affected Environment 

 2-55 

their trophic position in both estuarine and marine habitats. As planktivores, they link 

zooplankton to piscivores, providing a vital energy transfer (Bozeman and VanDen Avyle, 1989). 

River herring are directly consumed by humans and also are ingredients in fish meal, fish oil, 

pet and farm animal food, and bait. The eggs (roe) are canned for human consumption. The 

ASMFC manages the river herring fishery (ASMFC, 2009a). River herring also are often taken 

as bycatch in other fisheries (NMFS, 2009). The river herring fishery has been active in the 

United States for 350 years. Alewife landings peaked in the 1950s and the 1970s, then abruptly 

declined (NMFS, 2009). Blueback herring landing data are limited, but a severe decline was 

observed in the early 2000s. In addition to the commercial industry, there is an extensive 

recreational fishery. Blueback herring are exhibiting signs of overfishing in several of the 

estuary systems on the east coast, including the Delaware River (ASMFC, 2009a). River 

herring population declines have been attributed to overfishing and the loss of historic spawning 

habitat all along the east coast of the United States (NMFS, 2009). Reasons for habitat loss 

include dam construction, stream bank erosion, pollution, and siltation (ASMFC, 2009a). New 

Jersey currently has a small commercial bait fishery for river herring. Delaware also has a small 

river herring fishery associated with the white perch fishery. Neither State has specific 

regulations for river herring, but pending legislation in Delaware could eliminate the fishery in 

that State (ASMFC, 2009a). 

American Shad

The American shad has been a commercially and culturally important species on the east coast 

of the United States since colonial times. The entire length of the Delaware River is a confirmed 

spawning run for the American shad. There is no confirmed information available on Delaware 

Bay itself, although shad would have to migrate through the bay to get to the river 

(NJDEP, 2005d). American shad adults are highly abundant in Delaware Bay, potentially 

confirming the use of the estuary as part of the spawning run (ASMFC, 1998b). 

The American shad is a schooling, anadromous fish that migrates to freshwater to spawn in 

winter, spring, or summer, with the timing depending on water temperature. Mature shad can 

spawn up to six times over their 5 to 7 year lifespans. Preferred spawning substrates include 

sand, silt, muck, gravel, and boulders. Water velocity must be rapid enough to keep the eggs 

off the bottom. Eggs are spawned in areas that will allow them to hatch before drifting 

downstream into saline waters. At 4 weeks, the larvae become juveniles and spend their first 

summer in the freshwater systems (Mackenzie et al., 1985). The juveniles migrate toward the 

ocean in the fall months, cued by water temperature changes. In the Delaware River, this 

happens when the water reaches 20°C (68°F), usually in October and November. The juveniles 

will remain in the estuary until they are 1 year old (ASMFC, 1998b), then they migrate into the 

ocean. Juveniles remain in the ocean until they are mature, approximately 3 to 5 years for 

males and 4 to 6 years for females. Adults are likely to return to their natal rivers to spawn 

(MacKenzie et al., 1985). 

Ecologically, the American shad plays an important role in the coastal estuary systems, 

providing food for some species and preying on others. It also transfers nutrients and energy 

from the marine system to freshwater areas because many shad die after they spawn (ASMFC, 

1998b). Young American shad in the river systems feed in the water column on a variety of 

invertebrates. While at sea, they feed on invertebrates, fish eggs, and small fish (MacKenzie et 

al. 1985; ASMFC, 1998b). During the spawning run, shad consume mayflies and small fish. 
Affected Environment 

 2-56 

Many species prey on shad while they are small, including striped bass, American eels, and 

birds. Seals, porpoises, sharks, bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), and kingfish (Scomberomorus 

regahni) consume larger shad (Weiss-Glanz et al., 1986). Much of the American shad’s life 

cycle is dictated by changes in water temperature. The peak of the spawning run and the ocean 

emigration happen when the water temperature is approximately 20°C (68°F). Deformities 

develop if eggs encounter temperatures above 22°C (72°F) and they do not hatch above 29°C 

(84°F). Juveniles actively avoid rises in temperature of 4°C (39°F) (MacKenzie et al., 1985). 

Historically, huge numbers of American shad were harvested during their annual spring 

spawning runs. The Atlantic catch in 1896 was 50 million lbs (22,700 metric tons [MT]) 

(MacKenzie et al., 1985). By the end of the 19th century, only 17.6 million lbs (8,000 MT were 

caught, representing a severe decline in the American shad stock, and the fishery began fishing 

in the waters of the lower bays. Several States, including Maryland, closed the American shad 

fishery by 1985 (MacKenzie et al., 1985). The ASMFC currently manages the American shad 

fishery. The ASMFC stock assessment (2007a) showed American shad stocks are continuing 

to depete severley and are not recovering, with Atlantic harvests of approximately 550 tons (500 

MT). The shad coastal intercept fishery in the Atlantic has been closed since 2005; additionally 

there is a 10 fish limit for the recreational inshore fishery. The reasons for their decline include 

dams, habitat loss, pollution, and overfishing (ASMFC, 2007a). A report published by the 

ASMFC (1998a) theorized that increased predation by the striped bass is also a factor in the 

decline of shad abundance (ASMFC, 1998b). 

Bay Anchovy

The bay anchovy is an abundant forage fish in Delaware Bay. It is a small, schooling, 

euryhaline fish that grows to approximately 4 inches (10 cm) and can live for several years 

(Morton, 1989; SMS, 2008). It lives in waters ranging from fresh to hypersaline over almost any 

bottom type, including sand, mud, and submerged aquatic vegetation (Morton, 1989; Newberger 

and Houde, 1995). The bay anchovy spawns almost all year, typically in waters of less than 65 

ft (20 m) deep. In the Middle Atlantic region, spawning occurs in estuaries in water of at least 

12°C (54°F) and over 10 ppt salinity. The eggs are pelagic and hatch after about 24 hours. 

Newly hatched fish move upstream into lower-salinity areas to feed, eventually migrating to the 

lower estuary in the fall (Morton, 1989). 

The bay anchovy is highly important both ecologically and commercially due to its abundance 

and widespread distribution (Morton, 1989). It plays a large role in the food webs that support 

many commercial and sport fisheries by converting zooplankton biomass into food for piscivores 

(Morton, 1989; Newberger and Houde, 1995). Young bay anchovies feed mainly on copepods, 

and adults consume mysids, small crustaceans, mollusks, and larval fish. Copepods are the 

primary food source of bay anchovies in Delaware Bay. Adult bay anchovies are tolerant of a 

range of temperatures and salinities and move to deeper water for the winter (Morton, 1989). 

There is no commercial bay anchovy fishery, so they are not directly economically important. 

However, they support many other commercial fisheries as they are often the most abundant 

fish in coastal waters (Morton, 1989). Several authors count them as the most important link in 

the food web, as they are a primary forage item for many other fish, birds, and mammals 

(Morton, 1989; SMS, 2008; Newberger and Houde, 1995). Juvenile fish and gelatinous 

predators such as sea nettles and ctenophores consume bay anchovy eggs. Bay anchovy often 

account for over half the fish, eggs, or larvae caught in research trawls (SMS, 2008). Striped 
Affected Environment 

 2-57 

bass are heavily dependent on bay anchovies as larvae, juveniles, and adults, especially since 

the menhaden and river herring populations have declined in recent years (CBF, 2010). 

Atlantic Menhaden

The Atlantic menhaden is a small schooling fish inhabiting the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia 

to northern Florida in estuarine and nearshore coastal waters. It migrates seasonally, spending 

early spring through early winter in estuaries and nearshore waters, with the larger and older 

fish moving farther north during summer (ASMFC, 2005a). Spawning occurs offshore in fall and 

early winter between New Jersey and North Carolina (ASMFC, 2005a). The eggs are pelagic 

and hatch in 1 to 2 days. Once the yolk sac is absorbed at 4 days old, larvae begin to feed on 

plankton. Larvae enter estuary nursery areas after 1 to 3 months, between October and June in 

the Mid-Atlantic. Prejuvenile fish use the shallow, low salinity areas in estuaries as nurseries, 

preferring vegetated areas in fresh tidal marshes and swamps, where they become juveniles 

(Rogers and Van Den Ayvle, 1989). Juveniles spend approximately 1 year in the estuarine 

nurseries before joining the adult migratory population in late fall (ASMFC, 2005a). Larvae that 

entered the nursery areas late in the year may remain until the next fall. Once juveniles 

metamorphose to adults, they switch from individual capture to a filter feeding strategy. Fish are 

mature at age 2 or 3 and will then begin the spawning cycle (Rogers and Van Den Ayvle, 1989). 

Atlantic menhaden can live up to 8 years, but fish older than 6 years are rare (ASMFC, 2001). 

Due to its high abundance and trophic positioning in the nearshore and estuarine ecosystems, 

the Atlantic menhaden is ecologically vital along the Atlantic coast (Rogers and Van Den Ayvle, 

1989). It is a filter feeder that strains plankton from the water column and provides a trophic link 

between primary producers and the larger predatory species in nearshore waters (ASMFC, 

2005a). It also transfers energy in and out of estuary systems and on and off the coastal shelf 

(Rogers and Van Den Avyle, 1989). It is especially important in this regard, as most marine fish 

species cannot use plankton as a food source (ASMFC, 2001). Rogers and Van Den Avyle 

(1989) hypothesized that due to its abundance and migratory movements, the Atlantic 

menhaden may change the assemblage structure of plankton in the water column. Larvae in 

the estuaries feed preferentially upon copepods and copepodites and may eat detritus as well. 

Young fish and adults filter feed on anything larger than 7 to 9 micrometers, including 

zooplankton, large phytoplankton, and chain diatoms (Rogers and Van Den Avyle, 1989). The 

Atlantic menhaden provides a food source for many larger fish (ASMFC, 2001; Rogers and Van 

Den Avyle, 1989). Atlantic menhaden are adapted to accumulate fat when prey (zooplankton) 

are abundant and metabolize stored fat whn prey densities are low (Rogers and Van Den Avyle, 

1989). 

The Atlantic menhaden has been an important commercial fish along the Atlantic coast since 

colonial times. It has been fished since the early 1800s, and landings increased over time as 

new technologies developed (ASMFC, 2005a). The ASMFC manages the fishery. Currently, 

the reduction industry uses Atlantic menhaden for fish meal and oil, and both commercial and 

recreational fisheries use them as bait. Atlantic menhaden populations suffered in the 1960s 

when they were severely overfished, but they recovered in the 1970s. A stock assessment 

completed in 2003 declared that the Atlantic menhaden were not overfished, and a review in 

2004 resulted in a decision not to require an assessment in 2006 (ASMFC, 2005a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-58 

Weakfish

The weakfish inhabits the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to southern Florida, but is more 

common between New York and North Carolina (ASMFC, 2009b). Its growth varies 

geographically, with northern populations becoming much larger and living longer than the more 

southern populations. Within the Delaware Bay, the oldest females (age 9 years) were an 

average of 28 inches (710 mm) long, and the oldest males (6 years) were an average of 27 

inches (686 mm) long (Mercer, 1989). Spring warming induces inshore migration from offshore 

wintering areas and spawning (ASMFC, 2009b). Spawning occurs in estuaries and nearshore 

areas between May and July in the New York Bight (Delaware Bay to New York) (Mercer, 

1989). The weakfish is a batch spawner that continuously produces eggs during the spawning 

season, allowing more than one spawning event per female (ASMFC, 2002). Larval weakfish 

migrate into estuaries, bays, sounds, and rivers to nursery habitats, where they remain until they 

are 1 year old (ASMFC, 2009b; Mercer, 1989). Eggs are pelagic and hatch between 36 and 40 

hours after fertilization. Larvae become demersal soon after this. Juvenile weakfish use the 

deeper waters of estuaries, tidal rivers, and bays extensively but do not often inhabit the 

shallower areas closer to shore. Within Delaware Bay, juvenile weakfish migrate toward lower 

salinities in the summer, higher salinities in the fall, and offshore for the winter months. Adults 

migrate inshore seasonally to spawn in large bays or the nearshore ocean. As temperatures 

cool for the winter, weakfish migrate to ocean wintering areas, the most important of which is 

the continental shelf between the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina (Mercer, 1989). 

The weakfish plays an important ecological role as both predator and prey in the estuarine and 

nearshore food webs (Mercer, 1989). Adults feed on penaid and mysid shrimps and a variety of 

other fishes. Younger weakfish consume mostly mysids and other zooplankton and 

invertebrates (Mercer, 1989; ASMFC, 2002). Weakfish are tolerant of a relatively wide range of 

temperatures and salinities. In Delaware Bay, weakfish have been collected in temperatures 

between approximately 62.6°F and 82.4°F (17°C and 28°C) and salinities of 0 to 32 ppt (Mercer, 

1989). 

The weakfish is part of a mixed stock fishery that has been economically vital since the early 

1800s (ASMFC, 2009b). It was historically highly abundant in Delaware Bay. It topped 

commercial landings in the State of Delaware until the 1990s and was consistently within the top 

five species in recreational landings (DNREC, 2006a). Atlantic coast weakfish biomass has 

declined significantly in recent years, with non-fishing pressures such as increased natural 

mortality, predation, competition, and environmental variables hypothesized as the cause for the 

decline (ASMFC, 2009b). Commercial landings have fluctuated since the beginning of the 

fishery, without apparent trend or sufficient explanation (ASMFC, 2009b; Mercer, 1989). 

Landings along the Atlantic coast peaked in the 1970s then declined throughout the 1980s and 

early 1990s. Management measures increased stock and commercial harvest until 1998, when 

the fishery declined again, this time continuously until 2008 (ASMFC, 2009b). Between 1995 

and 2004, commercial landings in Delaware dropped by 82 percent and the recreational harvest 

dropped by 98 percent, reflecting a coast-wide drop of 78 percent (DNREC, 2006a). The results 

of the 2009 stock assessment defined the fishery as depleted, but not overfished, with natural 

sources of mortality listed as the cause of the low biomass levels. The ASMFC is currently 

developing an amendment to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish to address 

the decline (ASMFC, 2009b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-59 

Spot

The range of spot along the Atlantic coast stretches from Maine to Florida. They are most 

abundant from the Chesapeake Bay to North Carolina (ASMFC, 2008c). During fall and 

summer, they are highly abundant in estuarine and near-shore areas from Delaware Bay to 

Georgia (Phillips et al., 1989). Spot migrate seasonally, spawning offshore in fall and winter at 

2 to 3 years of age and spending the spring months in estuaries (ASMFC, 2008c). Spawning 

occurs offshore over the continental shelf from October to March. The eggs are pelagic and 

hatch after approximately 48 hours, producing buoyant larvae that become more demersal and 

migrating from the mid-depths during the day to the surface at night. The larvae move slowly 

toward shore, entering the post-larval stages when they reach nearshore areas and developing 

into juveniles when they reach the inlets (Phillips et al., 1989). Juveniles move into the lowsalinity coastal estuaries, where they grow before moving into higher-salinity areas as they 

mature (ASMFC, 2008c). Seagrass beds and tidal creeks are important nursery habitats for 

spot, which often make up 80 to 90 percent of the total number of fish found in these habitats. 

Juveniles remain in the nursery areas for approximately a year, migrating back to the ocean in 

September or October (Phillips et al., 1989). Spot are tolerant of a wide range of environmental 

conditions; they inhabit water temperatures between 46.4 and 87.8°F (8 and 31°C) and 

salinities between 0 and 61 ppt (Phillips et al., 1989). 

Due to their large numbers and use of a variety of habitats throughout their lifetimes, spot are an 

ecologically important species as both prey and predators. Spot may significantly reduce 

zooplankton biomass during their migration to the ocean. Juvenile and young spot eat benthic 

invertebrates. Adult spot are also benthic feeders, scooping up sediments and consuming large 

numbers of polychaetes, copepods, decapods, nematodes, and diatoms. Spot are important 

prey for fish such as spotted seatrout and striped bass and for birds such as cormorants. Spot 

make up a major portion of the fish biomass and numbers in estuarine waters of the Mid-Atlantic 

Region (Phillips et al., 1989). 

Commercial landings of spot fluctuate widely because spot are a short-lived species (4 to 6 

years) and most landings are composed of a single age class (ASMFC, 2008c). Commercial 

landings varied between 3.8 and 14.5 million lbs (1.7 and 6.6 million kg) between 1950 and 

2005 (Austin et al., 2006). In addition, spot are a large component of the bycatch in other 

fisheries, including the south Atlantic shrimp trawl fishery (ASMFC, 2008c). Spot also are a very 

popular recreational species, with recreational landings sometimes surpassing commercial 

landings (Austin et al., 2006). 

Atlantic Silverside

The Atlantic silverside inhabits salt marshes, estuaries, and tidal creeks along the Atlantic coast 

from Nova Scotia to Florida. It can be the most abundant fish in these habitats. Juveniles and 

adults inhabit intertidal creeks, marshes, and shore areas in bays and estuaries during spring, 

summer, and fall. During winter in the Mid-Atlantic Region, Atlantic silversides often migrate to 

deeper water within the bays or offshore (Fay et al., 1983a). Spawning occurs in the intertidal 

zones of estuaries between March and July in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Most Atlantic silversides 

die after their first spawning season, though they may spawn between 5 and 20 times in one 

season (NYNHP, 2009). Atlantic silverside spawning is a complex behavior in which fish swim 

parallel to the shore until the appropriate tidal level is reached, then the school rapidly turns 

shoreward to spawn in the shallows in areas where eggs may attach to vegetative substrates. 
Affected Environment 

 2-60 

Eggs are demersal and adhesive, sticking to eel grass, cordgrass, and filamentous algae. Eggs 

hatch after 3 to 27 days, depending on temperature. The sex of an individual fish is determined 

by water temperature during the larval stage – colder temperatures produce more females and 

warmer temperatures produce more males. Larvae usually inhabit shallow, low salinity (8 to 9 

ppt) water in estuaries and are most often found at the surface (Fay et al., 1989a). Eggs and 

larvae tolerate a wide degree of environmental conditions. Juveniles and adults appear to 

prefer temperatures between 64.4°F and 77°F (18°C and 25°C). The optimum salinity for 

hatching and early development is 30 ppt, but juveniles and adults tolerate a wide range of 

salinities (0 ppt to 38 ppt) (Fay et al., 1983a). 

Ecologically, the Atlantic silverside is an important forage fish and plays a large role in the 

aquatic food web and in linking terrestrial production to aquatic systems. Due to their short life 

span and high winter mortality (up to 99 percent), they play a vital part in the export of nutrients 

to the near and offshore ecosystem. Little is known about the larval diet. Juvenile and adult fish 

are opportunistic omnivores and eat invertebrates, fish eggs, algae, and detritus. They feed in 

large schools over gravel and sand bars, open beaches, tidal creeks, river mouths, and 

tidally-flooded zones of marsh vegetation. They are prey for many species of commercially and 

recreationally important fish, crabs, and shorebirds (Fay et al., 1983a). There is no direct 

commercial or recreational fishery for this species, although many recreational fishers net these 

minnows for use as bait (Fay et al., 1983a). 

Atlantic Croaker

The Atlantic croaker is a migratory species that appears to move inshore in the warmer months 

and southward in winter, although its movements have not been well defined (ASMFC, 2007b). 

It ranges from Cape Cod to Argentina and is uncommon north of New Jersey. Atlantic croaker 

are estuarine dependant at all life stages, especially as postlarvae and juveniles (Lassuy, 1983). 

Spawning occurs at 1 to 2 years of age in nearshore and offshore habitats between July and 

December (ASMFC, 2007b). Atlantic croaker can live for up to 12 years, and will spawn more 

than once in a season. Eggs are pelagic and are found in waters of varying salinities. Larvae 

have been found from the continental shelf to inner estuaries. Recruitment to the nursery 

habitats in the estuaries depends largely on currents and tides and appears to have seasonal 

peaks depending on latitude. Peak recruitment in the Delaware Estuary occurs in August 

through October. Ages at recruitment may vary from 2 months to 10 months. Larvae complete 

their development into juveniles in brackish, shallow habitats. Juveniles slowly migrate 

downstream, preferring stable salinity regimes in deeper water, and eventually enter the ocean 

in late fall as adults. They prefer mud bottoms with detritus and grass beds that provide a stable 

food source, but they are considered generalists (ASMFC, 2005b). Adult croaker are usually 

found in estuaries in spring and summer and offshore for the winter; their distribution is related 

to temperature and depth. They prefer muddy and sandy substrates that can support plant 

growth, but have also been found over oyster reefs. They are euryhaline, depending on the 

season, and are also sensitive to low oxygen levels. Atlantic croaker are bottom feeders that 

eat benthic invertebrates and fish. Larvae tend to consume large amounts of zooplankton, and 

juveniles feed on detritus (ASMFC, 2005b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-61 

The Atlantic croaker is an important commercial and recreational fish on the Atlantic coast and 

the most abundant bottom-dwelling fish in this region. It has been harvested as part of a mixed 

stock fishery since the 1880s. Commercial landings appear to be cyclical, with catches ranging 

between 2 million lbs and 30 million lbs (0.9 million kg and 13.6 million kg). This may be due to 

variable annual recruitment, which appears to be dependent on natural environmental variables. 

Recreational landings have been increasing. The 2003 stock assessment determined that the 

Atlantic croaker was not overfished in the Mid-Atlantic Region (ASMFC, 2007b). A 2005 

amendment to the management plan established fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass 

targets and thresholds for this species. There are no recreational or commercial management 

measures in this amendment, but some states have adopted internal management measures 

for the Atlantic croaker fishery (ASMFC, 2005b). 

White Perch

The white perch is a member of the temperate bass family (Percichthyidae) , which includes the 

striped bass and whit bass. It is a commercially and recreationally important species inhabiting 

coastal waters from Nova Scotia to South Carolina, with its highest abundance in New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia (Stanley and Danie, 1983). The white perch is a schooling 

fish that can grow up to 10 inches (25 cm) long in freshwater, 15 inches (38 cm) long in brackish 

water, and can live up to 10 years (PFBC, 2010; MDNR, 2008). It spawns in a wide variety of 

habitats, such as rivers, streams, estuaries, lakes, and marshes, usually in freshwater. Water 

speed and turbidity are not important in choosing a spawning location. Rising water 

temperature induces spawning in April through May in freshwater and in May through July in 

estuaries (Stanley and Danie, 1983). Marine and estuarine populations migrate to freshwater 

areas to spawn and, thus, are anadromous (PFBC, 2010). A single female spawns with several 

males. The eggs attach to the bottom immediately. Hatchlings remain in the spawning area for 

up to 13 days, then they drift downstream or with estuarine currents and become more 

demersal as they grow. Larvae can tolerate up to 5 ppt salinity, and adults can tolerate full 

seawater. Juveniles often inhabit upper estuarine nurseries, where they may stay for a year, 

preferring habitats with silt, mud, or plant substrates. Older juveniles move to offshore beach 

and shoal areas during the day, but return to the more protected nursery areas at night (Stanley 

and Danie, 1983). 

Ecologically, the white perch plays several important roles in its lifecycle. It is omnivorous and 

will feed on both plankton and benthic species, but it concentrates on fish after it is fully grown. 

Freshwater populations feed on aquatic insects, crustaceans, fishes, and detritus (Stanley and 

Danie, 1983). Estuarine populations consume fish (such as alewife, gizzard shad, and smelt), 

fish eggs, and invertebrates (Stanley and Danie, 1983; PFBC, 2010). White perch provide food 

for Atlantic salmon, brook trout, chain pickerel, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and other 

piscivorous fish and terrestrial vertebrates (Stanley and Danie, 1983). 

The largest commercial landings of white perch occurred at the turn of the 20th century. Catch 

levels then decreased, rising sporadically to reflect large year classes. White perch are a 

popular recreational fish in freshwater and estuaries. They are often the most abundant species 

caught recreationally in the northern Atlantic states (Stanley and Danie, 1983). 
Affected Environment 

 2-62 

Striped Bass

Striped bass inhabit the Atlantic coast from the St. Lawrence River in Canada to northern 

Florida. They are highly abundant in both the Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay. Females 

can grow up to 65 lbs (29.4 kg) and live for 29 years, whereas males over 12 years old are 

uncommon (Fay et al., 1983b). Striped bass migrate along the coast seasonally and are 

anadromous, spawning in rivers and estuaries after reaching an age of 2 years (males) to 4 

years (females) (ASMFC, 2008d). There are known riverine and estuarine spawning areas in 

the upper Delaware and Chesapeake bays. Spawning occurs in April through June in the 

Mid-Atlantic Region, with some of the most important spawning areas found in the upper 

Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake-Delaware Canal (Fay et al., 1983b). In the Delaware 

River, the main spawning grounds are located between Wilmington, DE, and Marcus Hook, PA 

(Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2010b). The eggs are pelagic and both eggs and larvae 

tend to remain in the spawning area throughout the early developmental stages. Most juveniles 

also remain in the estuaries where they were spawned until they reach adult size, tending to 

move downstream after the first year. On the Atlantic coast, some adults leave the estuaries 

and join seasonal migrations to the north in the warmer months, while others remain in the 

estuaries. Some of these adults will also migrate into coastal estuaries to overwinter. 

Reproduction success is highly variable, with strong year classes appearing every 3 to 5 years. 

Variability in adult and juvenile behavior and dramatic year to year differences in year class 

strength make management of the fishery challenging. There are four different stocks identified 

along the Atlantic coast, including the Roanoke River-Albemarle Sound, Chesapeake Bay, 

Delaware River, and Hudson River stocks (Fay et al., 1983b). 

Striped bass are tolerant of a wide variety of environmental variables but require specific 

conditions for successful reproduction. Higher water flows and colder winters may produce 

successful year classes. Eggs tolerate temperatures of between 57.2°F and 73.4°F (14°C and 

23 °C), salinities of 0 to 10 ppt, dissolved oxygen of 1.5 to 5.0 mg/L, turbidity of 0 to 500 mg/L, 

pH of 6.6 to 9.0, and a current velocity of 1.4 to 197 inches/sec (30.5 to 500 cm/sec). Larvae 

are slightly more tolerant of variables outside these ranges, and juveniles are even more 

tolerant (Fay et al., 1983b). Young and juveniles tend to inhabit sandy bottoms in shallow 

water, but can also inhabit areas over gravel, mud, and rock. Adults use a wide variety of 

bottom types, such as rock, gravel, sand, and submerged aquatic vegetation (ASMFC, 2010b). 

Larvae and juveniles consume invertebrates,fish eggs, and small fish. Young striped bass eat 

invertebrates and small fish. Adults are mainly piscivorous, consuming schooling bait fish as 

well as invertebrates (Fay et al., 1983b; DNREC, 2006b). Young striped bass provide food for 

weakfish, bluefish, white perch, and other large fishes; a variety of predators eat larvae and 

eggs. Adult striped bass probably compete with weakfish and bluefish, and juveniles are likely 

to compete with white perch in the nursery areas (Fay et al., 1983b). Striped bass do not feed 

while on spawning runs (DNREC, 2006b). 

The striped bass is historically one of the most important fish species along the Atlantic coast 

from Maine to North Carolina, with recreational landings exceeding commercial landings 

(ASMFC, 2003; 2008d). Its population has recovered since a sharp decline from its peak in the 

1970s (ASMFC, 2008d). The 2007 stock assessment declared the fishery recovered, fully 

exploited, and not overfished. This recovery is considered one of the greatest successes in 

fisheries management (ASMFC, 2008d). The recovery of the striped bass fishery may be the 

cause of a decline in weakfish abundance (DNREC, 2006b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-63 

Bluefish

The bluefish is a migratory schooling fish that inhabits estuaries and the oceans over the 

continental shelf in tropical and temperate waters globally. It occurs in the Atlantic from Nova 

Scotia to northern Mexico. Adults migrate north during summer between Cape Hatteras and 

New England and spend winter in the south near Florida in the Gulf Stream. Bluefish spawn in 

the open ocean (Pottern et al., 1989). There is a single spawning event that begins in the south 

in the late winter and continues northward into the summer as the fish migrate (ASMFC, 1998c). 

Eggs are pelagic and larvae drift with the offshore currents until coastal waters become warmer 

(Pottern et al., 1989; ASMFC, 1998c). Larvae transform to a pelagic juvenile stage in 18 to 25 

days (NOAA, 2006). Spring-spawned juveniles then migrate into bays and estuaries at 1 to 2 

months old, where they complete their development before joining the adult population in the fall 

(Pottern et al., 1989). Summer-spawned juveniles enter the estuaries for only a short time 

before migrating south for the winter (ASMFC, 1998c). Some juveniles will spend a second 

summer in the estuaries (Pottern et al., 1989). Bluefish can live for up to 12 years and reach 

lengths of 39 inches (91.4 cm) and weights of 31 lbs (14 kg) (ASMFC, 2006). 

Due to its large size and numbers, the bluefish probably plays a large role in the community 

structure of forage species along the Atlantic coast. Larval bluefish consume large quantities of 

zooplankton, mostly copepods, in the open ocean (Pottern et al., 1989; NOAA, 2006). Juveniles 

in the estuaries eat small shrimp and fish. Adult bluefish are mostly piscivorous but also eat 

invertebrates. (Pottern et al.,1989). Bluefish are highly sensitive to temperature, preferring an 

optimum range of 64 °F to 68 °F (18 °C to 20 °C). Temperatures above or below this range can 

induce rapid swimming, loss of interest in food, loss of equilibrium, and changes in schooling 

and diurnal behaviors. They are found in estuaries at 10 ppt and waters of up to 38 ppt in the 

ocean (Pottern et al., 1989). 

The bluefish has been a highly important recreational fish species since the 1800s. It is 

harvested for human consumption but there is no commercial bluefish industry. Slightly less 

than half the recreational catch is in inland bays and estuaries (Pottern et al., 1989). A bluefish 

management plan was developed in 1990 due to the continuous decline in landings since the 

early 1980s (ASMFC, 2006; 1998c). Recent numbers have been rising in response to the 

management plan amendment developed in 1998 (ASMFC, 2006). 

Species with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

In addition to the 12 species monitored by PSEG and discussed above, there are 14 species 

that have designated EFH in the upper portion of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem 

and HCGS. EFH is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C. 1802(10); 50 CFR 600.10). This definition 

includes all developmental stages of the particular fishes in question. Thus, EFH for a given 

species can vary by life stage. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) was reauthorized in 

1996 and amended to focus on the importance of habitat protection for healthy fisheries (16 

USC 1801 et seq.). The MSA amendments, known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act, required 

the eight regional fishery management councils to describe and identify EFH in their regions, to 

identify actions to conserve and enhance their EFH, and to minimize the adverse effects of 

fishing on EFH. The act strengthened the authority of the governing agencies to protect and 
Affected Environment 

 2-64 

conserve the habitats of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fish, crustaceans, and mollusks 

(NEFMC, 1999). EFH was defined by Congress as those waters and substrates necessary for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (MSA, 16 USC 1801 et seq.). The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designates EFH. The consultation requirements of Section 

305(b) of the MSA provide that Federal agencies consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed 

actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. 

EFH is an essential component in the development of Fishery Management Plans to assess the 

effects of habitat loss or degradation on fishery stocks and to take actions to mitigate such 

damage. Many managed species are mobile and migrate seasonally, so some species are 

managed coast-wide, others are managed by more than one fishery management council, and 

still others are managed for the entire coast by a single council. In Delaware Bay, various 

fisheries species are managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), 

the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEMFC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (MAFMC), and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 

Several species are regulated by the states of New Jersey and Delaware as well, in some cases 

with more rigid restrictions than those of the regional councils. 

Salem and HCGS are located near the interface of the salinity zones classified by NMFS as 

tidal freshwater and mixing salinity zones. The area of the Delaware Estuary adjacent to 

Artificial Island is designated by NMFS as EFH for various life stages of several species of fish. 

The staff considered all the designated EFH that could occur in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 

based on geographic coordinates; some species and life stages with EFH requirements that are 

outside of the conditions that normally occur in the local area were eliminated from further 

consideration. 

NMFS identifies EFH on their website for the overall Delaware Bay (NOAA, 2010e) and for 

smaller squares within the estuary defined by 10 minutes (') of latitude by 10' of longitude. 

NMFS provides tables of species and life stages that have designated EFH within the 10' by 10' 

squares. The 10' by 10' square that includes Salem and HCGS is defined by the following 

coordinates: 

North: 39° 30.0'N South: 39° 20.0'N 

East: 75° 30.0'W West: 75° 40.0'W 

The following description of the general location and New Jersey shoreline within this square 

confirms that it includes Artificial Island and the Salem and HCGS facilities (NOAA, 2010e): 

Atlantic Ocean waters within the square within the Delaware River, within the mixing 

water salinity zone of the Delaware Bay affecting both the New Jersey and Delaware 

coasts. On the New Jersey side, these waters affect: from Hope Creek on the south, 

north past Stoney Point, and Salem Nuclear Power Plant on Artificial Island, to the tip of 

Artificial Island as well as affecting Baker Shoal. 

NMFS identified 14 fish species with EFH in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem and 

HCGS (NMFS, 2010a). These species and their life stages with EFH in this area are identified 

in Table 2-5. Some of the species were eliminated from further consideration due to salinity 

requirements of the species; the salinity requirements of these eliminated species and life 

stages are provided in Table 2-6. Salinities in the vicinity of Artificial Island are described above 

in Section 2.2.5.1 and summarized in Table 2-4. For each of these EFH species, the staff 
Affected Environment 

 2-65 

compared the range of salinities in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS with the salinity 

requirements of the potentially affected life stages (Table 2-6). The salinity requirements of 

many of these EFH species and life stages were found to be higher than salinity ranges in the 

vicinity of Salem and HCGS or to overlap these salinity ranges only during periods of low flow 

(Table 2-6). This comparison allowed the list of species with EFH that potentially could be 

affected by Salem or HCGS to be further refined. If the salinity requirements of an EFH species 

life stage were not met in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities, the EFH for that species 

and life stage was eliminated from further consideration because its potential to be affected by 

the proposed action would be negligible. As a result, four species were identified that have 

potentially affected EFH for one or more life stages in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS (Table 

2-7): winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus 

aquosus), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), and Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus 

triacanthus). Descriptions of these four species are included below. 

Table 2-5. Designated Essential Fish Habitat by species and life stage in NMFS’ 10 ' x 10 ' 

square of latitude and longitude in the Delaware Estuary that includes Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Scientific Name Common Name Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults 

Urophycis chuss Red hake 

Pleuronectes americanus Winter flounder X X X X 

Scophthalmus aquosus Windowpane flounder X X X X 

Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish X X 

Paralichthys dentatus Summer flounder X X 

Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic butterfish X 

Stenotomus chrysops Scup n/a n/a X 

Centropristes striatus Black sea bass n/a X 

Scomberomorus cavalla King mackerel X X X X 

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel X X X X 

Rachycentron canadum Cobia X X X X 

Leucoraja eglanteria Clearnose skate X X 

Leucoraja erinacea Little skate X X 

Leucoraja ocellata Winter skate X X 

X indicates designated EFH within this area. Blank indicates no designated EFH in this area. n/a indicates that the 

species does not have this life stage or has no EFH designation for this life stage. 

Sources: NOAA, 2010e; NOAA, 2010f 
Affected Environment 

 2-66 

Table 2-6. Potential Essential Fish Habitat species eliminated from further consideration 

due to salinity requirements 

Table 2-7. Fish Species and Life Stages with Potentially Affected Essential Fish Habitat 

in the Vicinity of Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults

Winter flounder X X X X 

Windowpane flounder X X X X 

Summer flounder X X 

Atlantic butterfish X 

Source: NRC, 2007 

Species, Life Stage EFH Salinity Requirement (ppt) (a) Site Salinity(e)

 Matches 

Requirement 

Windowpane, juvenile 5.5-36 low flow only 

Windowpane, adult 5.5-36 low flow only 

Windowpane, spawner 5.5-36 low flow only 

Bluefish, juvenile 23-36 no 

Bluefish, adult >25 no 

Scup, juvenile >15 no 

Black sea bass, juvenile >18 no 

King mackerel >30 no 

Spanish mackerel >30 no 

Cobia >25 no 

Clearnose skate, juvenile probably >22 (b) no 

Clearnose skate, adult probably >22 (b) no 

Little skate, juvenile mostly 25-30 (c) no 

Little skate, adult probably >20 (c) no 

Winter skate, juvenile probably >20 (d) no 

Winter skate, adult probably >20(d) no 

(a) Salinity data from NOAA table “Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and General Habitat Parameters for 

Federally Managed Species” unless otherwise noted. 

(b) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-174 (NOAA, 2003a). 

(c) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-175 (NOAA, 2003b). 

(d) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-179 (NOAA, 2003c). 

(e) Salinities in Delaware Estuary in vicinity of Salem/HCGS: high flow 0-5 ppt, low flow 5-12 ppt. 
Affected Environment 

 2-67 

Winter Flounder

There are two major populations of winter flounder in the Atlantic: one inhabits estuarine and 

coastal waters from Newfoundland to Georgia, the other lives offshore on Georges Bank and 

Nantucket Shoal (Buckley, 1989). In the Mid-Atlantic, winter flounder are most common 

between the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and Chesapeake Bay (Grimes et al., 1989). In the 

Delaware Bay region, winter flounder spawn in coastal waters in February and March. 

Spawning occurs at depths of 7 to 260 ft (2 to 79 m) over sandy substrates in inshore coves and 

inlets at salinities of 31 to 32.5 ppt (Buckley, 1989; NOAA, 1999a). Sexual maturity is 

dependent on size rather than age, with southern individuals (age 2 or 3 years) reaching 

spawning size more rapidly than northern fish (age 6 or 7 years). The eggs are demersal, stick 

to the substrate, and are most often found at salinities between 10 and 30 ppt (Buckley, 1989). 

Larvae initially are planktonic but become increasingly benthic as they develop (NOAA, 1999a). 

Juveniles and adults are completely benthic, with juveniles preferring a sandy or silty substrate 

in estuarine areas (Buckley, 1989). Juveniles move seaward as they grow, remaining in 

estuaries for the first year (Buckley, 1989; Grimes et al., 1989). Water temperature appears to 

dictate adult movements; south of Cape Cod, winter flounder spend the colder months in 

inshore and estuarine waters and move farther offshore in the warmer months (Buckley, 1989). 

Winter flounder can live for up to 15 years and may reach 23 inches (58 cm) in length 

(NOAA, 1999a). Winter flounder tolerate salinities of 5 to 35 ppt and prefer water temperatures 

of 32 °F to 77 °F (0 °C to 25 °C). Higher temperatures for extended periods can cause mortality 

(Buckley, 1989). 

Winter flounder larvae feed on small invertebrates, invertebrate eggs, and phytoplankton 

(Buckley, 1989; NOAA, 1999a). Adults feed on benthic invertebrates such as polychaetes, 

cnidarians, mollusks, and hydrozoans. Adults and juveniles are an important food source for 

predatory fish such as the striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix),

goosefish (Lophius americanus), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and other flounders, and 

birds such as the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), 

and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (Buckley, 1989). 

Winter flounder are highly abundant in estuarine and coastal waters and, therefore, are one of 

the most important species of the commercial and recreational fisheries on the Atlantic coast 

(Buckley, 1989). The NEFMC and ASMFC manage the winter flounder fishery as part of the 

groundfish fishery, which comprises 15 demersal species (NEFMC, 2010). Winter flounder also 

are very popular recreational fish, with the recreational catch sometimes exceeding the 

commercial catch (Buckley, 1989). Biomass in the New England Mid-Atlantic winter flounder 

stock declined from 1981 to 1992, and the fishery was declared overexploited. As of 1999, 

biomass remains significantly lower than prior to overexploitation (NOAA, 1999a). As part of the 

management program, EFH has been established for the winter flounder along the Atlantic 

coast. The Delaware Bay’s mixing and saline waters are EFH for all parts of the winter flounder 

lifecycle, including eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults, and spawning adults (NEFMC, 1998a). 

Windowpane Flounder 

Windowpane flounder inhabit estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans over the continental shelf 

along the Atlantic coast from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to Florida. They are most abundant in 

bays and estuaries south of Cape Cod in shallow waters, over sand, sand and silt, or mud 

substrates (NOAA, 1999b). They spawn from April to December, and in the Mid-Atlantic Region 
Affected Environment 

 2-68 

spawning peaks in May and September (NOAA, 1999b; Morse and Able, 1995). The eggs are 

pelagic and buoyant and hatch in approximately 8 days. Larvae begin life as plankton, but soon 

settle to the bottom (at 0.39 to 0.78 inches [10 to 20 mm] in length) and become demersal. This 

settling occurs in estuaries and over the continental shelf for spring-spawned fish, which inhabit 

the polyhaline portions of the estuary throughout the summer. Fall-spawned fish settle mostly 

on the shelf. Juveniles migrate to coastal waters from the estuaries as they grow larger during 

autumn, and they overwinter in deeper waters. Adults remain offshore throughout the year and 

are highly abundant off southern New Jersey. Sexual maturity is reached between 3 and 4 

years of age, and length generally does not exceed 18 inches (46 cm) (NOAA, 1999b). 

Juvenile and adult windowpane flounder have similar food sources, including small crustaceans 

and fish larvae (NOAA, 1999b). Adult windowpane tolerate a wide range of temperatures and 

salinities, from 23 °F to 80.2 °F (0 °C to 26.8 °C), and 5.5 ppt to 36 ppt. Adults and juveniles are 

abundant in the mixing and saline zones of Delaware Bay (NOAA, 1999b), and these zones as 

well as the inland bays are EFH for all life stages of the windowpane flounder, including eggs, 

larvae, juveniles, adults, and spawning adults (NEFMC, 1998b). The windowpane flounder is 

managed by the NEFMC under the Northeast Multispecies (Large Mesh/Groundfish) Fishery 

Management Plan (NEFMC, 2010). The fishery does not directly target windowpane, but 

groundfish trawls take them as bycatch (NOAA, 1999b; Morse and Able, 1995). 

Summer Flounder

The summer flounder is a demersal fish inhabiting coastal waters over sandy substrates from 

Nova Scotia to Florida, but it is most abundant between Cape Cod and Cape Fear 

(ASMFC, 2008e). It lives in bays and estuaries in spring, summer, and autumn, and migrates 

offshore for the winter (NEFSC, 2006a). Migrating adults tend to return to the same bay or 

estuary every year (NOAA, 1999c). Spawning occurs in autumn and early winter as the fish are 

migrating over the continental shelf (NEFSC, 2006a; NOAA, 1999c). Eggs are pelagic and 

buoyant, as are the early stages of larvae (NOAA, 1999c). Larvae move inshore between 

October and May, where they develop in estuaries and bays (NEFSC, 2006a; ASMFC, 2008e). 

Larvae become demersal as soon as the right eye migrates to the top of the head, then they 

bury themselves in the substrate while they are in the inshore nursery areas. Within the 

estuaries, marsh creeks, seagrass beds, mud flats, and open bay areas are important habitats 

for juveniles. Some juveniles stay in the estuary habitat until their second year, while others 

migrate offshore for the winter. Juveniles inhabit the deeper parts of the Delaware Bay 

throughout the winter (NOAA, 1999c). Sexual maturity is reached by age 2 years, females may 

live up to 20 years and reach 26 lbs (12 kg) in weight, but males generally live for only 10 years 

(NEFSC, 2006a). 

Tidal movements of juveniles may be due to the desire to stay within a desired set of 

environmental variables, including temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Larvae and 

juveniles live in waters with temperatures between 32 and 73 °F (0 and 23 °C) and usually 

inhabit the higher-salinity portions of estuaries. Newly recruited juveniles live over a variety of 

substrates, including mud, sand, shell hash, eelgrass beds, and oyster bars, but as they grow, 

they are more often over sand. Larvae feed on invertebrates and small fish, with benthic prey 

items becoming increasingly important with age. Adult summer flounder most often live over 
Affected Environment 

 2-69 

substrates of sand, coarse sand, or shell fragments and may occur in marsh creeks and 

seagrass beds. Their diet consists of varioius invertebrates and fish. Large predators, such as 

sharks, rays, and goosefish, consume adult summer flounder (NOAA, 1999c). 

The summer flounder is a highly important commercial and recreational species along the 

Atlantic coast. Both the ASMFC and the MAFMC manage the fishery under the Summer 

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The recreational harvest 

makes up a sizeable portion of the total and is occasionally larger than the commercial harvest. 

In 1999, the summer flounder stock was considered overexploited, but as of 2005, the stock 

was considered not overfished (NOAA, 1999c; NEFSC, 2006a). In 2009, the ASMFC increased 

total allowable landings. Although the stock is currently considered not overfished, it has not 

reached rebuilt status (ASMFC, 2008e). 

The Delaware Bay is important as a habitat for adults and as a nursery for juveniles, and NMFS 

has designated EFH for summer flounder larvae, juveniles, and adults in the Delaware Bay 

(NOAA, 2010g). Summer flounder adults and juveniles are present in the Delaware Bay in 

salinity zones of 0.5 ppt to above 25 ppt (CCMA, 2005), which includes the vicinity of Salem and 

HCGS. 

Atlantic Butterfish

The Atlantic butterfish is a pelagic schooling fish that is ecologically important as a forage fish 

for many larger fishes, marine mammals, and birds. Its range includes the Atlantic coast from 

Newfoundland to Florida, but it is most abundant from the Gulf of Maine to Cape Hatteras 

(NEFSC, 2006b; NOAA, 1999d). Butterfish migrate seasonally in response to changes in water 

temperature. During summer, they migrate inshore into southern New England and Gulf of 

Maine waters, and in winter they migrate to the edge of the continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight (Cross et al., 1999). Butterfish inhabit bays, estuaries, and coastal waters up to 200 mi 

(322 km) offshore during the summer. Butterfish spawn offshore and in large bays and 

estuaries from June through August. They are broadcast spawners that spawn at night in the 

upper part of the water column in water of 15°C (59°F) or more. Eggs are pelagic and buoyant 

(NOAA, 1999d). Butterfish eggs and larvae are found in water with depths ranging from the 

shore to 6,000 ft (1828 m) and temperatures between 9°C (48°F) and 19°C (66°F). Juvenile 

and adult butterfish are found in waters from 33 to 1,200 ft (10 to 366 m) deep and at 

temperatures ranging from 3°C (37°F) to 28°C (82°F) (NMFS 2010b). Butterfish reach sexual 

maturity by age 1, rarely live more than 3 years, and normally reach a weight of up to 1.1 lbs 

(0.5 kg) (NEFSC, 2006b). Adult butterfish prey on small fish, squid, crustaceans, and other 

invertebrates and in turn are preyed upon by many species of fish and squid. In summer, 

butterfish can be found over the entire continental shelf, including sheltered bays and estuaries, 

to a depth of 656 ft (200 m) over substrates of sand, rock, or mud (Cross et al., 1999). 
Affected Environment 

 2-70 

The Atlantic butterfish is an important commercial fish species that is also bycatch in other 

fisheries (NEFSC, 2004; 2006b). The fishery has been in operation since the late 1800s 

(NOAA, 1999d). U.S. commercial landings peaked in 1984 and a record low catch occurred in 

2005 (NEFSC, 2006b). The MAFMC manages the Atlantic butterfish under the Atlantic 

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (NEFSC, 2006b). Due to a lack of 

data, it has not been established if overfishing is currently occurring, but during the last stock 

assessment in 1993, it was established that biomass was at medium levels, the catch was not 

excessive, and recruitment was high (NEFSC, 2004). EFH for Atlantic butterfish juveniles may 

exist in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. Inshore EFH for the butterfish includes the mixing or 

saline zones of estuaries where butterfish eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults are common or 

abundant on the Atlantic coast, from Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine to the James River in 

Virginia (NMFS 2010b). 

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 

This section describes the terrestrial resources in the immediate vicinity of the Salem and 

HCGS facilities on Artificial Island and within the transmission line ROWs connecting these 

facilities to the regional power grid. For this assessment, terrestrial resources were considered 

to include plants and animals of uplands as well as wetlands of Artificial Island and bodies of 

freshwater located on Artificial Island or the ROWs. 

2.2.6.1 Artificial Island 

The project site is within the Middle Atlantic coastal plain of the eastern temperate forest 

ecoregion. This ecoregion, which runs along the eastern seaboard from Delaware to the South 

Carolina/Georgia border, is characterized by low, flat plains with many marshes, swamps, and 

estuaries (EPA, 2007). As discussed in Section 2.2.1, Land Use, Artificial Island, on which the 

Salem and HCGS facilities are situated, is a man-made island approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) long 

and 5 mi (8 km) wide that was created by the deposition of dredge spoil material atop a natural 

sandbar. All terrestrial resources on the island have become established since creation of the 

island approximately 100 years ago. Consequently, Artificial Island contains poor quality soils 

and very few trees. Approximately 65 percent of the island is undeveloped and dominated by 

tidal marsh, which extends from the higher areas along the river eastward to the marshes of the 

former natural shoreline adjacent to the eastern boundary of Artificial Island. Terrestrial, nonwetland habitats of the island, which are limited and occur primarily on the periphery of the 

developed portions of PSEG property, consist principally of areas covered by grasses and other 

herbs with scrub/shrubs and planted trees. Almost all of the undeveloped portions of the island 

consist of estuarine emergent wetlands (tidal), with scattered occurrences of freshwater 

wetlands. Small, isolated, freshwater impoundments are also present, particularly along the 

northwest shoreline. 

The Salem and HCGS facilities were constructed on adjacent portions of the PSEG property, 

which occupies the southwest corner of Artificial Island. The PSEG property is low and flat with 

elevations rising to about 18 ft (5.5 m) above the level of the river at the highest point. 

Developed areas covered by facilities and pavement occupy over 70 percent of the 740 ac (300 

ha) PSEG site (approximately 525 ac [212 ha]). Maintained areas of grass, including two 

baseball fields, cover about 12 ac (5 ha) of the site interior. The remaining 27 percent of the 
Affected Environment 

 2-71 

Figure 2-10. Aerial Photo Showing the Boundaries of Artificial Island 

(dotted), PSEG Property (dashed), and Developed Areas (solid). 

 
Affected Environment 

 2-72 

PSEG property (approximately 200 ac [81 ha]) consists primarily of tidal marsh dominated by 

the common reed (Phragmites australis) and several cordgrass species (Spartina spp.) (PSEG, 

2009b). 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

classifies all land on the project site as Urban, while the soils on the remainder of Artificial Island 

are Udorthents consisting of dredged fine material (NRCS, 2010). The National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) identifies a non-tidal inland marsh/swamp area on the periphery of the project 

site adjacent to Hope Creek Road and two small, man-made freshwater ponds immediately 

north of the Hope Creek reactor. NWI classifies the rest of Artificial Island as estuarine 

emergent marsh, with the exception of the northernmost 1 mi (1.6 km) of the island, which is 

contains freshwater emergent wetlands and freshwater ponds (FWS, 2010c). 

The tidal marsh vegetation of the site periphery and adjacent areas is dominated by common 

reed, but other plants present include big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), salt marsh 

cordgrass (S. alterniflora), saltmeadow cordgrass (S. patens), and saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus 

robustus) (PSEG, 2009b). Fragments of this marsh community exist along the eastern edge of 

the PSEG property. The non-estuarine vegetation on the undeveloped areas within the facilities 

consists mainly of small areas of turf grasses and planted shrubs and trees around buildings, 

parking lots, and roads. 

Tidal marshes in this region are commonly used by many migrant and resident birds because 

they provide habitat for breeding, foraging, and resting (PSEG, 2004b). A total of 44 avian 

species, including many shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl associated with open water 

and emergent marsh areas of the estuary were observed within a 4-mi (6-km) radius of the 

Salem site during preconstruction surveys conducted in 1972 (AEC, 1973). Several avian 

species were observed on the project site, itself, including the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius 

phoeniceus), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), song 

sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) (AEC, 1973). HCGS 

construction studies reported the occurrence of 178 bird species within 10 mi (16 km) of the 

project site, approximately half of which were recorded within tidal marsh and the open water of 

the Delaware River and roughly 45 of the 178 total observed species were classified as 

permanent resident species (PSEG, 1983). Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have used Artificial 

Island transmission line towers and other suitable high perches on and near the site since the 

construction of the plants (PSEG, 1983; NRC, 1984; NJDFW, 2009b). Resident songbirds, 

such as the marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), and migratory songbirds, such as the swamp 

sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), use the nearby Alloway Creek Estuary Enhancement Program 

restoration site for breeding (PSEG, 2004b). 

Mammals such as the eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), the Norway rat (Rattus 

norvegicus), the house mouse (Mus musculus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) were observed on 

and in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites during preconstruction surveys (AEC, 1973). 

Other mammals likely to occur in the vicinity of the two facilities include the white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes fulva), 

gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), opossum (Didelphis 

marsupialis), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). 

Twenty-six reptile species were observed during HCGS preconstruction surveys (PSEG, 1983). 

Three species, the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water snake (Natrix sipedon), 
Affected Environment 

 2-73 

and eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), prefer freshwater habitats but also occur in 

brackish marsh. The northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), inhabits saltwater 

and brackish habitats and occurs in tidal marsh adjacent to the project site. Other common 

reptiles likely to inhabit the area include the spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), eastern box turtle 

(Terrapene carolina), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), and eastern garter snake 

(Thamnophis sirtalis) (PSEG, 1983). Amphibians likely to occur in the upland and/or freshwater 

wetland habitats of the island include the New Jersey chorus frog (Pseudoacris triseriata kalmi), 

southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and Fowler’s toad (Bufo woodhousii fowleri) (NJDEP, 

2001b). 

Two Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) managed by the New Jersey Division of Fish and 

Wildlife are located near Salem and HCGS: 

• Abbotts Meadow WMA encompasses approximately 1,000 ac (405 ha) and is about 4 mi 

(6.4 km) northeast of HCGS. 

• Mad Horse Creek State WMA encompasses roughly 9,500 acres (3,844 ha), of which the 

northernmost portion is less than 1 mi (1.6 km) northeast of the PSEG property boundary. 

The southern portion of this WMA includes Stowe Creek, which is designated as an 

Important Bird Area (IBA) in New Jersey. Stowe Creek IBA provides breeding habitat for 

several pairs of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are State-listed as 

endangered, and the adjacent tidal wetlands support large populations of the northern 

harrier (Circus cyaneus), which also is State-listed as endangered, as well as many other 

birds dependent on salt marsh/wetland habitats (NAS, 2010). 

Alloway Creek Wetland Restoration Site is a restoration area less than 3 mi (5 km) northeast of 

HCGS and Salem that is owned and maintained by PSEG. Over 1,600 ac (647 ha) of wetlands 

and uplands of the 3,096 ac (1,253 ha) Alloway Creek Wetland Restoration Site were restored 

by PSEG between 1996 and 1999 to increase fish habitat and reduce invasive species, such as 

Phragmites australis from spreading (PSEG 2009c). The site includes two nature trails, several 

observation platforms, a boardwalk to the beach, and a wildlife viewing blind. 

The Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), part of the Cape May NWR Complex, 

is located approximately 7 mi (11 km) north of the HCGS and Salem sites and, like Artificial 

Island, consists primarily of brackish tidal marshes (FWS, 2010d). Supawna Meadows NWR is 

adjacent to the Delaware River and estuary and is recognized as a wetland of international 

importance and an international shorebird reserve that provides important feeding and resting 

grounds for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl (FWS, 2010d). Black ducks (Anas rubripes), 

mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and northern pintails (Anas acuta) winter in the refuge, and 

sandpipers (Actitis hypoleucos) and other shorebirds use the marshes and beaches as a 

feeding area during summer months (FWS, 2010d). 

2.2.6.2 Transmission Line Right-of-Ways 

Section 2.1.5 describes the existing power transmission system that distributes electricity from 

Salem and HCGS to the regional power grid. There are four 500-kV transmission lines within 

three corridors that extend beyond the PSEG property on Artificial Island. Two corridors extend 

northeast between 40 and 50 mi (64 and 72 km) to the New Freedom substation south of 
Affected Environment 

 2-74 

Philadelphia. The other ROW corridor extends north then west approximately 25 mi (40 km), 

crossing the Delaware River to end at the Keeney substation in Delaware (Figure 2-8). 

In total, the three ROW corridors for the Salem and HCGS power transmission system occupy 

approximately 4,420 ac (1,789 ha) and pass through a variety of habitat types, including 

marshes and other wetlands, agricultural or forested land, and some urban and residential 

areas (PSEG, 2009a). The major land cover types crossed by these ROW corridors are 

cultivated land (23 percent), palustrine forested wetland (19 percent), deciduous forest (13 

percent), scrub/shrub (12 percent), and estuarine emergent wetland (11 percent). Other types, 

such as pasture/hay, urban/developed, and water, collectively cover less than 22 percent of the 

land crossed by these ROW corridors (PSEG 2010c). As the three ROWs exit the PSEG 

property, they cross estuarine tidal marsh to the east and north of Artificial Island. 

The initial segments of the New Freedom North and New Freedom South ROWs traverse 

approximately 3 mi (5 km) of estuarine emergent marsh east of the PSEG property boundary. 

This tidal marsh is part of the northern portion of the Mad Horse Creek State WMA. The middle 

segments of the New Freedom North and New Freedom South ROW Corridors extend a 

distance of approximately 30 mi (48 km) and cross a mixture of mainly agricultural and forested 

lands. 

The Keeney ROW corridor turns north after exiting HCGS and traverses approximately 5 mi (8 

km) of emergent marsh and swamp paralleling the New Jersey shore of the Delaware Estuary 

before crossing 8 mi (13 km) of agricultural, sparsely forested, and rural residential lands. The 

Keeney ROW corridor then continues west across the Delaware River approximately 3 mi (5 

km) to the Red Lion substation. From the substation, the Red Lion-Keeney portion of the line 

within the Keeney ROW corridor remains exclusively within Delaware and crosses primarily 

highly developed, residential land. 

Animals likely to occur within the Salem and HCGS transmission line ROW corridors are similar 

to those described in Section 2.2.6.1 as occurring on the Salem and HCGS sites. Generally, 

species that prefer open fields, agricultural areas, marshes, and forest edges are the most likely 

to inhabit transmission line ROW corridors. 

Before their termination at the New Freedom substation, the New Freedom ROW corridors 

traverse the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve (PNR) for the last one-quarter of their 

length (NPS, 2006a). The New Freedom North and New Freedom South ROW corridors cross 

a total of approximately 10 mi (16 km) and 17 mi (27 km) of the PNR, respectively. The PNR 

contains the New Jersey Pinelands, also known as the Pine Barrens, which is a heavily forested 

area of the southern New Jersey Coastal Plain that supports a unique and diverse assemblage 

of unusual species, including orchids and carnivorous plants; low, dense forests of oak and 

pine; a 12-ac (5-ha) stand of pygmy pitch pines; and scattered bogs and marshes (NJPC, 

2010). The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

designated the Pinelands a U.S. Biosphere Reserve in 1988. Biosphere Reserves are areas of 

terrestrial and coastal ecosystems with three complementary roles: conservation; sustainable 

development; and logistical support for research, monitoring, and education (UNESCO, 2010). 

The PNR’s future development is guided by the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, 

which is implemented by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. 

The two New Freedom ROWs also cross the Great Egg Harbor River, a designated National 

Scenic and Recreational River located within the PNR. This 129-mi (208-km) river system 
Affected Environment 

 2-75 

(including 17 tributaries) starts in suburban towns near Berlin, NJ and meanders southeast for 

approximately 60 mi (97 km) and gradually widens as tributaries enter, until it terminates at the 

Atlantic Ocean. 

PSE&G vegetation management practices provide guidance to ensure that all vegetation under 

HCGS and Salem transmission lines is regularly inspected and maintained to avoid vegetationcaused outages to transmission systems in accordance with regulations of the New Jersey 

Board of Public Utilities (NJ-BPU, 2009) and standards of the North American Electric Reliability 

Council (NERC, 2006). If removal of woody vegetation is necessary within ROWs, PSEG 

coordinates its removal with the New Jersey BPU. In addition, PSEG follows protocol to prevent 

impacts to wetlands and threatened and endangered species as outlined in their vegetative 

management guidelines (PSEG, 2010c). As part of their protective measures, PSEG conducts 

annual surveys for threatened and endangered species in its ROWs (PSEG, 2010c). 

The New Jersey Pinelands Commission regulates the maintenance of the ROW corridor 

portions within the PNR. The commission’s Comprehensive Management Plan directs the 

creation and maintenance of early successional habitats within ROW corridors that represent 

characteristic Pinelands communities (Lathrop and Bunnell, 2009). 

2.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

This discussion of threatened and endangered species is organized based on the principal 

ecosystems in which such species may occur in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS facilities 

and the associated transmission line ROWs. Thus, Section 2.2.7.1 discusses aquatic species 

that may occur in adjacent areas of the Delaware Estuary, and Section 2.2.7.2 discusses 

terrestrial species that may occur on Artificial Island or the three ROWs, as well as freshwater 

aquatic species that may occur in the relatively small streams and wetlands within these 

terrestrial areas. 

2.2.7.1 Aquatic Species of the Delaware Estuary 

There are five aquatic species with a Federal listing status of threatened or endangered that 

have the potential to occur in the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS 

facilities. These species include four sea turtles and one fish (Table 2-8). In addition, there is 

one fish species that is a Federal candidate for listing (NMFS, 2010b; FWS, 2010a). These six 

species also have a State listing status of threatened or endangered in New Jersey and/or 

Delaware (DNREC, 2008).These species are discussed below. 

Table 2-8. Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species of the Delaware Estuary 

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Federal New Jersey Delaware

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T E E 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T T E 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle E E E 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E E E 
Affected Environment 

 2-76 

Scientific Name Common Name Status(a)

Federal New Jersey Delaware

Fish 

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E E - 

A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon C - E 

(a) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate 

Loggerhead, Green, Kemp’s Ridley, and Leatherback Sea Turtles

The four species of sea turtles identified by NMFS as potentially occurring in the Delaware 

Estuary are the threatened loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) and the 

endangered Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). 

Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles have been documented in the Delaware 

Estuary at or near the Salem and HCGS facilities; the leatherback sea turtle is less likely to 

occur in the vicinity (NMFS, 2010b). 

Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles have a similar appearance, though they differ 

in maximum size and coloration. The Kemp’s ridley is the smallest species of sea turtle; adults 

average approximately 100 pounds (lbs; 45 kilograms [kg]) with a carapace length of 24 to 28 

inches (61 to 71 centimeters [cm]) and a shell color that varies from gray in young individuals to 

olive green in adults. The loggerhead is the next largest of these three species; adults average 

about 250 lbs (113 kg) with a carapace length of 36 inches (91 cm) and a reddish brown shell 

color. The green is the largest of the three; adults average 300 to 350 lbs (136 to 159 kg) with a 

length of more than 3 ft (1 m) and brown coloration (its name comes from its greenish colored 

fat). The leatherback is the largest species of sea turtle and the largest living reptile; adults can 

weigh up to about 2,000 lbs (907 kg) with a length of 6.5 ft (2 m). The leatherback is the only 

sea turtle that lacks a hard, bony shell. Instead, its carapace is approximately 1.5 inches (4 cm) 

thick with seven longitudinal ridges and consists of loosely connected dermal bones covered by 

leathery connective tissue (NMFS, 2010c). 

The Kemp’s ridley has a carnivorous diet that includes fish, jellyfish, and mollusks. The 

loggerhead has an omnivorous diet that includes fish, jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and 

aquatic plants. The green has a herbivorous diet of aquatic plants, mainly seagrasses and 

algae, that is unique among sea turtles. The leatherback has a carnivorous diet of soft-bodied, 

pelagic prey such as jellyfish and salps. All four of these sea turtle species nest on sandy 

beaches; none nest on the Delaware Estuary (NMFS, 2010c). 

Major threats to these sea turtles include the destruction of beach nesting habitats and 

incidental mortality from commercial fishing activities. Sea turtles are killed by many fishing 

methods, including longline, bottom, and mid-water trawling; dredges; gillnets; and pots/traps. 

The required use of turtle exclusion devices has reduced bycatch mortality. Additional sources 

of mortality due to human activities include boat strikes and entanglement in marine debris 

(NMFS and FWS, 2007a; 2007b; 2007c; NOAA, 2010i). 

Shortnose Sturgeon

The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a primitive fish, similar in appearance to 

other sturgeon (NOAA, 2010j), and has not evolved significantly for the past 120 million years 
Affected Environment 

 2-77 

(NEFSC, 2006). This species was not specifically targeted as a commercial fishery species, but 

has been taken as bycatch in the Atlantic sturgeon (A.oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and shad 

fisheries. As they were not easily distinguished from Atlantic sturgeon, early data is unavailable 

for this species (NMFS, 1998). Furthermore, since the 1950s, when the Atlantic sturgeon 

fishery declined, shortnose sturgeon data has been almost completely lacking. Due to this lack 

of data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) believed that the species had been extirpated 

from most of its range; reasons noted for the decline included pollution and overfishing. Later 

research indicated that the construction of dams and industrial growth along the larger rivers on 

the Atlantic coast in the late 1800s also contributed to their decline due to loss of habitat. 

Shortnose sturgeon can live from 30 years (males) to 67 years (females), grow up to 4.7 ft (143 

cm) long, and reach a weight of 51 lbs (23 kg). Age at sexual maturity varies within their range 

from north to south, with individuals in the Delaware Bay area reaching maturity at 3 to 5 years 

for males and approximately 6 years for females (NOAA, 2010j). Shortnose sturgeon are 

demersal and feed predominantly on benthic invertebrates (NMFS, 1998). 

The shortnose sturgeon is found along the Atlantic coast from Canada to Florida in habitats that 

include fast-flowing rivers, estuaries, and, in some locations, offshore marine areas over the 

continental slope. They are anadromous, spawning in coastal rivers and later migrating into 

estuaries and nearshore environments during non-spawning periods. They do not appear to 

make long-distance offshore migrations like other anadromous fishes (NOAA, 2010j). Migration 

into freshwater to spawn occurs between late winter and early summer, depending on latitude 

(NEFSC, 2006). Spawning occurs in deep, rapidly flowing water over gravel, rubble, or boulder 

substrates, to which the demersal eggs adhere before hatching in 9 to 12 days (NMFS, 1998). 

Juveniles remain in freshwater or the fresher areas of estuaries for 3 to 5 years, then they move 

to more saline areas, including nearshore ocean waters (NEFSC, 2006). In the Delaware Bay 

drainage, shortnose sturgeon most often occur in the Delaware River and may be found 

occasionally in the nearshore ocean, but little is known of the distribution of juveniles in the 

Delaware Estuary. Their abundance is greatest in the river between Trenton, New Jersey, and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Adults overwinter in large groups between Trenton and 

Bordentown, New Jersey (USACE, 2009). 

Shortnose sturgeon were originally listed as an endangered species by the FWS in March 1967 

(32 FR 4001) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act. Pollution and overfishing were 

listed as principal reasons for the species’ decline. Shortnose sturgeon remained on the 

endangered species list when congress passed the Endangered Species Act. NMFS assumed 

jurisdiction for the shortnose sturgeon under the 1974 government reorganization (39 FR 

41370). 

NMFS began a status review of the shortnose sturgeon in 2007 (NMFS, 2008) which is ongoing. 

Due to its distinct population segments, the status of the species varies depending on the river 

in question. NMFS (2008) estimated the size of the population in the Delaware River system as 

12,047 adults based on surveys from 1999 through 2003. Current threats to the shortnose 

sturgeon vary among rivers. Generally, over the entire range, most threats include dams, 

pollution, and general industrial growth. Drought and climate change could aggravate the 

existing threats due to lowered water levels, which can reduce access to spawning areas, 

increase thermal injury, and concentrate pollutants. Additional threats include discharges, 

dredging or disposal of material into rivers, development activities involving estuaries or riverine 
Affected Environment 

 2-78 

mudflats and marshes, and mortality due to bycatch in the shad gillnet fishery. NMFS (2008) 

determined that the Delaware River population is most threatened by dredging operations and 

water quality issues. 

Atlantic Sturgeon

Atlantic sturgeon supported a large commercial fishery by 1870, but the fishery crashed around 

the turn of the centure (1900), after 30 years of sustainable harvesting for caviar. The effects of 

overfishing were exacerbated by the fact that this species takes a very long time to reach sexual 

maturity. The ASMFC adopted a Fishery Management Plan in 1990 that implemented harvest 

quotas. The current status of the Atlantic sturgeon stock is unknown due to little reliable data. 

In 1998, a coastwide stock assessment by ASMFC determined that biomass was much lower 

than it had been in the early 1900s (ASMFC, 2009c). This assessment resulted in an 

amendment to the Fishery Management Plan that instituted a coastwide moratorium on Atlantic 

sturgeon harvest that will remain in place until 2038 in an effort to accumulate 20 years worth of 

breeding stock. The Federal government similarly enacted a moratorium in 1999 prohibiting 

harvest in the exclusive economic zone offshore (ASMFC, 2009c). Concurrent with the 

coastwide stock assessment, NMFS decided that listing the Atlantic sturgeon as threatened or 

endangered was not warranted (ASMFC, 2009c). 

NMFS initiated a second status review in 2005 and concluded that the stock should be broken 

into five distinct population segments: Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, 

Carolina, and South Atlantic stocks (ASMFC, 2009c). The Delaware River and Estuary are in 

the New York Bight segment. NMFS determined that three of these distinct population 

segments are likely (>50 percent chance) to become endangered in the next 20 years (New 

York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, and Carolina), and these three were recommended by NMFS for 

listing as threatened under the ESA. The other two population segments were determined by 

NMFS to have a moderate (<50 percent) chance of becoming endangered in the next 20 years 

and were not recommended for listing (ASMFC, 2009c; Greene et al., 2009). In October 2009, 

the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted a petition under the ESA to list the Atlantic 

sturgeon. NMFS announced in January 2010 that it agreed listing may be warranted and 

decided to request public comment to update the 2007 species status review before beginning a 

12-month finding and determination on whether to propose listing (NOAA, 2010c). 

ASMFC (2009c) lists threats to the Atlantic sturgeon that include bycatch mortality, poor water 

quality, dredging activities, and for some populations, habitat impediments (dams blocking 

access to spawning areas) and ship strikes. As of 2009, NMFS designated the Atlantic 

sturgeon over its entire range as a species of concern and a candidate species. Reasons for 

the listing include genetic diversity (distinct populations) and lack of adequate estimates of the 

size of most population segments (NOAA, 2009b). On October 6, 2010, the NMFS published 

Proposed Listing Determinations for five Atlantic sturgeon distinct population segments (75 FR 

61872; 75 FR 61904). Atlantic sturgeon found within the vicinity of Salem and HCGS in the 

Delaware Estuary are part of the proposed New York Bight distinct population segment, which 

includes the Long Island Sound, the New York Bight, and the Delaware Bay from Chatham, 

Massachusetts, to the Delaware-Maryland border. 

Atlantic sturgeon inhabit the Atlantic coast in the ocean, large rivers, and estuaries from 

Labrador to northern Florida. Populations have been extirpated from most coastal systems 
Affected Environment 

 2-79 

except for the Hudson River, the Delaware River, and some South Carolina systems (ASMFC 

2010c). 

Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous, migrating inshore to coastal estuaries and rivers to spawn in 

the spring. A single fish will spawn only every 2 to 6 years (ASMFC, 2009c). Females 

broadcast eggs in fast-flowing, deep water with hard bottoms (ASMFC, 2010c). Eggs are 

demersal and stick to the substrate after 20 min of dispersal time. Larvae are pelagic and swim 

in the water column before they become benthic juveniles within 4 weeks (Greene et al., 2009). 

Juveniles remain where they hatch for 1 to 6 years before migrating to the ocean to complete 

their growth (ASMFC, 2009c). Little is known about the distribution and timing of juveniles and 

their migration, but aggregations at the freshwater/saltwater interface suggest that these areas 

are nurseries (ASMFC, 2010c). At between 30 and 36 inches (76 to 91 cm) in length, juveniles 

move offshore (NOAA, 2009b). Data are lacking regarding adult and sub-adult distribution and 

habitats in the open ocean (ASMFC, 2010c). Atlantic sturgeon can live for up to 60 years and 

can reach 14 ft (4.3 m) and 800 lbs (363 kg). Females reach sexual maturity between 7 and 30 

years of age and by males between 5 and 24 years (ASMFC, 2009c). 

Atlantic sturgeon feed predominantly on benthic invertebrates, such as mussels, worms, and 

shrimps, as well as on small fish (ASMFC, 2009c). Juveniles consume annelid worms, isopods, 

amphipods, insect larvae, small bivalve mollusks, and mysids. Little is known of the adult and 

subadult feeding habits in the marine environment, but some studies have found that these life 

stages consume mollusks, polychaetes, gastropods, shrimps, amphipods, isopods, and small 

fish (ASMFC, 2009c). 

The Delaware River and associated estuarine habitats may have historically supported the 

largest Atlantic sturgeon stock on the east coast. Juveniles once were caught as bycatch in 

numbers large enough to be a nuisance in the American shad fishery. Over 180,000 females 

spawned annually in the Delaware River before 1890. Juveniles have more recently been 

captured in surveys near Trenton, New Jersey. Gill net surveys by the DNREC have captured 

juveniles frequently near Artificial Island. The DNREC also tracks mortality during the spawning 

season. In 2005 and 2006, 12 large adult fish carcasses were found with severe external 

injuries presumed to be caused by boat strikes (Greene et al., 2009). 

2.2.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Species 

There are five terrestrial species Federally listed as threatened or endangered that have 

recorded occurrences or the potential to occur either in Salem County, in which the Salem and 

HCGS facilities are located, or the counties crossed by the three ROW corridors (Gloucester 

and Camden Counties, New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware). These species include 

the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and four plants (Table 2-9) (FWS, 2010a). Four of these 

species are also listed as endangered in New Jersey, and the bog turtle is listed as endangered 

in both New Jersey and Delaware (DNREC, 2008). In letters provided in accordance with the 

consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, FWS confirmed that 

no Federally-listed species under their jurisdiction are known to occur in the vicinity of the Salem 

and HCGS facilities (FWS, 2010b). However, two of the species Federally-listed as threatened, 

the bog turtle and swamp pink (Helonias bullata), were identified by the New Jersey Field Office 

of FWS (FWS, 2010b) as having known occurrences or other areas of potential habitat along 

the New Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line ROW corridors. Because 
Affected Environment 

 2-80 

the bog turtle and swamp pink have the potential to occur within the transmission line ROW 

corridors, these species are discussed in more detail below. 
Table 2-9. Listed Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Species. This table lists the status of Federally listed and/or State-listed as 

threatened, endangered, or special concern species that may occur on the HCGS or Salem sites or within the in-scope transmission line ROWs. Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Birds 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk - T/T(d) E-BR Gloucester, Salem Deciduous, coniferous, and mixed riparian or wetland forests Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow - E E Gloucester 

Open fields with high, thick herbaceous vegetation; grassy fields between salt marsh and uplands 

A. savannarum grasshopper sparrow - T/S SCC Salem Grasslands; pastures; agricultural lands Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper - E E Gloucester, Salem Open meadows and fallow fields often associated with pastures Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk - E/T SCC Gloucester 

Deciduous, riparian, or mixed woodlands in old growth forests; hardwood swamps with standing water 

Circus cyaneus northern harrier - E/U E-BR Salem 

Freshwater, brackish, and saline tidal marshes; emergent wetlands; fallow fields; grasslands; meadows 

Cistothorus platensis sedge wren - E E Salem 

Wet meadows; freshwater marshes; bogs; drier portions of salt or brackish coastal marshes 

 

 Affected Environment 

 2-81 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

bobolink - T/T - Salem 

Hayfields, pastures, grassy meadows; coastal and freshwater marshes during migration 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon - E SCC Camden, Gloucester, Salem Open areas near water Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle - E E Gloucester, Salem Forests near water or tidal areas Melanerpes erythrocephalus red-headed woodpecker - T/T E Camden, Gloucester, Salem Upland and wetland open woods that contain dead or dying trees and sparse undergrowth Pandion haliaetus osprey - T/T SCC Gloucester, Salem 

Dead trees or platforms near coastal/inland rivers, marshes, bays, inlets 

Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow - T/T - Salem 

Open habitats such as alfalfa fields, grasslands, meadows, fallow fields, and salt marsh edges 

Podilymbus podiceps pied-billed grebe - E/S E-BR Salem 

Freshwater marshes associated with bogs, lakes, or slow-moving rivers 

Pooecetes gramineus vesper sparrow - E - Gloucester, Salem Pastures, grasslands, cultivated fields, and other open areas Strix varia barred owl - T/T SCC Gloucester, Salem 

Remote, contiguous, old growth wetland forests, including deciduous wetland forests; Atlantic white cedar swamps associated with stream corridors 

 2-82 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Reptiles and Amphibians Ambystoma tigrinum eastern tiger salamander - E SCC Gloucester, Salem 

Uplands and wetlands containing breeding ponds, forests, and burrowing-appropriate soil types such as old fields, and deciduous or mixed woods 

Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T E E Camden, Gloucester, Salem, New Castle Open, wet, grassy pastures or bogs with soft, muddy bottoms Crotalus horridus horridus timber rattlesnake - E - Camden 

Deciduous upland forests or pinelands habitats, often near cedar swamps and along streambanks 

Hyla andersoni pine barrens treefrog - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem 

Specialized acidic habitats such as 

Atlantic white cedar swamps and pitch pine lowlands with open canopies, dense shrub layers, and heavy ground cover 

Pituophis melanoleucus northern pine snake - T - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Dry pine-oak forest types growing on infertile sandy soils Invertebrates Callophrys irus frosted elfin - T SCC Camden 

Dry clearings and open areas, savannas, power-line ROWs, roadsides 

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel - T E Gloucester Medium to large rivers, lakes and ponds Leptodea ochracea tidewater mucket - T E Camden, Gloucester 

Freshwater water with tidal influence on the lower coastal plain, pristine rivers 

 Affected Environment 

 2-83 

 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Ligumia nasuta eastern pond mussel - T E Camden, Gloucester 

Lakes, ponds, streams and rivers of variable depths with muddy, sandy, or gravelly substrates 

Lycaena hyllus bronze copper E SCC Salem 

Brackish and freshwater marshes, bogs, fens, seepages, wet sedge meadows, riparian zones, wet grasslands, and drainage ditches 

Pontia protodice checkered white - T - Camden 

Open areas, savannas, old fields, vacant lots, power-line ROWs, forest edges 

Plants Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint vetch T E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Fresh to slightly salty (brackish) tidal marshes Aplectrum hyemale putty root - E - Gloucester Moist, deciduous upland to swampy forests Aristida lanosa wooly three-awn grass - E - Camden, Salem Dry fields, uplands, pink-oak woods, primarily in sandy soil Asimina triloba pawpaw - E - Gloucester 

Shady, open-woods areas in wet, fertile bottomlands, or upland areas on rich soils 

Aster radula low rough aster - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Wet meadows, open boggy woods, and along the edges; or openings in wet spruce or tamarack forests Bouteloua curtipendula side oats grama grass - E - Gloucester Rocky, open slopes, woodlands, and forest openings 

Affected Environment 

 2-84 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Cacalia atriplicifolia pale Indian plantain - E - Camden, Gloucester Dry, open woods, thickets, and rocky openings Calystegia spithamaea erect bindweed - E - Camden, Salem 

Dry, open, sandy to rocky sites such as pitch pine/scrub oak barrens, sandy roadsides, riverbanks, and ROWs 

Carex aquatilis water sedge - E - Camden Swamps; bogs, marshes; ponds; lakes; marshy meadows C. bushii Bush’s sedge - E - Camden Dry to mesic grasslands; forest marginsC. limosa mud sedge - E - Gloucester Fens; sphagnum bogs; wet meadows; shorelines C. polymorpha variable sedge - E - Gloucester 

Dry, sandy, open areas of scrub; forests; swampy woods; bank and marsh edges

Castanea pumila chinquapin - E - Gloucester, Salem 

High ridges and slopes within mixed hardwood forests, dry pinelands, and ROWs 

Cercis canadensis redbud - E - Camden 

Rich, moist wooded areas in the forest understory, streambanks, and abandoned farmlands

Chenopodium rubrum red goosefoot - E - Camden Moist, often salty soils along the coast 

 Affected Environment 

 2-85 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Cyperus lancastriensis Lancaster flat sedge - E - Camden, Gloucester 

Riverbanks, floodplains, and other disturbed, sunny or partly sunny places in mesic, or dry-mesic soils 

C. polystachyos coast flat sedge - E - Salem Along shores; in ditches; swales between dunes C. pseudovegetus marsh flat sedge - E - Salem 

Open mesic forests; stream edges; swamps; moist sandy areas; bottomland prairies 

Diodia virginiana larger buttonweed - E - Camden Wet meadows; pond margins Eleocharis melanocarpa black-fruit spike-rush - E - Salem Fresh, oligotrophic, often drying, sandy shores; ponds; ditches E. equisetoides knotted spike-rush - E - Gloucester Fresh lakes; ponds; marshes; streams; cypress swamps E. tortilis twisted spike-rush - E - Gloucester Bogs; ditches; seeps Eriophorum tenellum rough cotton-grass - E - Camden, Gloucester Bogs and other wet, peaty substrates Eupatorium capillifolium dog fennel thoroughwort - E - Camden Coastal meadows; fallow fields; flatwoods; marshes; disturbed habitat E. resinosum pine barren boneset - E - Camden, Gloucester 

Tidal marshes; wetlands; open swamps; wet ditches; sandy acidic soils of grass-sedge bogs; pocosinsavannah ecotones

Affected Environment 

 2-86 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Euphorbia purpurea Darlington’s glade 

spurge 

- E - Salem Rich, cool woods along seeps, streams, or swamps

Glyceria grandis American manna grass - E - Camden Grassy areasHemicarpha micrantha small-flower halfchaff sedge - E - Camden Emergent shorelines, but rarely freshwater tidal shores Hottonia inflata featherfoil - E - Salem Quiet, shallow water of pools; streams; ditchesHydrastis canadensis golden seal - E - Camden Mesic, deciduous forests, often on clayey soilHydrocotyle ranunculoides floating marsh- pennywort - E - Salem Ponds; marshesHypericum adpressum Barton’s St. John’s- wort - E - Salem Pond shoreIsotria meleoloides small-whorled pogonia T - - - 

Mixed deciduous forests in secondor third-growth successional stages, coniferous forests

Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush - E - Camden Borders of wet woods; wet springy bogs; swamps J. torreyi Torrey’s rush - E - Camden 

Edge of sloughs; wet sandy shores; along slightly alkaline watercourses; swamps 

 Affected Environment 

 2-87 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Kuhnia eupatorioides false boneset - E - Camden 

Limestone edges of bluffs; rocky wooded slopes; rocky limestone talus

Lemna perpusilla minute duckweed - E - Camden, Salem Mesotrophic to eutrophic, quiet watersLimosella subulata awl-leaf mudwort - E - Camden Freshwater marshesLinum intercursum sandplain flax - E - Camden, Salem 

Open, dry, sandplain grasslands or moors; sand barrens; mown fields; ROWs

Luzula acuminate hairy wood-rush - E - Gloucester, Salem Grassy areasMelanthium virginicum Virginia bunchflower - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem 

Fens; bottomland prairies; mesic 

upland forests; mesic upland prairies; along streams and roadsides

Muhlenbergia capillaries long-awn smoke grass - E - Gloucester Sandy, pine openings; dry praires; and exposed ledgesMyriophyllum tenellum slender water-milfoil - E - Camden Sandy soil with water to 5 ft deepM. pinnatum cut-leaf water-milfoil - E - Salem Floodplain marsh Nelumbo lutea American lotus - E - Camden, Salem 

Mostly floodplains of major rivers in ponds, lakes, pools in swamps and marshes; backwaters of reservoirs

Onosmodium virginianum Virginia false-gromwell - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Sandy soils in dry open woodsOphioglossum vulgatum pycnostichum 

southern adder’s 

tongue - E - Salem 

Rich wooded slopes; shaded secondary woods; forested bottomlands; and floodplain woods 

Penstemon laevigatus smooth beardtongue - E - Gloucester Rich woods; fields

 2-88 

Affected Environment 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Platanthera flava flava southern rein orchid - E - Camden 

Floodplain forests; white cedar, hardwood, and cypress swamps; riparian thickets; wet meadows

Polemonium reptans Greek-valerian - E - Salem Moist, stream banks; deciduous woodsPrunus angustifolia chickasaw plum - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem 

Woodland edges; forest openings; 

open woodlands; savannahs; prairies; plains; meadows; pastures; roadsides

Pycnanthemum clinopodioides basil mountain mint - E - Camden 

Dry south or west facing slopes on rocky soils; open oak-hickory forests, woodlands, or savannas with exposed bedrock

P. torrei Torrey’s mountain mint - E - Gloucester Open, dry areas including red cedar barrens, rocky summits, roadsides and trails, and dry upland woodsQuercus imbricaria shingle oak - E - Gloucester Rich bottomlands; dry to moist uplandsQ. lyrata overcup oak - E - Salem Lowlands; wet forests; streamside forests; periodically inundated areasRhododendron atlanticum dwarf azalea - E - Salem Moist, flat, pine woods; savannasRhynchospora globularis coarse grass-like beaked-rush - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Sandy and rocky stream banks; sink-hole ponds; upland prairies; open rocky and sandy areasR. knieskernii Knieskern’s beaked- rush T E - Camden Moist to wet pine barrens; borrow pits; sand pitsSagittaria teres slender arrowhead - E - Camden Swamps of acid waters and sandy pool shores

 Affected Environment 

 2-89 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Schwalbea americana chaffseed E E - Camden 

Acidic, sandy or peaty soils in open flatwoods; streamhead pocosins; pitch pine lowland forests; longleaf pine/oak sandhills; seepage bogs; palustrine pine savannahs ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands

Scirpus longii Long’s woolgrass - E - Camden MarshesScutellaria leonardii small skullcap - E - Salem Fields; meadows; prairies Spiranthes laciniata lace-lip ladies’ tresses - E - Gloucester 

Coastal plain marshes; swamps; dry to damp roadsides; meadows; ditches; fields

Triadenum walteri Walter’s St. John’s wort - E - Camden Buttonbush swamps; swamps; thickets; streambanksUtricularia biflora two-flower bladderwort - E - Gloucester, Salem Shores and shallowsValerianella radiata beaked cornsalad - E - Gloucester Pastures; prairies; valleys; creek beds; wet meadows; roadsidesVerbena simplex narrow-leaf vervain - E - Camden, Gloucester Fields, meadows, and prairies Vernonia glauca broad-leaf ironweed - E - Gloucester, Salem Dry fields; clearings; upland forestsVulpia elliotea squirrel-tail six-weeks grass - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Grassy habitatsWolffiella floridana sword bogmat - E - Salem Quiet watersXyris fimbriarta fringed yellow-eyed grass - E - Camden Low pine savanna; bogs; seeps; peats and mucks of pond shallows; sluggish shallow streamsAeschynomene virginica sensitive joint vetch T E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Fresh to slightly salty (brackish) tidal marshes Aplectrum hyemale putty root - E - Gloucester Moist, deciduous upland to swampy forests 

 

 2-90 

Affected Environment 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Aristida lanosa wooly three-awn grass - E - Camden, Salem Dry fields; uplands; pink-oak woods with sandy soil Asimina triloba pawpaw - E - Gloucester 

Shady, open-woods areas in wet, fertile bottomlands; rich-soiled uplands 

Aster radula low rough aster - E - Camden, Gloucester, Salem Wet meadows; open boggy woods; wet spruce or tamarack forest openings Bouteloua curtipendula side oats grama grass - E - Gloucester Rocky, open slopes; woodlands; forest openings Cacalia atriplicifolia pale Indian plantain - E - Camden, Gloucester Dry, open woods, thickets; rocky openings Calystegia spithamaea erect bindweed - E - Camden, Salem 

Dry, open, sandy to rocky sites such as pitch pine/scrub oak barrens, sandy roadsides, riverbanks, and ROWs 

Carex aquatilis water sedge - E - Camden Swamps; bogs; marshes; ponds; lakes; marshy meadows C. bushii Bush’s sedge - E - Camden Dry to mesic grasslands; forest margins C. limosa mud sedge - E - Gloucester Fens; sphagnum bogs; wet meadows; and shorelines C. polymorpha variable sedge - E - Gloucester 

Dry, sandy, open areas of scrub; forests; swampy woods; bank and marsh edges 

Castanea pumila chinquapin - E - Gloucester, Salem 

High ridges and slopes within mixed hardwood forests, dry pinelands, and ROWs 

 2-91 

Affected Environment 
Scientific Name Common Name 

Status

County(ies) Habitat Federal(a) New Jersey(b) Delaware(c) 

Cercis canadensis redbud - E - Camden 

Rich, moist wooded areas in the forest understory; streambanks; abandoned farmlands 

Chenopodium rubrum red goosefoot - E - Camden Moist, often salty soils along the coast Cyperus lancastriensis Lancaster flat sedge - E - Camden, Gloucester 

Riverbanks; floodplains; disturbed, sunny or partly sunny places in mesic, or dry-mesic soils 

C. polystachyos coast flat sedge - E - Salem Along shores; in ditches; swales between dunes C. pseudovegetus marsh flat sedge - E - Salem 

Open mesic forests; stream edges; swamps; moist sandy areas; bottomland prairies 

Diodia virginiana larger buttonweed - E - Camden Wet meadows; pond margins Eleocharis melanocarpa black-fruit spike-rush - E - Salem Fresh, oligotrophic, often drying, sandy shores, ponds, and ditches Sources: DNREC 2002; DNREC 2008; FWS 2009b; FWS 2009c; NJDEP 2008b; NJDEP 2008c (a) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; - = Not Listed (b) E = Endangered; T = Threatened; - = Not Listed; S = Stable species (a species whose population is not undergoing any long-term increase/decrease within its 

natural cycle); U = Undetermined (a species about which there is not enough information available to determine the status). SC = Species Concern (a species showing evidence of decline, may become threatened) (c) BR = Breeding Population only; E = Endangered; SCC = Species of Conservation Concern; - = Not Listed; Note that Delaware does not maintain a T&E species 

lists by county. Upon request, the DNREC provided PSEG the locations of species of greatest conservation need that occur within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of the transmission corridor in New Castle County 

(d) State status for birds separated by a slash (/) indicates a dual status. The first status refers to the breeding population in the state, and the second status 

refers to the migratory or winter population in the state.

 Affected Environment 

 2-92 
Affected Environment 

 2-93 

Bog Turtle 

The bog turtle (now also referred to as Glyptemys muhlenbergii) has two discontinuous 

populations. The northern population, which occurs in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, was Federally listed as threatened 

in 1997 under the ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.). The southern population was listed as 

threatened due to its similarity of appearance to the northern population. The bog turtle was 

Federally listed due to declines in abundance caused by loss, fragmentation, and degradation of 

early successional wet-meadow habitat, and by collection for the wildlife trade (FWS, 2001b). 

The northern population was listed as endangered by the state of New Jersey in 1974 (NJDFW, 

2010a). In New Jersey, bog turtles occur in rural areas of the state, including Salem, Sussex, 

Warren, and Hunterdon Counties, and as of 2003 were found in over 200 individual wetlands 

(NJDFW, 2010b). 

The bog turtle is one of the smallest turtles in North America. Its upper shell is 3 to 4 in. (7.6 to 

10.2 cm) long and light brown to black in color, and each side of its black head has a distinctive 

patch of color that is red, orange, or yellow. Its life span is generally 20 to 30 years. In New 

Jersey, the bog turtle is active from April through October and hibernates the remainder of the 

year in densely vegetated areas near the edges of woody plants (FWS, 2004; NJDFW, 2010b). 

The bog turtle is diurnal and semi-aquatic, foraging on land and in water for a diet of plants 

(seeds, berries, duckweed), animals (slugs, snails, and insects), and carrion (FWS, 2001b; 

2004; NJDFW, 2004). Northern bog turtles primarily inhabit wetlands fed by groundwater or 

associated with the headwaters of streams and dominated by emergent vegetation. These 

habitats typically include wet meadows with open canopies and shallow, cool water that flows 

slowly (FWS, 2001b). Bog turtle habitats in New Jersey typically are characterized by native 

communities of low-lying grasses, sedges, mosses, and rushes; however, many of these areas 

are in need of restoration and management due to the encroachment of woody species and 

invasive species such as common reed (Phragmites australis), cattail, and Japanese stiltgrass 

(Microstegium vimineum) (NJDFW, 2010c). Livestock grazing maintains the early successional 

stage vegetation favorable for bog turtles (NJDFW, 2010a). Areas of potential habitat for the 

bog turtle occur along the New Freedom North and New Freedom South transmission line 

ROWs. However, the FWS (2010) have indicated that this species is not known to occur on or 

in the vicinity of the Salem or HCGS sites. 

Swamp Pink

Swamp pink historically occurred between New York State and the southern Appalachian 

Mountains of Georgia. In the species current habitats of Georgia, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, the largest concentrations 

are found in New Jersey (CPC, 2010). Swamp pink was Federally listed as a threatened 

species in 1988 due to population declines and threats to its habitat (FWS, 1991). It also was 

listed as endangered by the State of New Jersey in 1991 and currently is also designated as 

endangered in Delaware and six other states (CPC, 2010). New Jersey contains 70 percent of 

the known populations of swamp pink, most of which are on private lands. Swamp pink 

continues to be threatened by direct loss of habitat to development, and by development 
 2-94 

adjacent to populations, which can interfere with hydrology and reduce water quality (FWS, 

2010e). 

Swamp pink, a member of the lily family, has smooth evergreen leaves. It flowers in April and 

May. The flower stem is 1 to 3 ft (30 to 91 cm) tall with small leaves, and pink flowers are 

clustered (30 to 50 flowers) at the top of the stalk (FWS, 2010e). Fruits are trilobed, heartshaped, and contain many seeds (Center for Plant Conservation, 2010; FWS, 1991). Swamp 

pink is not very successful at dispersing through seeds; rhizomes are the main source of new 

plants (FWS, 1991). Swamp pink has a highly clumped distribution where it occurs. 

Populations can vary from a few individuals to several thousand plants and could be considered 

colonies due to the the rhizomes connecting the plants (FWS, 1991). 

Swamp pink is a wetland plant that usually grows on hummocks in soil that is saturated but not 

persistently flooded. It is thought to be limited to shady areas. Specific habitats include Atlantic 

white-cedar (Chamaecypa tisthyoides) swamps, swampy forested wetlands that border small 

streams, meadows, and spring seepage areas. It is most commonly found with other wetland 

plants such as red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweetbay 

magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda 

cinnamomea), and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) (FWS, 2010e; CPC, 2010). 

As of 1991, when a recovery plan for swamp pink was completed, New Jersey supported over 

half the known populations of the species, with 71 confirmed occurrences mostly on the coastal 

plain in pinelands fringe areas in the Delaware River drainage (FWS, 1991). In Delaware, 15 

sites were confirmed in the coastal plain province in the counties of New Castle, Kent, and 

Sussex (FWS, 1991). In Delaware, one occurrence of swamp pink was recorded in New Castle 

County. Delaware does not have regulations specifically for protection of rare plant species 

(FWS, 2008). As of 2008 in New Jersey, Salem County had 20 confirmed occurrences of 

swamp pink, Gloucester County had 13, and Camden County had 28 (FWS, 2008). The swamp 

pink has potential habitat occur along the New Freedom North and New Freedom South 

transmission line corridors. However, the FWS (2010) have indicated that this species is not 

known to occur on or in the vicinity of the Salem or HCGS sites. 

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 

This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or 

indirectly affected by changes in operations at Salem and HCGS. Salem, HCGS, and the 

communities that support them can be described as dynamic socioeconomic systems. The 

communities provide the people, goods, and services required to operate Salem and HCGS. 

Salem and HCGS operations, in turn, create the demand and pay for the people, goods, and 

services in the form of wages, salaries, and benefits for jobs and dollar expenditures for goods 

and services. The measure of the communities’ ability to support the demands of Salem and 

HCGS depends on their ability to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and 

demographic conditions. 

The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) for Salem and HCGS is defined as the areas in 

which Salem and HGCS employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their 

benefits, thereby affecting the economic conditions of the region. The Salem and HCGS ROI 

consists of a four-county region where approximately 85 percent of Salem and 82 percent of 

HCGS employees reside: Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties in New Jersey and New 

Castle County in Delaware. Salem and HCGS staff includes shared corporate employees and 
Affected Environment 

 2-95 

matrixed workers (i.e., employees who work collaboratively between both facilities). The 

following sections describe the housing, public services, offsite land use, visual aesthetics and 

noise, population demography, and the economy in the ROI for Salem and HCGS. 

Salem employs a permanent workforce of approximately 644 employees and the HCGS 

permanent workforce includes approximately 521 employees (PSEG, 2010d). Salem and HCGS 

share an additional 340 PSEG corporate and 109 matrixed employees. Approximately 

85 percent of the Salem workforce, 82 percent of the HCGS workforce, and 79 percent of the 

PSEG corporate and matrixed employees live in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties 

in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware (Table 2-10). The remaining 15 percent of 

the Salem workforce are divided among 14 counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 

Maryland, as well as one county in Georgia, with numbers ranging from 1 to 42 employees per 

county. The remaining 18 percent of the HCGS workforce are divided among 16 counties in 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as one county in each of three States 

(Delaware, New York, and Washington), with numbers ranging from 1 to 38 employees per 

county. The remaining 21 percent of the corporate and matrixed employees reside in 13 

counties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as one county in Delaware, one 

county in North Carolina, and the District of Columbia. Given the residential locations of Salem 

and HCGS employees, the most significant impacts of plant operations are likely to occur in 

Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in 

Delaware. Therefore, the socioeconomic impact analysis in this draft SEIS focuses on the 

impacts of Salem and HCGS on these four counties. 

Table 2-10. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

Employee Residence by County 

County 

Number of 

Salem 

Employees 

Number of 

HCGS 

Employees 

Number of 

Corporate and 

Matrixed 

Employees 

Total 

Number of 

Employees 

Percent of 

Total 

Workforce 

Salem , NJ 253 198 189 640 39.7 

Gloucester, NJ 100 74 68 242 15.0 

Cumberland, NJ 73 51 35 159 9.8 

New Castle, DE 123 106 64 293 18.2 

Other 95 92 93 280 17.3 

Total 644 521 449 1,614 100 

Source: PSEG, 2010d 

Refueling outages at Salem and HCGS generally occur at 18-month intervals for both stations. 

During refueling outages, site employment increases by as many as 600 workers at each station 

for approximately 23 days (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). Most of these workers are assumed to be 

located in the same geographic areas as the permanent Salem and HCGS staff. 

2.2.8.1 Housing 

Table 2-11 lists the total number of occupied and vacant housing units, vacancy rates, and 

median value in the four-county ROI. According to the 2000 census, there were nearly 373,600 
 2-96 

housing units in the ROI, of which approximately 353,000 were occupied. The median value of 

owner-occupied units ranged from $91,200 in Cumberland County to $136,000 in New Castle 

County. The vacancy rate was highest in Salem County (7.1 percent) and Cumberland County 

(7.0 percent) and lower in New Castle County (5.3 percent) and Gloucester County 

(4.6 percent). 

By 2008, the total number of housing units within the four-county ROI had grown by 

approximately 28,000 units to 401,673 housing units, while the total number of occupied units 

grew by 17,832 units to 370,922. The median house value increased approximately $101,600 

between the 2000 census and the 3-year estimation period (2006 through 2008). As a result, 

the vacancy rate increased from 6 percent to 8 percent of total housing units. 

Table 2-11. Housing in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey, and 

New Castle County, Delaware 

 Cumberland Gloucester Salem New Castle ROI

2000 

Total Housing Units 52,863 95,054 26,158 199,521 373,596 

Occupied housing units 49,143 90,717 24,295 188,935 353,090 

Vacant units 3,720 4,337 1,863 10,586 20,506 

Vacancy rate (percent) 7 4.6 7.1 5.3 5.5 

Median value (dollars) 91,200 120,100 105,200 136,000 113,125 

2008(a) 

Total Housing Units 55,261 106,641 27,463 212,308 401,673 

Occupied housing units 50,648 100,743 24,939 194,592 370,922 

Vacant units 4,613 5,898 2,524 17,716 30,751 

Vacancy rate (percent) 8.3 5.5 9.2 8.3 7.7 

Median value (dollars) 171,600 238,200 197,100 252,000 214,725 

(a) Housing values for the 2008 estimates are based on 2006–2008 American Community Survey 3-Year 

Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau. 

Source: USCB, 2010a. 

2.2.8.2 Public Services 

This section presents a discussion of public services, including water, education, and 

transportation. 
Affected Environment 

 2-97 

Water Supply

Information for the major municipal water suppliers in the three New Jersey counties, including 

firm capacity and peak demand, is presented in Table 2-12. Population served and water source 

for each system is also provided. The primary source of potable water in Cumberland County is 

groundwater withdrawn from the Cohansey-Maurice watershed. In Gloucester County, the water 

is primarily groundwater obtained from the Lower Delaware watershed. The major suppliers in 

Salem County obtain their drinking water supply from surface water or groundwater from the 

Delaware Bay watershed. 

Information for the major municipal water suppliers in New Castle County, DE, is provided in 

Table 2-13, including maximum capacity and average daily production, as well as population 

served and water source for each system. The majority of the potable water supply is surface 

water withdrawn from the Brandywine-Christina watershed. 
 2-98 

Table 2-12. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 

Counties, New Jersey 

Water System Population 

Served 

Primary Water 

Source 

Peak Daily 

Demand(a)

(MGD) 

Total Capacity 

(MGD) 

Cumberland County 

City of Bridgeton 22,770 GW 4.05 3.35 

City of Millville 27,500 GW 5.71 7.83 

City of Vineland 33,000 GW 15.26 16.49 

Gloucester County 

Borough of Clayton 7,155 GW 1.09 1.22 

Deptford Township 26,000 SW 

(Purchased) 4.79 8.80 

Borough of Glassboro 19,238 GW 4.29 6.31 

Mantua Township 11,713 SW 

(Purchased) 2.19 2.74 

Monroe Township 26,145 GW 6.22 7.15 

Borough of Paulsboro 6,200 GW 1.25 1.80 

Borough of Pitman 9,445 GW 0.96 1.59 

Washington Township 48,000 GW 8.25 12.92 

West Deptford Township 20,000 GW 4.26 7.03 

Borough of Westville 6,000 GW 0.70 1.73 

City of Woodbury 11,000 SW 

(Purchased) 1.76 4.32 

Salem County 

MGD = million gallons per day; GW = groundwater; SW = surface water 

(a) Current peak yearly demand plus committed peak yearly demand. 

Sources: EPA, 2010c (population served and primary water source); NJDEP, 2009d (peak annual demand and 

available capacity) 

Pennsville Township 13,500 GW 1.63 1.87 

City of Salem 6,199 SW 1.66 4.27 
Affected Environment 

 2-99 

Table 2-13. Major Public Water Supply Systems in New Castle County, Delaware 

Water System Population 

Served 

Primary Water 

Source 

Average Daily 

Production

(MGD) 

Maximum 

Capacity (MGD) 

City of Middletown 16,000 GW NA NA 

City of New Castle 6,000 GW 0.5 1.3 

City of Newark 36,130 SW 4 6 

City of Wilmington 140,000 SW 29 61 

GW = groundwater; SW = surface water; NA = not available 

Sources: EPA, 2010c (population served and primary water source); PSEG, 2009a and PSEG, 2009b (reported 

production and maximum capacity) 

Education

Salem and HCGS are located in Lower Alloways Creek School District, which had an enrollment 

of approximately 223 students in pre-Kindergarten through 8th grade for the 2008–2009 school 

year. Salem County has 15 public school districts, with a total enrollment of 12,012 students. 

Cumberland County has a total of 15 school districts with 26,739 students enrolled in public 

schools in the county in 2008–2009. Gloucester County has 28 public school districts with a 

total 2008–2009 enrollment of 49,782 students (NJDOE, 2010). There are five public school 

districts in New Castle County, DE; total enrollment in the 2009–2010 school year is 

66,679 students (DDE, 2010). 

Transportation

Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 show the Salem and HCGS location and highways within a 50-mi (80 

km) radius and a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the facilities. At the larger regional scale, the major 

highways serving Salem and HCGS are Interstate 295 and the New Jersey Turnpike, located 

approximately 15 mi (24 km) north of the facilities. Interstate 295 crosses the Delaware River via 

the Delaware Memorial Bridge, providing access to Delaware and, via Interstate 95, to 

Pennsylvania. 

Local road access to Salem and HCGS is from the northeast via Alloway Creek Neck Road, a 

two-lane road which leads directly to the facility access road. Alloway Creek Neck Road 

intersects County Route (CR) 658 approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) northeast of Salem and HCGS. 

CR 658 leads northward to the City of Salem, where it intersects New Jersey State Route 49, 

which is the major north-south route through western Salem County and connects local traffic to 

the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the north. Approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) east of its intersection 

with Alloway Creek Neck Road, CR 658 intersects with CR 623 (a north-south road) and CR 

667 (an east-west road). Employees who live to the north, northeast, and northwest of Salem 

and HCGS, as well as those from Delaware and Pennsylvania, could travel south on State 

Route 49, connecting to CR 658 and from there to Alloway Creek Neck Road to reach the 

facilities. Employees from the south could travel north on CR 623, connecting to Alloway Creek 

Neck Road via CR 658. Employees living farther south or to the southeast could use State 

Route 49, connecting to Alloway Creek Neck Road via CR 667, and CR 658 or CR 623 (PSEG, 

2009a; 2009b). 
 2-100 

Traffic volumes in Salem County are highest on roadways in the northern and eastern parts of 

the county, where all of the annual average daily traffic counts greater than 10,000 were 

measured. The highest annual average daily traffic count in the county is 27,301 on Interstate 

295 in the northeastern corner of the county. In western Salem County, in the vicinity of Salem 

and HCGS, annual average daily traffic counts range from 236 to 1,052, while within the City of 

Salem they range from 4,218 to 9,003. At the traffic count location closest to Salem and HCGS, 

located on CR 623, the annual average daily traffic count is 895 (NJDOT, 2009). Level of 

service data, which describe operational conditions on a roadway and their perception by 

motorists, are not collected by the State of New Jersey (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 

This section describes offsite land use in the four-county ROI, including Salem, Gloucester, and 

Cumberland counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware, which is where the 

majority of Salem and HCGS employees reside. Salem and HCGS are located in western 

Salem County adjacent to the Delaware River, which is the border between New Jersey and 

Delaware. 

Salem County, New Jersey

Salem County is rural in nature, consisting of more than 338 square miles (mi2

; 875 square 

kilometers [km2

]) of land with an estimated 66,141 residents, a 2.9 percent increase since 2000 

(USCB, 2010a). Only 13 percent of the land area in the county is considered urban (in 

residential, commercial, or industrial use), with development concentrated in western Salem 

County along the Delaware River. The remaining 87 percent of the county is dedicated farmland 

under active cultivation (42 percent) or undeveloped natural areas, primarily tidal and freshwater 

wetlands (30 percent) and forests (12 percent) (Morris Land Conservancy, 2008). There are 199 

farms for a total of 26,191 ac (10,600 ha), or 12 percent of the county, which have been 

preserved in Salem County under the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program (SADC, 

2009). 

Two municipalities within Salem County, Lower Alloways Creek Township and the City of 

Salem, receive annual real estate tax payments from Salem and from HCGS. Over half of the 

land area in Lower Alloways Creek Township is wetlands (65 percent), 15 percent is used for 

agriculture, and 8 percent is urban. The City of Salem is largely urban (49 percent), with 

24 percent of its area wetlands and 12 percent in agricultural use (Morris Land Conservancy, 

2006). 

Land use within Salem County is guided by the Smart Growth Plan (Rukenstein & Associates, 

2004), which has the goal of concentrating development within a corridor along the Delaware 

River and Interstate 295/New Jersey Turnpike in the northwestern part of the county and 

encouraging agriculture and the preservation of open space in the central and eastern parts of 

the county. Land development is regulated by the municipalities within Salem County through 

the use of zoning and other ordinances. 

Lower Alloways Creek Township has a master plan to guide development, which includes a 

land use plan (LACT, 1992). The plan encourages development in those areas of the township 

most capable of providing necessary services, continuation of agricultural use, and restriction on 

development in the conservation district (primarily wetlands). The land use plan includes an 

industrial district adjacent to Artificial Island. The master plan was updated in the 2005 Master 
Affected Environment 

 2-101 

Plan Reexamination Report (Alaimo Group, 2005), which looked at key issues and reaffirmed 

the importance of preserving farmland, open space, and environmental resources. 

Cumberland County, New Jersey

Cumberland County, which is located to the south and east of Salem County, occupies about 

489 mi2

 (1,300 km2) of land along the Delaware Bay at the south end of New Jersey. In 2008, 

the county had an estimated population of 156,830 residents, which is a 7.1 percent increase 

since 2000 (USCB, 2010a). Over 60 percent of the land area in the county is forest (32 percent) 

or wetlands (30 percent). Approximately 19 percent is occupied by agriculture, mostly 

concentrated in the northwestern part of the county near Salem County. Only 12 percent of 

Cumberland County is considered urban (DVRPC, 2009). Under the New Jersey Farmland 

Preservation Program, 117 farms, including a total of 14,569 ac (5,900 ha) of farmland, have 

been preserved in Cumberland County (SADC, 2009). 

Cumberland County has assembled a series of planning initiatives that together provide a 

strategic plan for the future of the county (Orth-Rodgers, 2002). A recently completed Farmland 

Preservation Plan for the county seeks to maintain its productive farmland in active use. The 

Western/Southern Cumberland Region Strategic Plan (issued as a draft in 2005) identifies 32 

existing community centers in the county for concentration of future residential and commercial 

growth, and the county Master Plan, prepared in 1967, is in the process of being updated. The 

municipalities within Cumberland County regulate land development through zoning and other 

ordinances (DVRPC, 2009). 

Gloucester County, New Jersey

Gloucester County is located northeast of Salem County. Gloucester County has approximately 

325 mi2

 (840 km2) of land and in 2008, had an estimated population of 287,860 residents, which 

represents a 12.6 percent increase since 2000 (USCB, 2010a). It is the fastest growing county 

in New Jersey (based on percent increase in population) and has the fastest growing 

municipality (Woolwich Township) on the East Coast (Gloucester County, 2010). Major land 

uses in the county are urban (26 percent) and agriculture (26 percent), with 30 percent of the 

county land area vacant and 10 percent wetlands (Gloucester County, 2009). There are 113 

farms with a total of 9,527 ac (3,800 ha; 4 percent of the county land area) that have been 

preserved in Gloucester County under the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program (SADC, 

2009). 

The County Development Management Plan and its various elements provide guidance for land 

use planning in Gloucester County. It encourages a growth pattern that will concentrate 

development rather than disperse it, enhancing existing urban areas and preserving natural 

resources. The Gloucester County Northeast Region Strategic Plan goals include taking 

advantage of infill opportunities to avoid sprawl into undeveloped areas and creating compact 

development that allows preservation of farms and open spaces. Land development is regulated 

by the municipalities within Gloucester County through zoning and other ordinances 

(GCPD, 2005). 

New Castle County, Delaware

New Castle County, the northernmost county in the State of Delaware, is located west of Salem 

County across the Delaware River. The county encompasses slightly more than 426 mi2 (1,100 

km2

) and has an estimated resident population of 529,641, which is a 5.9 percent increase from 
 2-102 

2000 to 2008. It is the most populous of the three counties in Delaware (USCB, 2010a). The 

three major land uses in New Castle County are agriculture (29 percent), residential (28 

percent), and forests (15 percent) (New Castle County, 2007). In 2007, the county had a total of 

347 farms (less than 14 percent of all farms in the State) located on approximately 67,000 ac 

(27,000 ha) of land. This reflects a decrease of 6 percent in land used for farming compared to 

2000 (USDA, 2007). 

The New Castle County Comprehensive Development Plan addresses county policies with 

regard to zoning, density, and open space preservation. It seeks to concentrate new growth, as 

well as redevelopment, in established communities in order to preserve limited resources. This 

is accomplished through the use of a future land use map. The plan proposes policies to 

encourage development in the northern part of the county with growth in the southern portion 

more centralized and compact (New Castle County, 2007). 

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 

Salem and HCGS are bordered by the Delaware River to the west and south and by a large 

expanse of wildlife management areas on the north, east, and southeast. The access road runs 

east to west along the shoreline of Artificial Island then continues east through the wetlands. 

The immediate area is flat in relief, consisting of open water and large expanses of tidal and 

freshwater marsh. Across the bay, in Delaware, the shoreline consists of State parks and 

wildlife areas with low profile marshy habitats and very few structures to interrupt the view. 

Beyond the parks and wetland areas are farmlands and then small to medium sized towns, in 

both Delaware and New Jersey. 

The main vertical components of the Salem and HCGS building complex are the HCGS natural 

draft cooling tower (514-ft [157-m] tall), the most prominent feature on Artificial Island, and the 

three-domed reactor containment buildings (190 to 200-ft [58 to 61-m] tall). The structures are 

most visible from the Delaware River. Portions of the Salem and HCGS building complex can be 

seen from many miles away, in particular the cooling tower and the plume it produces. The 

complex can easily be seen from the marsh areas and the river itself, while in the more 

populated areas, it is often blocked by trees or houses and can only be seen from certain 

angles. The structures within the Salem and HCGS building complex are for the most part made 

of concrete and metal, with exposed non-concrete buildings and equipment painted light, 

generally neutral colors, such as brown and blue (AEC, 1973; PSEG, 1983). The overhead 

transmission lines leading away to the north, northeast, and east can also be seen from many 

directions as they cross over the low profile expanses of the marshes. Farther inland, portions of 

the transmission lines are visible, especially as they pass over roads and highways. 

Sources of noise at Salem and HCGS include the cooling tower, transformers, turbines, circuit 

breakers, transmission lines and intermittent industrial noise from activities at the facilities.

Noise studies were conducted prior to the operation of the Salem generating units. The 

transformers were each estimated to produce between 82 and 85 adjusted decibels (dBA) at 6 ft 

(1.8 m) away and the turbines were each estimated to produce 95 dBA at 3 ft (0.9 m) away. 

The combined noise from all sources was estimated at 36 dBA at the site boundary. The noise 

from the plant at the nearest residence, approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) from the Salem and 

HCGS facilities, was estimated to be approximately 27 dBA. The U. S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) criterion guidelines for non-aircraft noise define 45 dBA as the 

maximum noise level for the “clearly acceptable” range. An ambient noise survey, within a 
Affected Environment 

 2-103 

radius of 5 mi (8 km), established that most of the existing sound levels were within New 

Jersey’s limits for industrial operations, as measured at residential property boundaries (PSEG, 

1983).

Given the industrial nature of these two stations, noise emissions are generally nothing more 

than an intermittent minor nuisance. Noise levels may sometimes exceed the 55 dBA level that 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses as a threshold level to protect against 

excess noise during outdoor activities (EPA, 1974). However, according to the EPA this 

threshold does “not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation,” but was intended to 

provide a basis for state and local governments establishing noise standards. To date, no noise 

complaints associated with operations at Salem and HCGS have been reported from 

neighboring communities. 

2.2.8.5 Demography 

According to the 2000 census, approximately 501,820 people lived within a 20-mi (32-km) 

radius of Salem and HCGS, which equates to a population density of 450 persons per mi2

. This 

density translates to a Category 4 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per mi2

 within 20 mi) 

using the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) measure of sparseness. 

Approximately 5,201,842 people live within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS, for a density of 

771 persons per mi2

 (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). Applying the GEIS proximity measures, this density 

is classified as Category 4 (greater than or equal to 190 persons per mi2

 within 50 mi [80 km]). 

Therefore, according to the sparseness and proximity matrix presented in the GEIS, a 

Category 4 value for sparseness and for proximity indicates that Salem and HCGS are located 

in a high population area. 

Table 2-14 shows population projections and growth rates from 1970 to 2050 in Cumberland, 

Gloucester, and Salem counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware. All of the 

four counties experienced continuous growth during the period 1970 to 2000, except for Salem 

County, which saw a 1.5 percent decline in population between 1990 and 2000. Gloucester 

County experienced the greatest rate of growth during this period. Beyond 2000, county 

populations are expected to continue to grow in the next decades, with Gloucester County 

projected to experience the highest rate of growth. 
 2-104 

Table 2-14. Population and Percent Growth in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem 

Counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware from 1970 to 2000 and 

Projected for 2010 to 2050 

 Cumberland County Gloucester County Salem County New Castle County

Year

Population 

Percent 

Growth(a) Population 

Percent 

Growth(a) Population

Percent 

Growth(a) Population 

Percent 

Growth(a)

1970 121,374 — 172,681 — 60,346 --- 385,856 ---- 

1980 132,866 9.5 199,917 15.8 64,676 7.2 398,115 3.2 

1990 138,053 3.9 230,082 15.1 65,294 1.0 441,946 11.0 

2000 146,438 6.1 254,673 10.7 64,285 -1.5 500,265 13.2 

2008 155,388 6.1 284,886 11.9 65,952 2.6 526,414 5.2

2010 157,745 7.7 289,920 13.8 66,342 3.2 535,572 7.1 

2020(b) 164,617 4.4 307,688 6.1 69,433 4.7 564,944 5.5 

2030(b) 176,784 7.4 338,672 10.1 74,576 7.4 586,387 3.8 

2040(c) 185,421 4.9 360,845 6.5 78,351 5.1 613,116 4.6 

2050(c) 194,941 5.1 385,221 6.8 82,468 5.3 638,524 4.1 

— = Not applicable 

(a) Percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade. 

(b) The 2020 and 2030 population projections for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem counties are for 2018 and 

2028, respectively. 

(c) Calculated. 

Sources: Population data for 1970 through 1990 (USCB, 1995a; 1995b); population data for 2000 (USCB, 2000d); 

Population estimates for 2008 (USCB, 2010a); New Jersey counties estimated population for 2009 (USCB, 2010b); 

New Castle County projected population for 2010 to 2040 (DPC, 2009); New Jersey counties projected population for 

2018 and 2028 (CUPR, 2009). 

The 2000 demographic profile of the four-county ROI is included in Table 2-15. Persons 

self-designated as minority individuals comprise approximately 30 percent of the total 

population. This minority population is composed largely of Black or African American residents. 
Affected Environment 

 2-105 

Table 2-15. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Region of Influence in 2000 

Cumberland, NJ Gloucester, NJ Salem, NJ New Castle, DE ROI

Total Population 146,438 254,673 64,285 500,265 965,661 

Race, Not-Hispanic or Latino (percent of total population)

White 58.4 85.7 79.6 70.7 73.4 

Black or African 

American 19.2 8.9 14.4 19.9 16.5 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 

Asian 0.9 1.5 0.6 2.6 1.9 

Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 

Some other race 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Two or more races 1.63 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino 27,823 6,583 2,498 26,293 63,197 

Percent of total population 19.0 2.6 3.9 5.3 6.5 

Minority Populations (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)

Total minority population 60,928 36,411 13,114 146,505 256,958 

Percent minority 41.6 14.3 20.4 29.3 26.6 

Source: USCB, 2000d 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year 

Estimates, minority populations were estimated to have increased by approximately 61,000 

persons and comprised 30.8 percent of the four-county ROI population (see Table 2–16). Most 

of this increase was due to an estimated influx of Hispanic or Latinos (over 25,000 persons), an 

increase in population of over 39.8 percent from 2000. The next largest increases in minority 

populations were Black or African American and Asian populations with increases of 

approximately 23,000 and 9,700 persons or 14.4 and 53 percent, respectively, from 2000. 
 2-106 

Table 2-16. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Salem and HCGS 

Region of Influence, 2006-2008 Three-Year Estimate 

 Cumberland, NJ 

Gloucester, 

NJ 

Salem, 

NJ 

New 

Castle, 

DE 

Region 

of 

Influence

Total Population 155,388 284,886 65,952 526,414 1,032,640 

Race (percent of total population, Not-Hispanic or Latino)

White 53.6 82.8 77.8 65.3 69.2 

Black or African American 19.2 9.5 14.8 22.0 17.7 

American Indian and Alaska 

Native 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Asian 1.1 2.3 0.6 3.7 2.7 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 

Some other race 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Two or more races 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.4 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino 36,530 10,409 3,489 37,929 88,357 

Percent of total population 23.5 3.7 5.3 7.2 8.6 

Minority Populations (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) 

Total minority population 72,112 48,927 14,653 182,540 318,232 

Percent minority 46.4 17.2 22.2 34.7 30.8 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey (USCB, 2010a). 

Transient Population

Within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS, colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily 

and seasonal visitors who create demand for temporary housing and services. In 2000, in the 

four-county ROI, 0.5 percent of all housing units were considered temporary housing for 

seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Table 2-17 provides information on seasonal housing 

for the counties located within the Salem and HCGS ROI (USCB, 2000b). In 2008, there were 

49,498 students attending colleges and universities located within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and 

HCGS (NCES, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-107 

Table 2-17. Seasonal Housing in the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek 

Generating Station Region of Influence in 2000 

County 

Number of Housing 

Units 

Vacant Housing Units for Seasonal, 

Recreational, or Occasional Use Percent 

Cumberland 52,863 826 1.6 

Gloucester 95,054 274 0.3 

Salem 26,158 131 0.5 

New Castle 199,521 707 0.4 

ROI 373,596 1,938 0.5 

Source: USCB, 2000c 

Migrant Farm Workers

Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 

crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers may 

follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural areas. 

Others may be permanent residents near Salem and HCGS who travel from farm to farm 

harvesting crops. 

Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 

and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant 

workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If uncounted, these workers would 

be “underrepresented” in U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low income population 

counts. 

The 2007 Census of Agriculture collected information on migrant farm and temporary labor. 

Table 2-18 provides information on migrant farm workers and temporary (less than 150 days) 

farm labor within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS. According to the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture, 15,764 farm workers were hired to work for less than 150 days and were employed 

on 1,747 farms within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS. The county with the largest number of 

temporary farm workers (4,979 persons on 118 farms) was Atlantic County, NJ (USDA, 2007). 

Salem County had 804 temporary farm workers on 121 farms; Cumberland County had 1,857 

temporary workers on 141 farms, and Gloucester County had 1,228 on 110 farms 

(USDA, 2007). New Castle County reported 320 temporary workers on 52 farms. 

Farm operators were asked whether any hired workers were migrant workers, defined as a farm 

worker whose employment required travel that prevented the migrant worker from returning to 

their permanent place of residence the same day. A total of 453 farms in the region (within a 

50-mi [80 km] radius of Salem and HCGS) reported hiring migrant workers. Chester County, PA 

reported the most farms (101) with hired migrant workers. Within the four-county ROI, a total of 

164 farms were reported with hired migrant farm workers, including Cumberland County with 65 

farms, followed by Gloucester County with 56 and Salem County with 33. New Castle County 

reported a total of 10 farms with hired migrant workers (USDA, 2007). 
 2-108 

Table 2-18. Migrant Farm Worker and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 Miles of Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station 

County(a)

Farm workers 

working less than 

150 days 

Farms hiring workers 

for less than 150 

days 

Farms reporting 

migrant farm labor 

Farms with hired 

farm labor 

Delaware: 

Kent 728 106 22 169 

New Castle 320 52 10 81 

County Subtotal 1,048 158 32 250 

Maryland: 

Caroline 478 121 13 153 

Cecil 546 87 5 128 

Hartford 266 101 12 155 

Kent 245 78 8 111 

Queen Anne’s 317 89 13 126 

County Subtotal 1,852 476 51 673

New Jersey: 

Atlantic 4,979 118 74 163 

Camden 470 43 17 52 

Cape May 173 38 8 46 

Cumberland 1,857 141 65 192 

Gloucester 1,228 110 56 163 

Salem 804 121 33 172 

County Subtotal 9,511 571 253 788

Pennsylvania:

Chester 2,687 403 101 580 

Delaware 106 19 2 25 

Montgomery 560 115 14 155 

Philadelphia - 5 - 5 

County Subtotal 3,353 542 117 765

County Total 15,764 1,747 453 2,746

(a) Includes counties with approximately more than half their area within a 50-mi radius of Salem and HCGS. 

Source: USDA, 2007 

2.2.8.6 Economy 

This section contains a discussion of the economy, including employment and income, 

unemployment, and taxes. 

Employment and Income

Between 2000 and 2007, the civilian labor force in Salem County decreased 4.4 percent to 

18,193. During the same time period, the civilian labor force in Gloucester County and 

Cumberland County grew 18.5 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, to the 2007 levels of 
Affected Environment 

 2-109 

92,154 and 48,468. In New Castle County, DE, the civilian labor force increased slightly 

(0.9 percent) to 284,647 between 2000 and 2007 (USCB, 2010c). 

In 2008, trade, transportation, and utilities represented the largest sector of employment in the 

three New Jersey counties, followed by education and health services in Salem and Gloucester 

counties and manufacturing in Cumberland County (NJDLWD, 2010a; 2010b; 2010c). The 

trade, transportation, and utilities sector employed the most people in New Castle County, DE, 

in 2008, followed closely by the professional and business services sector (DDL, 2009). A list of 

some of the major employers in Salem County is provided in Table 2-19. The largest employer 

in the county in 2006 was PSEG with over 1,300 employees. 

Table 2-19. Major Employers in Salem County in 2007 

Firm Number of Employees 

PSEG 1,300+(a)

E.I. duPont 1,250 

Mannington Mills 826 

Memorial Hospital of Salem County 600 

Atlantic City Electric 426 

R.E. Pierson Construction 400+ 

Anchor Glass 361 

McLane NJ 352 

Elmer Hospital 350 

Wal-Mart 256 

Berkowitz Glass 225 

Siegfried (USA) 155 

Source: Salem County, 2007 

(a) PSEG (2010c) reports that Salem and HCGS employ approximately 1,165 employees and share an additional 

340 PSEG corporate and 109 matrixed employees, for a total of 1,614 employees.

Income information for the four-county ROI is presented in Table 2-20. Median household 

incomes in Gloucester and New Castle counties were each above their respective State median 

household income averages, while Salem and Cumberland counties had median household 

incomes below the State of New Jersey average. Per capita incomes in Salem, Gloucester, and 

Cumberland counties were each below the State of New Jersey average, while the New Castle 

County per capita income was above the State of Delaware average. In Salem and Cumberland 

counties, 9.9 and 15.1 percent of the population, respectively, was living below the official 

poverty level, which is greater than the percentage for the State of New Jersey as a whole 

(8.7 percent). Only 7.5 percent of the Gloucester County population was living below the poverty 

level. In Delaware, 9.9 percent of the New Castle County population was living below the 

poverty level, while the State average was 10.4 percent. In addition, Cumberland County has 

the highest percentage of families living below the poverty level in the ROI. 
 2-110 

Table 2-20. Income Information for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope 

Creek Generating Station Region of Influence, 2008 

Salem 

County 

Gloucester 

County 

Cumberland 

County 

New 

Jersey 

New Castle 

County Delaware 

Median household 

income (dollars) 61,204 72,316 49,944 69,674 62,628 57,270 

Per capita income 

(dollars) 27,785 30,893 21,316 34,899 31,400 29,124 

Persons below 

poverty level 

(percent) 

9.9 7.5 15.1 8.7 9.9 10.4 

Families below 

poverty level 

(percent) 5.9 5.7 12.6 6.3 6.1 7.1 

Source: USCB, 2010a. 

Unemployment

In 2008, the annual unemployment average in Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland counties 

was 7.5, 6.4, and 9.6 percent, respectively, all of which were higher than the unemployment 

average of 6.0 percent for the State of New Jersey. Conversely, the annual unemployment 

average of 5.6 for New Castle County was lower than the State of Delaware average of 

6.0 percent (USCB, 2010a). 

Taxes

The owners of Salem and HCGS pay annual property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township. 

From 2003 through 2009, PSEG and Exelon paid between $1,191,870 and $1,511,301 annually 

in property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township (Table 2-21). During the same time 

period, these tax payments represented between 54.2 and 59.3 percent of the township’s total 

annual property tax revenue. Each year, Lower Alloways Creek Township forwards this tax 

money to Salem County, which provides most services to township residents. The property 

taxes paid annually for Salem and HCGS during 2003 through 2009 represent approximately 

2.5 to 3.5 percent of Salem County’s total annual property tax revenue. As a result of the 

payment of property taxes for Salem and HCGS to Lower Alloways Creek Township, residents 

of the township do not pay local municipal property taxes on residences, local school taxes, or 

municipal open space taxes; they pay only Salem County taxes and county open space taxes 

(PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 

In addition, PSEG and Exelon pay annual property taxes to the City of Salem for the Energy and 

Environmental Resource Center, located in Salem. From 2003 through 2009, between 

$177,360 and $387,353 in annual property taxes for the Center were paid to the city (Table 2-

22).
Affected Environment 

Table 2-21. Salem Nuclear Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Property Tax Paid and Percentage of 

Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County Tax Revenues, 2003 to 2009 

 Lower Alloways Creek Township Salem County 

Property Tax Paid by PSEG and/or Exelon (dollars) 

Total Property Tax 

Revenue in 

Township 

(dollars) 

PSEG and/or Exelon 

Property Tax as 

Percentage of Total 

Property Tax Revenue 

(percent) 

Total Property Tax 

Revenue in County 

(dollars) 

PSEG and/or Exelon 

Property Tax as 

Percentage of Total 

Property Tax Revenue 

(percent) 

Year Salem HCGS Total Salem HCGS Total Salem HCGS Total 

2003 748,537 464,677 1,213,214 2,099,185 35.7 22.1 57.8 34,697,781 2.2 1.3 3.5 2004 764,379 474,512 1,238,891 2,251,474 34.0 21.1 55.0 36,320,365 2.1 1.3 3.4 

2005 783,644 485,624 1,269,268 2,325,378 33.7 20.9 54.6 40,562,971 1.9 1.2 3.1 

2006 734,841 457,029 1,191,870 2,195,746 33.5 20.8 54.3 43,382,037 1.7 1.1 2.7 

2007 772,543 480,476 1,253,019 2,310,262 33.4 20.8 54.2 46,667,551 1.7 1.0 2.7 

2008 745,081 463,397 1,208,478 2,038,467 36.6 22.7 59.3 49,058,072 1.5 0.9 2.5 

2009 931,785 579,516 1,511,301 2,644,636 35.2 21.9 57.1 51,636,999 1.8 1.1 2.9 

Source: PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b; PSEG, 2010e 

Affected Environment 

 2-111 
Affected Environment 

 2-112 

Table 2-22. Energy and Environmental Resource Center Property Tax Paid and 

Percentage of City of Salem Tax Revenues, 2003 to 2009 

Year Property Tax Paid by PSEG 

and/or Exelon (dollars) 

Total Property Tax Revenue 

in City of Salem (dollars) 

PSEG and/or Exelon 

Property Tax as 

Percentage of Total 

Property Tax Revenue in 

City of Salem (percent) 

2003 177,360 5,092,527 3.5 

2004 211,755 6,049,675 3.5 

2005 220,822 6,294,613 3.5 

2006 228,492 6,485,947 3.5 

2007 318,910 7,389,319 4.3 

2008 184,445 8,423,203 2.2 

2009 387,353 8,313,289 4.7 

Source: PSEG, 2009a; 2009b; 2010e 

This represented between 2.2 and 4.7 percent of the city’s total annual property tax revenue. 

Ownership of the Energy and Environmental Resource Center was transferred to PSEG Power 

in the fourth quarter of 2008; therefore, Exelon is no longer minority owner of the center. 

In 1999, the State of New Jersey deregulated its utility industry (EIA, 2008). Any changes to the 

tax assessment for Salem or HCGS would already have occurred and are reflected in the tax 

payment information provided in Table 2-21. Potential future changes to Salem and HCGS 

property tax rates due to deregulation would be independent of license renewal. 

The continued availability of Salem and HCGS and the associated tax base is an important 

feature in the ability of Salem County communities to continue to invest in infrastructure and to 

draw industry and new residents. 

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

This section presents a brief summary of the region’s cultural background and a description of 

known historic and archaeological resources at the Salem/HCGS site and its immediate vicinity. 

The information presented was collected from area repositories, the New Jersey State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM), and the applicant’s ER 

(PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 

The prehistory of New Jersey includes five major temporal divisions based on technological 

advancements, the stylistic evolution of the lithic tool kit, and changes in subsistence strategies 

related to a changing environment and resource base. These divisions are as follows: 

● The Paleo-Indian Period (circa 12,000–10,000 years before present [BP]) 

● The Archaic Period (circa 10,000–3,000 years BP) 
Affected Environment 

 2-113 

● The Woodland Period (circa 3,000 BP–1600 AD) 

● The Contact Period (circa 1600–1700 AD) 

● Historic Period (circa 1700–1700 AD) 

These periods are typically broken into shorter time intervals reflecting specific adaptations and 

stylistic trends and are briefly discussed below. 

Paleo-Indian Period

The Paleo-Indian Period began after the Wisconsin glacier retreated from the region 

approximately 12,000 years ago, and represents the earliest known occupation in New Jersey. 

The Paleo-Indian people were hunter-gatherers whose subsistence strategy may have been 

dependent upon hunting large game animals over a wide region of tundra-like vegetation that 

gradually developed into open grasslands with scattered coniferous forests (Kraft, 1982). The 

settlement pattern during this period likely consisted of small, temporary camps (Kraft, 1982). 

Few Paleo-Indian sites have been excavated in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Within New Jersey, 

Paleo-Indian sites, such as the Plenge site excavated in the Musconetcong Valley in the 

northwestern part of the State, have largely been identified in valley and ridge zones 

(Marshall, 1982). 

Archaic Period

The Archaic Period is marked by changes in subsistence and settlement patterns. While hunting 

and gathering were still the primary subsistence activities, the emphasis seems to have shifted 

toward hunting the smaller animals inhabiting the deciduous forests that developed during this 

time. Based on archaeological evidence, the settlement pattern that helps define the Archaic 

Period consisted of larger, more permanent habitation sites. In addition to game animals, the 

quantities of plant resources, as well as fish and shellfish remains that have been identified at 

these sites, indicate that the Archaic people were more efficiently exploiting the natural 

environment (Kraft, 1982). 

An example of a typical Archaic Period site in southern New Jersey is the Indian Head Site, 

located about 35 mi (56 km) northeast of the Salem/HCGS site. The Indian Head Site is a large 

multi-component site with evidence of both Middle and Late Archaic Period occupations. 

Woodland Period

The Woodland Period marks the introduction of ceramic manufacture, as clay vessels replaced 

the earlier carved soapstone vessels. Hunting and gathering subsistence activities persisted, 

however, the period is notable for the development of horticulture. As horticulture became of 

increasing importance to the subsistence economy of the Woodland people, settlement patterns 

were affected. Habitation sites increased in size and permanence, as a larger population size 

could be sustained due to the more efficient exploitation of the natural environment for 

subsistence (Kraft, 1982). 

Examples of Woodland Period occupations in southern New Jersey are well documented in the 

many Riggins Complex sites recorded in the Cohansey Creek and Maurice River drainages. 
Affected Environment 

 2-114 

Contact Period

European exploration of the Mid-Atlantic Region began in the 16th century, and by the early 

17th century, maps of the area were being produced (aclink.org). The Dutch ship Furtuyn

explored the Mullica River in 1614. The Dutch and Swedish were the first to colonize the area, 

though they were eventually forced to give control of lands to the British in the later part of the 

17th century. These settlements mark the beginning of the Contact Period, a time of 

ever-increasing contact between the Native Americans of the region and the Europeans. 

The native groups of the southern New Jersey region were part of the widespread Algonquin 

cultural and linguistic tradition (Kraft, 1982). Following initial contact, a pattern of 

Indian/European trade developed and the Native Americans began to acquire European-made 

tools, ornaments, and other goods. This pattern is reflected in the archaeological record, as the 

artifact assemblages from Contact Period sites contain both Native American and European 

cultural material. 

At the time of contact, the Lenni Lenape inhabited the Salem/HCGS area. The Lenni Lenape, 

who eventually became known as the Delaware tribe, also occupied lands throughout New 

Jersey, as well as in present-day Pennsylvania and New York (Eaton, 1899). The group 

occupying southern New Jersey spoke the Southern Unami dialects of the Algonquin language 

(Kraft, 2001). 

Historic Period

The first European settlement in the vicinity of the Salem/HCGS site occurred in 1638, when a 

Swedish fort was established along the Delaware River in the present day town of Elsinborough 

(CSS, 2010). This settlement was short lived, as the location was plagued with mosquitoes and 

was eventually deemed untenable. Later attempts to settle the area by Swedish, Finnish, and 

Dutch groups also met with limited success. In 1675, the Englishman John Fenwick and his 

group of colonists landed along the Delaware River, north of the original Swedish settlement at 

Elsinborough (Brown, 2007). They established “Fenwicks Colony” and the town of Salem. In 

1790, the population of Salem County was 10,437. By 1880, the county’s population had more 

than doubled in size, reaching 24,579. Today, approximately 65,000 people inhabit Salem 

County (USCB, 2010c). 

During the 18th and 19th century, the predominant industries in Salem County included 

commercial fishing, shipping of agricultural products, ship building businesses, glass 

manufacturing, and farming (DSC, 2010). In the latter part of the 19th century, the DuPont 

Company established a gunpowder manufacturing plant in Salem County. At its peak, in the 

early part of the 20th century, the plant employed nearly 25,000 workers. The DuPont facilities 

continued operation into the late 1970s. In addition to generation of electric power at the Salem 

and HCGS sites, furniture and glass manufacturing have been the predominate industries in 

Salem County in the latter part of the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries. 

 
Affected Environment 

 2-115 

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Salem/Hope Creek Site 

Previously Identified Resources

The New Jersey State Museum (NJSM) houses the State’s archaeological site files, and the 

New Jersey State Historic Preservation office (SHPO) houses information on historic resources 

such as buildings and houses, including available information concerning the National or State 

Register eligibility status of these resources. The NRC cultural resource team visited the NJSM 

and collected site files on archaeological sites and information on historic resources located 

within or nearby the Salem/HCGS property. Online sources were used to identify properties 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Salem County, NJ, and New Castle 

County, DE (NRHP, 2010). 

A review of the NJSM files to identify archaeological resources indicated that no archaeological 

or historic sites have been recorded on Artificial Island. The nearest recorded prehistoric 

archaeological site, 35CU99, is located approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) southeast of the plant 

site, in Cumberland County. 35CU99 is an Archaic Period archeological site containing stone 

tools and evidence of stone tool making activity. The closest NRHP-listed site is the Joseph 

Ware House, which is located 6 mi (9.6 km) to the northeast, in Hancock’s Bridge. To date, 6 

properties within a 10-mi (16 km) radius of the Salem/HCGS site in Salem County, NJ, have 

been listed on the NRHP. A total of 17 NRHP-listed sites in New Castle County, DE, fall within a 

10-mi radius of the Salem/HCGS site. 

Potential Archaeological Resources

The Salem and HCGS sites are located on a man-made island in the Delaware River. This 

would suggest a very low potential for the discovery of previously undocumented prehistoric 

archaeological sites on the plant property. However, given the age of the artificial island upon 

which the generating stations were constructed, it is possible that previously undocumented 

historic-period resources may be present. Further research would be required to determine 

historic period land use patterns on the island during the 20th century. 

2.3 Related Federal Project Activities 

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the 

renewal of the operating licenses for Salem and HCGS. Any such activity could result in 

cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a 

cooperating agency in the preparation of the Salem and HCGS SEIS. 

The staff has determined that there are no Federal projects that would make it desirable for 

another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS. 

Federal facilities and parks and wildlife areas within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS are 

listed below. 

● Coast Guard Training Center, Cape May (New Jersey) 

● Dover Air Force Base (Delaware) 

● Aberdeen Test Center (Maryland) 
Affected Environment 

 2-116 

● United States Defense Government Supply Center, Philadelphia 

(Pennsylvania) 

● Federal Correctional Institution, Fairton (New Jersey) 

● Federal Detention Center, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) 

● New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 

● Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and Recreational River (New Jersey) 

● New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve 

● Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Delaware, 

Maryland) 

● Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network (Delaware, Maryland) 

● Hopewell Furnace – National Historic Site (Pennsylvania) 

● Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey) 

● Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey) 

● Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland) 

● Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware) 

● Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Delaware) 

● Independence National Historical Park (Pennsylvania) 

The USACE is involved in a project that could affect resources in the vicinity of Salem and 

HCGS. The USACE plans on deepening the Delaware River main navigation channel from 

Philadelphia to the Atlantic Ocean to a depth of 45 ft (14 m). This channel passes close to 

Artificial Island and the Salem and HCGS effluent discharge area. Studies determined that 

potential minor changes in hydrology, including salinity, would be possible. Temporary 

increases in turbidity would be expected during construction (USACE, 2009). 

Although it is not a Federal project, the potential construction of a fourth unit at the Salem and 

HCGS site would require action by a Federal agency. PSEG submitted an early site permit 

application to the NRC regarding possible construction of one or two new reactor units at the 

Salem and HCGS site on Artificial Island (PSEG, 2010f). 

The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended, to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. The 

NRC consulted with the NMFS and the FWS. Federal agency consultation correspondence and 

comments on the SEIS are presented in Appendix D. 

2.4 References 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
Affected Environment 

 2-117 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing 

Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 

Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Thank Class C Waste.” 

16 USC 1456. United States Code. Title 16, Chapter 33, Part 1456, “Coordination and 

Cooperation.” 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 81, 

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

73 FR 13032. U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. “PSEG Nuclear, LLC; 

Hope Creek Generating Station Final Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact; Related 

to the Proposed License Amendment to increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level.” Federal 

Register, Vol. 73, No. 48, pp. 13032–13044., March 11, 2008. 

AEC (Atomic Energy Commission). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Docket 

Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Washington, D.C., April 1973. 

Alaimo Group. 2005. “2005 Master Plan Reexamination Report, Township of Lower Alloways 

Creek, Salem County, NJ,” Approved by the Lower Alloways CreekTownship Planning Board, 

June 22, 2005. 

Arcadis. 2006. “Site Investigation Report, Salem Generating Station,” Newtown, PA, 

July 15, 2006. 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1998a. “Fishery Management Report 

No. 32 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Interstate Fishery Management Plan 

for Horseshoe Crab.” Fishery Management Report No. 32. December 1998. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/horseshoeCrab/fmps/hscFMP.pdf (accessed April 9, 

2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1998b. “Amendment 1 to the Bluefish 

Fishery Management Plan (Includes Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Review) 

Volume I.,” Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, ASMFC, and ASMFC in cooperation 

with the NMFS, the New England Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council., October 1998. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/bluefish/fmps/bluefish

Amendment1Vol1.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2001. “Amendment 1 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden.” Fishery Management Report No. 37. July 

2001. Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/menhaden/fmps/menhaden

Am%201.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-118 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2002. “Amendment 4 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish.” Fishery Management Report No. 39. November 

2002. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/fmps/weakfishAmendment4.pdf (accessed 

April 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2003. “Amendment 6 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.” Fishery Management Report No. 41. 

February 2003. Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/fmps/

sbAmendment6.pdf (accessed February 19, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2004. “Status of the Blue Crab 

(Callinectes sapidus) on the Atlantic Coast.” Special Report No. 80. October 2004. Available 

URL: http://www.asmfc.org/publications/specialReports/SR80FinalBlueCrabStatus.pdf

(accessed February 12, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2005a. “Species Profile: Atlantic 

Menhaden.Species Profile: Atlantic Menhaden – Stock Healthy Coastwide, But Questions 

Remain Regarding Localized Stock Condistions.”. Excerpted from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 

14, Issue 2, March 2005. Available URL: http://fishtheisland.com/Species/Menhaden/

menhadenProfile.pdf (accessed June 21, 2010). 

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2005b. “Amendment 1 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Croaker.” Fishery Management Report No. 44. 

November 2005. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/atlanticcroaker/fmps/croakerAme

ndment1.pdf (accessed February 19, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2006. “Species Profile: Bluefish – Joint 

Plan Seeks to Restore Premier Fighting Fish.” Excerpted from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 15, 

Issue 4, May 2006. Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/

bluefish/bluefishProfile.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2007a. “Species Profile: Shad & River 

Herring – Atlantic States Seek to Improve Knowledge of Stock Status and Protect Populations 

Coastwide.” Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/speciesProfile07.pdf

(accessed April 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2007b. “Species Profile: Atlantic 

Croaker – Amendment Seeks to Maintain Healthy Mid-Atlantic Stock Component.” Exceprted 

from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 16, Issue 3, April 2007. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/atlanticcroaker/species

Profile.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2008a. “Species Profile: Horseshoe 

Crab – Populations Show Positive Response to Current Management Measures.” Available 

URL: (accessed DATE). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2008b. “Addendum V to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Horseshoe Crab.” Fishery Management Report No. 32e. 

September 2008. Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/horseshoeCrab/

fmps/hscAddendumV.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-119 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2008c. “Species Profile: Spot – 

Short-Lived Fish Supports South Atlantic Fisheries & Serves as Important Prey Species.” 

Excerpted from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 17, Issue 6, August 2008. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/speciesProfile0505.pdf

(accessed February 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2008d. “Species Profile: Atlantic 

Striped Bass – New Stock Assessment Indicates a Healthy Stock and Continued Management 

Success.” Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/profiles/

speciesprofile.pdf (accessed February 19, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2008e. “Species Profile: Summer 

Flounder – Positive Assessment Results Yield Higher Quotas.” Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sfScupBSB/summerflounder/sFlounderProfile.pdf

(accessed March 2, 2010. 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009a. Amendment 2 to the Interstate 

Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring (River Herring Management). May 2009. 

Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/shad/fmps/amendment2_

RiverHerring.pdf (accessed April 9, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009b. “Species Profile: Weakfish: 

Board Initiates Addendum to Address All Time Low in Weakfish Biomass.” Excerpted from 

ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 18, Issue 7, September 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/weakfish/weakfishProfile.pdf (accessed February 19, 

2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2009c. “Species Profile: Atlantic 

Sturgeon – Ancient Species’ Slow Road to Recovery.” Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/sturgeonProfile.pdf (accessed April 13, 

2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2010a. “Horseshoe Crab (Limulus 

polyphemus): Life History and Habitat Needs.” Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/horseshoeCrab/hscHabitatFactsheet.pdf (accessed 

April 12, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2010b. “Atlantic Striped Bass (Morone 

saxatilis): Life History and Habitat Needs.” Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/stripedBass/stripedbassHabitatFactsheet.pdf

(accessed February 23, 2010). 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2010c. “Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission Habitat Factsheet: Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus 

oxyrhynchus).” Available URL:

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/sturgeon/habitatFactsheet.pdf (accessed April 13, 

2010). 

Austin, B., J. Schoolfield, H. Speir, and N. Meserve. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission). 2006. 2006 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Spot (Leiostomus 

xanthurus). Prepared for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. October 24, 2006. 
Affected Environment 

 2-120 

Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/

fmpreviews/spot06FMPreview.pdf (accessed February 19, 2010). 

Bozeman, E.L., Jr., and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) – Alewife and 

Blueback Herring,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.111), U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-111.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Brown, J. 2007. “A Brief History of Salem County, New Jersey.” Available URL: 

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~njsalem/documents/History-SalemCounty-NJ.txt (accessed 

April 6, 2010). 

Buckley, J. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal 

Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) – Winter Flounder,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report, 82(11.87), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-087.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

CAML (Census of Antarctic Marine Life). 2008. “Benthos.” Available URL: 

http://www.caml.aq/benthos/index.html (accessed July 29, 2010). 

CBF (Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation, Inc.). 2010. “Ecological Depletion of Atlantic 

Menhaden & Bay Anchovy: Effects on Atlantic Coast Striped Bass, First Year-Round Ecological 

Study of Large Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass.” Available URL: http://www.chesbay.org/

articles/striped%20bass%20study(1-09).asp (accessed February 19, 2010). 

CCMA (NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment). 2005. Estuarine Living Marine 

Resources Database. Query results for summer flounder, all life stages in Delaware Bay and 

Delaware Inland Bays. August 2005. Available URL: http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/biogeo_public/

elmr.aspx (accessed March 2, 2010). 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. “American Shad Harvest.” November 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/americanshadharvest.aspx?menuitem=15315 (accessed 

February 18, 2010). 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 USC 7410, 7491 (a)(2), 7601(a). 1963 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Available URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm

(accessed September 6, 2010). 

CPC (Center for Plant Conservation). 2010. “CPC National Collection Plant Profile for Helonias 

bullata,” Available URL: http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/collection/

cpc_viewprofile.asp?CPCNum=2210 (accessed May 10, 2010). 

CSS (Colonial Swedish Society). 2010. “A Brief History of New Sweden in America.” 

Available URL: http://www.colonialswedes.org/History/History.html (accessed April 12, 2010). 

CUPR (Center for Urban Policy Research). 2009. Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State 

Development and Redevelopment Plan. Prepared for New Jersey Department of Community 
Affected Environment 

 2-121 

Affairs. December 11, 2009. Available URL: http://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/osg/docs/

dfplan_projections.pdf (accessed May 12, 2010). 

DDE (Delaware Department of Education). 2010. “State of Delaware 2009–2010 Department of 

Education Annual Snapshot.” Available URL: http://profiles.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolProfiles/State/

Default.aspx (accessed May 11, 2010). 

DDL (Delaware Department of Labor). 2009. Delaware State and County Level Employment 

and Wages by Industry for 2008. September 2, 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.delawareworks.com/oolmi/Information/LMIData/QCEW/QCEW-Annual_V1132.aspx

(accessed April 27, 2010). 

Delaware Estuary Program. 2010. “History of the Eastern Oyster.” Available URL: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/publications/factsheets/Oysterw.pdf (April 14, 2010). 

DePaul, V. T., R. Rosman, and P.J. Lacombe. 2009. Water-Level Conditions in Selected 

Confined Aquifers of the New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5145. Available URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/

2008/5145/pdf/SIR2008-5145.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2002. 

"Delaware's Rare Animal Species of Conservation Concern." Available URL: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/animal.htm (accessed August 31, 2010). 

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2003. “Public 

Water Supply Source Water Assessment for Artesian Water Co. (Bayview), PWS ID: 

DE0000553. New Castle County, Delaware.” October 2, 2003. Available URL: 

http://www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome_old/phase2/final_assess/artesianother/awc_bayview.pdf

(accessed February 24, 2010). 

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2006a. 

“Weakfish Tagging Project,” May 2006. Available URL: http://www.fw.delaware.gov/

SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%20Gallery/WeakfishTagging.pdf (accessed February 19, 2010). 

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2006b. 

“Striped Bass Food Habits Project,” May 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.fw.delaware.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%20Gallery/StripedBassFoodHabits.p

df (accessed February 19, 2010). 

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2008. 

"Endangered Species of Delaware." Available URL: 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/nhp/information/endangered.shtml (accessed August 31, 2010). 

DPC (Delaware Population Consortium). 2009. “The Delaware Population Consortium: Annual 

Projects Projections.” Available URL: http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/information/

dpc_projections.shtml (accessed May 12, 2010). 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commissionn). 1961. Delaware River Basin Compact, U.S. Public 

Law 87-328, West Trenton, NJ. Delaware River Basin Commission. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1977. Contract No. 76-EP-482 Covering to Provide 

the Supply of Cooling Water from the Delaware River, Required for Operation of Salem Units 1 
Affected Environment 

 2-122 

and 2 at Salem Nuclear Generating Station between the Delaware River Basin Commission and 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company. January 1977. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1984a. Revision of the Hope Creek Generating 

Station Project Previously Included in the Comprehensive Plan. Docket No. D-73-193 CP 

(Revised), West Trenton, NJ. May 1984. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1984b. Water Supply Contract Between DRBC 

and PSEG Concerning the Water Supply at Hope Creek Generating Station, West Trenton, NJ. 

December 1984. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2000. “Groundwater Withdrawal,” Docket No. 

D-90-71 Renewal, Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, NJ. November 2000. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2001. “Approval to Revise Delaware Basin 

Compact,” Docket No. D-68-20 (Revision 20), Delaware Basin River Commission, West 

Trenton, NJ. September 2001. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2005. “Year 2005 Water Withdrawal and 

Consumptive Use by Large Users on on the Tidal Delaware River.” Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/wateruse/largeusers_05.htm (accessed February 15, 2010). 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2008a. “Delaware River State of the Basin 

Report,” Delaware River Basin Commission, West Trenton, NJ. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2008b. Nutrient Criteria Strategy for the Tidal and 

Non-tidal Delaware River. April 25, 2008. Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/DRBCNutrientStrategy042508.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2010. “The Delaware River Basin.” Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm (accessed February 24, 2010). 

DSC (Discover Salem County). 2010. “History of Salem County.” Available URL: 

http://www.discoversalemcounty.com/history/colonialhistory.asp (accessed April 6, 2010). 

DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commissionon). 2009. “2009 Cumberland 

County Farmland Preservation Plan.” Available URL: http://www.co.cumberland.nj.us/

content/173/251/761/2947/3098/2969/6996.aspx (accessed May 17, 2010). 

Eaton, H.P. 1899. “Jersey City and Its Historic Sites,” The Women’s Club: Jersey City, NJ. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2008. Status of Electricity Restructuring by State, New 

Jersey: Restructuring Active. September 2008. Available URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/

electricity/page/restructuring/new_jersey.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2006. Technical Resource Document for Modified 

Ristroph Travelling Screens: Model Descign and Construction Technology Installation and 

Operation Plan. November 2006. Available URL: http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/

000000000001013308.pdf (accessed August 11, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Report 550/9-74-004, Wahington D.C. Available URL: http://www.nonoise.org/library/

levels74/levels74.htm (accessed September 6, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-123 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. “New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer Support 

Document.” May 1988. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/Region2/water/aquifer/coast/

coastpln.htm (accessed February 24, 2010. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries, 

EPA 600-R-98-147. November 1998. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/

docs/groupdocs/estuary/assess/cond_mae.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. “Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous 

United States.” Available URL: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/basins/ecoreg.cfm

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. “2010 Title V Operating Permits 

Database: Deadlines for Public Petitions to the Administrator for Permit Objections.” Available 

URL: http://www.epa.gov/region02/air/title_v2010.pdf (accessed August 6, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (ECHO). Available URL: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/index.html (accessed 

September 7, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010c. “Local Drinking Water Information: 

Northeast U.S.”. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/nes.htm (accessed 

January 20, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010d. “Partnership for the Delaware Estuary 

(NEP Profile).” Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/programs/de.html (accessed 

February 24, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010e. Safe Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS) for Salem County, New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware. Available URL: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/index.cfm (accessed September 7, 

2010. 

Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983a. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Atlantic 

Silverside.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.10. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-010.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983b. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Striped Bass.” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.8. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-008.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicee (FWS). 1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) Recovery 

Plan. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/910930c.pdf (accessed 

May 9, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-124 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001b. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern 

Population, Recovery Plan. Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/010515.pdf

(accessed February 26, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Delaware Bay Shorebird-Horseshoe Crab 

Assessment Report and Peer Review. Prepared for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission. Available URL: http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/DBshorebird.pdf (accessed 

April 9, 2010. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. “The Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii): 

Protecting New Jersey’s Rarest Turtle.” February 2004. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Fact%20Sheets%20PDF%20holding/Bog_turtle.pdf

(accessed February 26, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. “The Horseshoe Crab. Limulus polyphemus. 

A Living Fossil.” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/horseshoe.fs.pdf (accessed 

April 9, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/

five_year_review/doc2006.pdf (accessed May 9, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010a. “Federally Listed and Candidate Species in New 

Jersey.” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/specieslist.pdf

(accessed May 16, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010b. Letter from R. Popowski, Assistant Supervisor, to 

B. Pham, Branch Chief, NRC. Subject: Reply to Request for Information on Federally Listed 

Species in the Vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. June 29, 2010. ADAMS No. 

ML101970077. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010c. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. 

Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed February 10, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010d. “Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.” 

Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/supawnameadows/ (accessed August 31, 2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010e. “Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata).” Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangered/swamppink.html (accessed May 10, 

2010). 

Gloucester County. 2010. “Gloucester County Economic Development” homepage. Available 

URL: http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/Government/Departments/EconomicDev/mainnew.cfm

(accessed February 5, 2010). 

Greene, K. E., J. L. Zimmerman, R. W. Laney, and J. C. Thomas-Blate. 2009. Atlantic Coast 

Diadromous Fish Habitat: A Review of Utilization, Threats, Recommendations for Conservation, 

and Research Needs. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series 

No. 9. Available URL: http://www.asmfc.org/diadromousSpeciesDocument.htm (accessed July 

21, 2010). 

Grimes, B.H., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P Moran. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories 

and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Summer 
Affected Environment 

 2-125 

and Winter Flounder.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.112), U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-112.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Hill, J., D.L. Fowler, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Blue Crab.” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.100), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-100.pdf

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

Kraft, H.C. 2001. The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000. Stanhope, NJ: 

Lenape Lifeways, Inc. 

Kraft, H.C. and R. Alan Mounier. 1982. “The Archaic Period in Northern New Jersey” in Olga 

Chesler (Ed.), New Jersey’s Archaeological Resources: A Review of Research Problems and 

Survey Priorities: The Paleo-Indian Period to Present. Trenton, NJ: Office of New Jersey 

Heritage. 

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

Township, May 1988. ADAMS No. ML101440266. 

LACT (Lower Alloways Creek Township). 1988b. Tax Map, Zone 14, Lower Alloways Creek 

Township, May 1988. ADAMS No. ML101440267. 

LACT (Lower Alloways Creek Township). 1992. Master Plan, Adopted by Lower Alloways 

Creek Township Planning Board September 17, 1992. 

Lassuy, D.R. 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements (Gulf of 

Mexico) – Atlantic Croaker.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, 

FWS/ORS-82/11.3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-003.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

MacKenzie, C., L.S. Weiss-Glanz, and J.R. Moring. 1985. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – American 

Shad.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.37), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-037.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Marshall, S. 1982. “Aboriginal Settlement in New Jersey During the Paleo-Indian Cultural 

Period: ca. 10,000 B.C. – 6,000 B.C.” In Olga Chesler (Ed.), New Jersey’s Archaeological 

Resources: A Review of Research Problems and Survey Priorities: The Paleo-Indian Period to 

Present, State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Natural and Historic 

Resources, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, NJ, February 1982. 

MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2008. White Perch Fisheries Management 

Plan. Available URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/management/FMP/

FMPWhitePerch04.pdf (accessed February 18, 2010). 

Mercer, L.P. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal 

Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Weakfish.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 

Report, 82(11.109), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: 
Affected Environment 

 2-126 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-109.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

Moisan, T. A., J. K. Nolan, B. A. Campbell, and E. R. Firestone. 2007. Rising Tides. NASA 

Goddard Space Flight Center. Available URL: http://phytoplankton.gsfc.nasa.gov/risingtides/pdf/

RisingTides_Journal-Complete.pdf (accessed July 29, 2010). 

Monaco, Mark E. and Ulanowicz, Robert E. 1997. Comparative Ecosystem Trophic Structure 

of Three US. Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 161: 239-254. 

December 31, 1997. Available URL: http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/161/m161p239.pdf

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

Morris Land Conservancy. 2006. County of Salem Open Space and Farmland Preservation 

Plan, Volume 1: Open Space and Recreation Plan. December 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/departments/Planning_Board/9-

2008/Open%20Space%20and%20Recreation%20Plan%202006.pdf (accessed December 9, 

2009). 

Morris Land Conservancy. 2008. County of Salem Open Space and Farmland Preservation 

Plan, Volume 2: Farmland Preservation Plan. August 2008. Available URL: 

http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/departments/Planning_Board/2008Farmland

PreservationPlan.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Morse, W.W. and K.W. Able. 1995. Distribution and Life History of Windowpane, Scophthalmus 

aquosus, Off the Northeastern United States. Fishery Bulletin, Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 675-693. 

Available URL: http://fishbull.noaa.gov/934/morse.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Morton, T. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal 

Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Bay Anchovy.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report, 82(11.97). Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-097.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Najarian Associates. 2004. Hydrological Modeling Analysis for the Hope Creek Generating 

Station Extended Power Uprate Project. Final Report. Submitted to PSEG, Environmental 

Health and Safety, Newark, NJ. 

NAS (National Audubon Society). 2010. “ Mad Horse Creek and Abbots Meadow Wildlife 

Management Areas/Stowe Creek.” Available URL: http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?

siteId=2961&navSite=search&pagerOffset=0&page=1 (accessed February 12, 2010). 

NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics). 2009. “College Navigator.” Available URL: 

http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=NJ&zc=08079&zd=50&of=3&ct=1 (accessed December 

22, 2009). 

NEFMC (New England Fisheries Management Council). 1998a. “Essential Fish Habitat 

Description: Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus).” Available URL: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/winter.pdf (accessed February 10, 2010). 

NEFMC (New England Fisheries Management Council). 1998b. “Essential Fish Habitat 

Description: Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus).” Available URL: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/windowpane.pdf (accessed February 26, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-127 

NEFMC (New England Fisheries Management Council). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Overview. 

Available URL: http://www.nefmc.org/ on (accessed August 8, 2006. 

NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 2010. “Northeast Multispecies (Large 

Mesh/Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan.” Available URL: http://www.nefmc.org/

nemulti/summary/large_mesh_multi.pdf (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2004. 38th Northeast Regional Stock 

Assessment Workshop (38th SAW) Advisory Report. NEFSC Reference Document 04-04. 

Available URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0404/crd0404.pdf (accessed 

September 7, 2010). 

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2006a. “Status of Fishery Resources off the 

Northeastern US: Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus).” December 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrs/summer/ (accessed March 2, 2010. 

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2006b. “Status of Fishery Resources off the 

Northeastern US: Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus).” December 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/op/butter/ (accessed February 26. 2010). 

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council). 2006. “Standard FAC-003-1 – 

Transmission Vegetation Management Program.” Available URL: http://www.nerc.com/

files/FAC-003-1.pdf (accessed April 7, 2010). 

New Castle County. 2007. “II. Future Land Use and Design,” in 2007 New Castle County 

Comprehensive Development Plan. July 24, 2007. Available URL: 

http://www2.nccde.org/landuse/documents/PlanningComprehensivePlanDocuments/SectionIIFutureLandUse.pdf (accessed December 17, 2009). 

N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative Code). 7:26. Solid & Hazardous Waste Rules

N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative Code). 7:1.4 Water Pollution Control Act

Newberger, T. A. and E. D. Houde. 1995. “Population Biology of Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli

in the Mid Chesapeake Bay.” Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 116, pp. 25–37. Available 

URL: http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/116/m116p025.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

NJAW (New Jersey American Water). 2010. 2008 Annual Water Quality Report. Available 

URL: http://www.amwater.com/njaw/ensuring-water-quality/water-quality-reports.html (accessed 

February 24, 2010). 

NJ-BPU (New Jersey Board of Public Utilities). 2009. “New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 

Proposed Amendments to the Electric Service Rules – Electric Utility Line Vegetation 

Management, N.J.A.C. 14:5-9.2 and 9.6, BPU Docket #EX0804235.” Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/bpu/pdf/rules/Veg%20Mgmt%20Amendments%20-%20Proposal%20-

%20COURTESY%20COPY%20(5%20-%208%20-%2009).pdf (accessed August 23, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2001a. Final Surface Water 

Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater, Salem Generating Station, NJPDES Permit 

No. NJ0005622. June 2001. Provided in Appendix B of Applicant’s Environmental Report 

(PSEG, 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-128 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2001b. Field Guide to Reptiles 

and Amphibians of New Jersey. 1st Edition. February 2001. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/frogs.pdf (accessed August 20, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2002a. Fact Sheet for a Draft 

NJPDES Permit Including Section 316 (a) variance determination and Section 316(b) decision, 

Trenton, NJ, November 2002. ADAMS Accession No. ML101440297. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2002b. Hope Creek Generating 

Station Permit No. NJ0025411, Surface Renewal Water Permit Action, Draft Permit and Fact 

Sheet and Statement of Bases, Trenton, NJ, November 2002. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2003. Final Consolidated 

Renewal Permit Action for Industrial Wastewater and Stormwater, Hope Creek Generating 

Station, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411, January 2003. Provided in Appendix B of Applicant’s 

Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009a). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2004. “Water Allocation Permit 

– Minor Modification,” Permit No. WAP040001. December 2004. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2005a. Annual Summary of 

Phytoplankton Blooms and Related Conditions in the New Jersey Coastal Waters: Summer of 

2005. Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/bmw/Reports/Phyto2005Final.pdf (accessed 

September 7, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2005b. “Estuarine Algal 

Conditions” in Environmental Trends Report. Available URL: 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/trends2005/pdfs/algal.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2005c. Final Surface Water 

Major Mod Permit Action – Clarification of BOD and TSS Minimum Percent Removal Limits, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411, January 31, 2005. ADAMS 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2005d. Locations of 

Anadromous American Shad and River Herring During Their Spawning Period in New Jersey’s 

Freshwaters Including Known Migratory Impediments and Fish Ladders. March 2005. Available 

URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/anadromouswaters.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2007. Determination of 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples. Final Report. January 2007. Available 

URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/final_pfoa_report.pdf (accessed April 23, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009a. Ambient Air Monitoring 

Network Plan 2009. June 2009. Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/2007net.pdf

(accessed February 26, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Operating Permit 

Renewal Application, Administrative Completeness – with Application Shield, Permit Activity No. 

BOP080003, December 2009. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2010a. “Attainment Areas 

Status.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/baqp/aas.html (accessed February 26, 

2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-129 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2010b. “Division of Land Use 

Regulation.” Available URL: http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/ (accessed February 24, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2010c. “DEP Data Miner.” 

Query Results for Enforcement Actions Issued at Site ID:15647 Between 1/01/2000 and 

8/12/2010. Available URL: http://datamine2.state.nj.us/dep/DEP_OPRA/ (accessed August 12, 

2010). 

NJDFW (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). 2004. “Bog Turtle – November 2003 

Species of the Month.” October 2004. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/somnov.htm (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NJDFW (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). 2009a. “Wildlife Management Areas.” 

Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us./dep/fgw/wmaland.htm (accessed May 18, 2010). 

NJDFW (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). 2009b. “The 2009 Osprey Project in New 

Jersey,” Endangered and Nongame Species Program. Available URL: 

http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/downloads/cwnj_13.pdf (accessed February 18, 2010). 

NJDFW (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). 2010a. “Bog Turtle, Clemmys 

muhlenbergii.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end-thrtened/bogtrtl.pdf

(accessed May 9, 2010). 

NJDFW (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). 2010b. “New Jersey Bog Turtle Project.” 

Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/bogturt.htm (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NJDFW (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife). 2010d. “Bog Turtle Habitat Management 

and Restoration Slide Show.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/slideshows/

bogturtle/bogtrtintro.htm (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NJDLWD (New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development). 2010a. Southern 

Regional Community Fact Book, Cumberland County Edition. February 2010. Available URL: 

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/factbook/cumfct.pdf (accessed April 28, 2010). 

NJDLWD (New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development). 2010b. Southern 

Regional Community Fact Book, Gloucester County Edition. February 2010. Available URL: 

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/factbook/glcfct.pdf (accessed April 28, 2010). 

NJDLWD (New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development). 2010c. Southern 

Regional Community Fact Book, Salem County Edition. February 2010. Available URL: 

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/pub/factbook/slmfct.pdf (accessed April 28, 2010). 

NJDOE (New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). 2010. “DOE Data: 2008–2009 

Enrollment” for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties. Available URL: 

http://www.nj.gov/education/data/enr/enr09/county.htm (accessed January 15, 2010). 

NJDOT (New Jersey Department of Transportation). 2009. “2009 Short Term Counts Stations 

List with Annual Average Daily Traffic Data.” Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/pdf/StationListing09.pdf (accessed March 

23, 2010). 

NJPC (New Jersey Pinelands Commission). 2010. “The Pinelands National Reserve: Our 

Country’s First National Reserve.” Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/reserve/

(accessed August 20, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-130 

Lathrop, R. G. and J. F. Bunnell. 2009. New Jersey Pinelands Electric-Transmission 

Right-of-Way Vegetation-Management Plan. March 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/science/complete/row/Final_ROW_Report_033109.pdf

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

NJSA (New Jersey State Atlas). 2008. “New Jersey Land Change Viewer: Interactive Maps.” 

Available URL: http://njstateatlas.com/luc/ (accessed February 8, 2010). 

NJWSC (New Jersey Water Science Center). 2009. “Major Aquifers in New Jersey.” Available 

URL: http://nj.usgs.gov/infodata/aquifers/ (accessed February 24, 2010). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose 

Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). December 1998. Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Biennial Report to Congress on on the 

Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2006 – September 30, 

2008. Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esabiennial2008.pdf (accessed 

September 7, 2010). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. “Species of Concern: River Herring (Alewife 

and Blueback Herring) Alosa pseudoharngus and A. aestivalis.” Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_detailed.pdf (accessed February 17, 

2010). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010a. Letter from S. W. Gorski, Field Offices 

Supervisor, Habitat Conservation Division, and James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory, 

to B. Pham, Branch Chief, NRC. Subject: Letter Responding to NRC’s Request For Information 

on Essential Fish Habitat Designated in the Vicinity of the Salem and HCGS Facilities. February 

23, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML101970072. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010b. Letter from M. A. Colligan, Assistant 

Regional Administator for Protected Resources, Northeast Region, to B. Pham, Branch Chief, 

NRC. Subject: Response to NRC’s request for Information on the Presence of Species Listed 

by NMFS as Threatened or Endangered That May Occur in the Vicinity of the Salem and HCGS 

Facilities. February 11, 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML101970073. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010c. “Marine Turtles.” Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/ (accessed February 23, 2010). 

NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. 

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 

Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/leatherback_5yearreview.pdf

(accessed May 6, 2010). 

NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. 

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 

Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/kempsridley_5yearreview.pdf

(accessed May 5, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-131 

NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007c. 

Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/greenturtle_5yearreview.pdf (accessed May 5 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1999a. Essential Fish 

Habitat Source Document: Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, Life History and 

Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-138. September 1999. 

Available URL : http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm138/tm138.pdf (accessed May 5, 

2010. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999b. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137. September 1999. Available 

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm137/tm137.pdf (accessed May 5, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999c. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. September 1999. Available 

URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm151/tm151.pdf (accessed May 5, 2010. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999d. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Butterfish, Peprilus triacanthus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-145. September 1999. Available URL: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm145/tm145.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003a. “Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Clearnose Skate, Raja eglanteria, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-174/ March 2003. Available URL : 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm174/index.htm (accessed May 6, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003b. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Little Skate, Leucoraja erinacea, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-175. March 2003. Available URL: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm175/index.htm (accessed May 6, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003c. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Winter Skate, Leucoraja ocellata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-179. March 2003. Available URL: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tm179/ (accessed June 21, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004. “Monthly Station Climate 

Summaries: Climatography of the United States No. 20, 1971-2000.” Available URL: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/documentlibrary/pdf/eis/clim20eis.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2006. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics, 

Second Edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-198. June 2006. Available URL : 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm198/tm198.pdf (accessed June 21, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008. “Climate of New Jersey, 

Introduction.” Available URL: (accessed DATE). 
Affected Environment 

 2-132 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009b. “Species of Concern: 

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxytinchus oxyrinchus).” Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon_detailed.pdf (accessed April 13, 

2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010a. Locate Weather Station 

Record” for Salem County, NJ. Available URL: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010b. “Storm Events.” Query 

Results for Salem County, NJ. Available URL: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010c. “Event Record Details, 

Salem County, NJ.” Available URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov (accessed February 26, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010d. “NCDC Station List within 

25 Miles of Woodstown, NJ.” Available URL: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov (accessed February 26, 

2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010e. “Summary of Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) Designation: 10' x 10' Square Coordinates.” Available URL: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/new_jersey/39207530.html (accessed May 16, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010f. “Summary of Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) Designation: Delaware Bay, New Jersey/Delaware.” Available URL: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/nj2.html (accessed February 25, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010g. “Essential Fish Habitat for 

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus).” Available URL: 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/summerflounder.htm (accessed March 1, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010i. “Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta 

caretta).” Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm

(accessed May 5, 2010). 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010j. “Shortnose Sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum).” Available URL: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm (accessed May 5, 2010. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2006a. “Pinelands National Reserve, New Jersey.” Available 

URL: http://www.nps.gov/pine/index.htm (accessed September 7, 2010). 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1984. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

the Operation of Hope Creek Generating Station. NUREG-1074, Washington D.C. Docket 

Number 50-354. December 1984. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005. Order Modifying License for Hope Creek 

and Salem Generating Stations Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. Docket 

No. 72-48. May 2005. ADAMS Accession No. ML050940497. 
Affected Environment 

 2-133 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Essential Fish Habitat for an Extended 

Power Uprate at Hope Creek Generating Station. June 2007. Docket No. 50-354. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML071520463. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Web Soil Survey – National 

Cooperative Soil Survey. Available URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

HomePage.htm (accessed February 10, 2010). 

NRHP (National Register of Historic Places). 2010. “Delaware - New Castle County.” 

Available URL: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/de/New+Castle/state.html

(accessed April 9, 2010). 

NYNHP (New York Natural Heritage Program). 2009. “Atlantic silverside.” Available URL: 

http://www.acris.nynhp.org/report.php?id=7304 (accessed February 25, 2010). 

Orth-Rodgers. 2002. “Planning for the Future: A Summary of Cumberland County Planning 

Initiatives,” Prepared for the Cumberland County Department of Planning and Development. 

October 2002. Available at: 

http://www.co.cumberland.nj.us/filestorage/173/251/761/preface_and_text_summary.pdf

(Accesed on May 17, 2010). 

PFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). 2010. “Chapter 21: Temperate Basses, 

Family Moronidae” in Pennsylvania Fishes. Available URL: 

http://fishandboat.com/pafish/fishhtms/chap21.htm (accessed February 18, 2010). 

Phillips, J.M., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P. Moran. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories 

and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Spot.” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.98), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-098.pdf

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

Pottern, G.B., M.T. Huish, and J.H. Kerby. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Bluefish.” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.94), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR 

EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-094.pdf

(accessed September 7, 2010). 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1983. “Hope Creek Generating Station, Applicant’s Environmental 

Report – Operating License Stage,” Volume 1, March 1983. . 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration, NPDES 

Permit No. NJ0005622. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999. Permit Renewal Application, NJPDES Permit No. 

NJ0005622, Salem Generating Station, March 1999. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2004a. “Remedial Action Work Plan,” PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem 

Generating Station, Hancock’s Bridge, NJ. July 2004. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2004b. “Alloway Creek Watershed Phragmites-Dominated 

Wetland Restoration Management Plan,” Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ, 

February 17, 2004. 
Affected Environment 

 2-134 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2005a. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2004 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. ADAMS Accession No. ML051260140. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006a. Hope Creek Generating Station – Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report. Revision 15. October 2006. ADAMS Accession No. ML063100531 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2005 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. ADAMS Accession No. ML061300067. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006c. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application, NJPDES 

Permit No. NJ0005622, Public Service Enterprise Group, Newark, NJ, February 2006. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007a. Salem Generating Station – Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report. Revision 23. October 2007. ADAMS Accession No. ML072980678. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2006 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. ADAMS Accession No. ML071230112. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008a. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2007 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. ADAMS Accession No. ML081280737. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008b. “2007 Hazardous Waste Report,” Lower Alloways Creek 

Township, NJ, February 2008. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, License 

Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License 

Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, August 2009, ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML092400532, ML092400531, ML092430231. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, NJ, August 2009, ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092430389. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2008 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. ADAMS Accession No. ML091200612. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009d. Salem Generating Station – Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report. Revision 24. May 11, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML091390275. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009e. Quarterly Remedial Action Progress Report, Fourth 

Quarter 2008: PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Salem Generating Station. May 26, 2009. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML091690304. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010a. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2009 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Hazardous 

Waste Generator Status for 2009. March 2010. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010c. Transmission system landcover map with table of 

acreages by landcover type. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010d. Table 2.6-2 Update, “Residential Distribution of Salem 

Employees;” Table 2.6-2 Update, “Residential Distribution of Hope Creek Employees;” and 
Affected Environment 

 2-135 

Table 2.6-2a, “Residential Distribution of Salem/Hope Creek staffs who are Matrixed and 

Corporate Employees.”. ADAMS Accession No. ML101440272. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010e. Update to Table 2.7-1, “Tax Information for Salem and 

Hope Creek Generating Station and the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, 

2003-2009,” ADAMS AccessionNo. ML101440272. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010f. Letter from D. Lewis, Nuclear Development Project 

Director, and P. Davidson, Vice President of Operations Support, to Document Control Desk, 

NRC. Subject: Application for Early Site Permit for the PSEG Site. May 25, 2010. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML101480484. 

Rogers, S.G., and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) – Atlantic 

Menhaden.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82(11.108), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-108.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Rosenau, J.C., S.M. Lang, G.S. Hilton, and J.G. Rooney. 1969. Geology and Ground-water 

Resources of Salem County, New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Conservation and 

Economic Development Special Report 33. 

Rukenstein & Associates. 2004. “Smart Growth Plan, Delaware River and I-295/NJ Turnpike 

Planned Growth Corridor, Salem County, New Jersey.” Available at: 

http://www/salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/departments/Planning_Board/regionalplan20

04.pdf (Accessed December 9, 2009). 

SADC (State Agriculture Development Committee). 2009. “New Jersey Farmland Preservation 

Program: Summary of Preserved Farmland.” Available URL: http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/

farmpreserve/progress/stats/preservedsummary.pdf (accessed December 10, 2009). 

Salem County. 2007. Salem County, New Jersey: An Economic Resource Guide. Available 

URL: http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/downloads/new%20tourism/Salem_Co_NJ06.pdf

(accessed April 27, 2010). 

Salem County. 2008. “Salem County Farmland Preservation Plan.” August, 2008. Available 

URL: http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/default.asp?contentID=1103 (accessed February 

24, 2010). 

Sellers, M.A. and J. G. Stanley. 1984. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) – American Oyster.” U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.23, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-023.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

SMS (Smithsonian Marine Station). 2008. “Anchoa mitchilli.” Available URL: 

http://www.sms.si.edu/irlSpec/Anchoa_mitchilli.htm (accessed February 18, 2010). 

Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) – White Perch.” U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-82/11.7, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-007.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-136 

Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron, II, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. The Scientific Characterization of the 

Delaware Estuary. Performed for the Delaware Estuary Program, Delaware River Basin 

Commission (DRBC) Project # 321. Available URL: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/ScienceReportsbyPDEandDELEP/PDE-DELEP-Report-96-

02-SciChar.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

TetraTech. 2009. “Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station Calculation Package for Ground 

Water Pumpage, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Station,” TetraTech NUS, Aiken, SC, 

February 23, 2009. 

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2010. “Biosphere 

Reserve Information – New Jersey Pinelands.” Available URL: http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/

br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=USA+43 (accessed September 7, 2010). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1992. Delaware River Comprehensive Navigational 

Study. Main Channel Deepening. Final Interim Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact 

Statement. February 1992. http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/fifr.pdf: (accessed 

September 7, 2010). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration Project, 

Delaware and New Jersey, Final Environmental Assessment. June 2007. Available URL: 

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Projects/oyster/FINALoysterEA08.pdf (accessed September 7, 

2010). 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. Delaware River Main Stem and Channel 

Deepening Project Environmental Assessment. April 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/MainChannel_EA_3Apr09.pdf (accessed February 19 

2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 1995a. “New Jersey, Population of Counties by Decennial 

Census: 1900 to 1990.” Available URL: 

http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nj190090.txt (accessed May 12, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 1995b. “Delaware, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 

1900 to 1990.” Available URL: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/de190090.txt

(accessed May 12, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000b. “Demographic Profile” for Cumberland, Gloucester, and 

Salem Counties, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware. Available URL: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_l

ang=en&_ts= (accessed December 09, 2009). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000c. “H1. Housing Units [1] – Universe: Housing units. Data 

Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Data” and “H5. Vacancy Status [7] – 

Universe: Vacant housing units.” Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent 

Data” for Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem Counties, State of New Jersey, New Castle County, 

and State of Delaware. Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed May 14, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000d. “P4. Hispanic or Latino, and not Hispanic or Latino by 

Race [73] – Universe: Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 

100-Percent Data.” Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed May 14, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-137 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2006. “Nonemployer Statistics, 2006 Total for all Sectors Salem 

County, NJ.” Available URL: http://www.census.gov/epcd/nonemployer/2006/nj/NJ033.HTM

(accessed May 5, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2010a. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year 

Estimates for Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties and New Jersey; New Castle 

County and Delaware, Selected Economic Characteristics. Available URL: 

http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed April 28, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2010b. “GCT-T1. Population Estimates, New Jersey County, 

Data Set: 2009 Population Estimates.” Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed 

May 12, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2010c. “State & County QuickFacts” for Cumberland, 

Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware, April 22, 

2010. Available URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd (accessed April 27, 2010). 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. “Table 7. Hired Farm Labor – Workers and 

Payroll: 2007,” Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level Data; Delaware, New Jersey, and 

Pennsylvania, the Census of Agriculture.” Available URL: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Maryland/st24_2_007_007

.pdf (accessed December 17, 2009). 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2007. “Summary of the Ground Water Level Hydrologic 

Conditions in New Jersey, Water Year 2006.” June 2007. Available URL: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3049/pdf/fs2007-3049.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

Versar (Versar, Inc.). 1991. An Assessment of Key Biological Resources in the Delaware 

Estuary. Performed for the Delaware Estuary Program. Available URL: 

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-pl/b13.pdf (accessed February 11 2010). 

Walker, R.L. 1983. Evaluation of Water Levels in Major Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal 

Plain, 1978. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 82 4077. Available 

URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri824077 (accessed September 3, 2010). 

Weiss-Glanz, L.S., J.G. Stanley, and J.R. Moring. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) – American 

Shad.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 82 (11.59), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/

species_profiles/82_11-059.pdf (accessed September 7, 2010). 

3-1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT

License renewal actions include refurbishment actions for the extended plant life. These actions 

may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type of 

action and the plant-specific design. If such actions were planned, the potential environmental 

effects of refurbishment actions would be identified and the analysis would be summarized 

within this section.

Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the NUREG1437, Vol. 1 and 2 “Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants”, (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999).1

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system 

or other specified plant or site characteristics.

The GEIS includes a determination of whether or 

not the analysis of the environmental issues can be applied to all plants and whether or not 

additional mitigation measures are warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a 

Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of 

the following criteria:

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to 

the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from 

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures

are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 

required in this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) unless new and significant 

information is identified. Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the 

criteria for Category 1 and, therefore, an additional plant-specific review of these issues is 

required. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment, which were determined to be 

Category 1 and Category 2 issues, are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively.

Requirements for the renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants include the 

preparation of an integrated plant assessment (IPA) pursuant to Section 54.21 of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The IPA must identify and list systems, structures, and 

components subject to an aging management review. The GEIS (NRC, 1996) provides helpful 

information on the scope and preparation of refurbishment activities to be evaluated. 

Environmental resource categories to be evaluated for impacts of refurbishment include 

terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered species, air quality, housing, public utilities 

and water supply, education, land use, transportation, and historic and archaeological 

resources. Items that are subject to aging and might require refurbishment include, for 

 

1 The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references 

to the GEIS include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

3-2

example, the reactor vessel piping, supports, and pump casings (see 10 CFR 54.21 for details), 

as well as items that are not subject to periodic replacement.

PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) performed IPAs on Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21. This 

assessment did not identify the need to undertake any major refurbishment or replacement 

actions to maintain the functionality of important systems, structures, and components during 

the Salem or HCGS license renewal periods or other facility modifications associated with 

license renewals that would affect the environment or plant effluents (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG,

2009b); therefore, an assessment of refurbishment activities is not considered in this SEIS.

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants)

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality 3.4.1

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use 3.4.1

Aquatic Ecology (for all plants)

Refurbishment 3.5

Groundwater Use and Quality

Impacts of refurbishment on ground water use and quality 3.4.2

Land Use

Onsite land use 3.2

Human Health

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

Socioeconomics

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3; 

3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

3-3

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

10 CFR 51.53

(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph

Terrestrial Resources

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants)

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

Air Quality

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) 3.3 F

Socioeconomics

Housing impacts 3.7.2 I

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 I

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 I

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice Not addresseda Not addresseda

a Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the NRC prepared the GEIS and the 

associated revision to 10 CFR Part 51. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license renewal, 

the applicant’s Environmental Report (ER) and NRC staff’s environmental impact statement must address 

environmental justice.

3.1 REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

May 1996. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession

Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Formatte
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

3-4

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML04069720.

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, and ML092430231

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092430389
 4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION 

This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the period of extended 

operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek 

Generating Station (HCGS). These impacts are grouped and presented according to resource. 

Generic issues (Category 1) rely on the analysis provided in NUREG-1437, Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants prepared 

by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999a) and are 

discussed briefly. The NRC staff (the staff) analyzed site-specific issues (Category 2) for Salem 

and HCGS and assigned them a significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Some 

remaining issues are not applicable to Salem and HCGS because of site characteristics or plant 

features. Section 1.4 of this report explains the criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 issues 

and defines the impact designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. 

4.1 Land Use 

Land use issues are listed in Table 4-1. The staff did not identify any Category 2 issues for land 

use. The staff also did not identify any new and significant information during the review of the 

applicant’s environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the 

scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the GEIS concludes that the impacts are SMALL. 

Table 4-1. Land Use Issues. Section 2.2.1 of this report describes the land use 

around Salem and HCGS.

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Onsite land use 4.5.3 1 

Power line right-of-way 4.5.3 1 

4.2 Air Quality 

The air quality issue applicable to the Salem and HCGS facilities is listed in Table 4-2. The staff 

did not identify any Category 2 issues for air quality. The staff also did not identify any new and 

significant information during the review of the applicant’s ER (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), 

the site audit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this issue 

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the GEIS concludes that the impacts 

are SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-2 

Table 4-2. Air Quality Issue. Section 2.2.2 of this report describes air quality in the vicinity of 

Salem and HCGS.

Issue GEIS Section Category 

Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2 1 

4.3 Ground Water 

Section 4.3.1 discusses the Category 2 ground water issue applicable to Salem and HCGS, 

which is listed in Table 4-3. 

Table 4-3. Ground Water Use and Quality Issues. Section 2.2.3 of this report 

discussed ground water use and quality at Salem and HCGS.

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Ground Water use conflicts (potable and service water, plants 

using >100 gallons per minute [gpm]) 4.8.1.1 2 

4.3.1 Ground Water Use Conflicts (plants using >100 gpm) 

NRC specifies as issue 33 in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that “Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause 

groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users.” The NRC further states in 10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C), that “If the applicant’s plant ... pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of 

groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater 

use must be provided..” This applies to Salem and HCGS because, as discussed in section 

2.1.7.1, the Salem and HCGS groundwater wells combined to produce an average of 210 

million gallons per year (790,000 cubic meters [m3

] per year) from 2002 to 2008, which is a 

combined average of 0.58 million gallons per day (MGD; 2,200 m3

 per day), or 400 gallons per 

minute (gpm; 1.5 m3

/minute). 

A groundwater withdrawal rate of over 100 gpm (0.38 m3

/minute) has the potential to create a 

cone of depression large enough to affect offsite wells and groundwater supplies, limiting the 

amount of groundwater available for the plant’s surrounding areas. As discussed in 2.1.7.1, the 

facilities operate four primary production wells, including PW-5 and PW-6 at Salem, and HC-1 

and HC-2 at HCGS. Three of these wells (PW-5, HC-1, and HC-2) produce groundwater from 

the Upper Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) Aquifer, and the fourth (PW-6) produces 

groundwater from the Middle PRM Aquifer. Therefore, potential impacts in both aquifers need 

to be considered. There are also two stand-by wells located at Salem (PW-2 and PW-3). 

These wells are screened in the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. Because these wells could be 

used during the relicense period, potential impacts in this aquifer were evaluated. 

To evaluate whether the production from the Salem and HCGS wells could affect offsite 

groundwater users, the staff evaluated several lines of evidence, including measurements of 

onsite groundwater levels, identification of potentially-affected offsite users, comparison of water 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-3 

withdrawal rates to the authorized rate and rates for other authorized users, and identification of 

regulatory groundwater use restrictions. 

In the ER, PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG, the applicant) presented results of the measurement of 

groundwater levels in the onsite production wells (TetraTech, 2009). Water levels in many of 

the production wells, and some observation wells, were measured in July and/or September, 

1987 (Dames & Moore, 1988), and then again measured monthly from 2000 to the present day. 

This data set allows an evaluation of the long-term trend in water levels in order to determine if 

groundwater usage is exceeding aquifer recharge in the local area. For the Mount LaurelWenonah Aquifer, water levels in PW-2, PW-3, and an observation well (OW-G) are all higher in 

elevation in 2008 than they were in 1987 and the early 2000s. This indicates no drawdown of 

the aquifer, as would be expected because there has been little or no production from this 

aquifer. 

For the Middle PRM Aquifer, water levels were measured in production well PW-6 and 

observation well OW-6 (TetraTech, 2009). In both wells, original measurements in 1987 

showed water depths of more than about 100 feet (ft; 30 meters (m)), and by the time the next 

measurement was made in 2000, water depths ranged from 50 to 60 ft (15 to 18 m). Water 

depths remained in the range of 50 to 60 ft (15 to 18 m) throughout the 2000s, with no apparent 

trend. While the reason for the 40 to 50 ft (15 to 18 m) rise in water levels between 1987 and 

2000 is not discernible, this rise is documented only by a single measurement in each well. 

Because there are not trends in water levels since 2000, the production from the Middle PRM 

Aquifer does not appear to have had any long-term effect on water availability within the aquifer. 

For the Upper PRM Aquifer, water levels were measured in production wells PW-5, HC-1, HC-2, 

and observation wells OW-J and OW-I (TetraTech, 2009). In each case, the water level 

measurements appear to show a slight, but steady, long-term decline in water level elevation. 

Original measurements in wells PW-5 and HC-1 in 1987 indicated water depths at 

approximately 72 to 76 ft (22 to 23 m). By 2000, water depths in these two wells ranged to 82 to 

85 feet. By 2005 and through 2008, monthly water level measurements in these two wells 

occasionally reached depths of 88 to 95 ft (27 to 29 m). Water levels in well OW-I similarly 

declined, from 58 ft (18 m) in 1987, to 62 to 74 ft (19 to 23 m) in 2000, and 70 to 88 feet (21 to 

27 m) in 2008. The same trend was observed in wells NC-2 and OW-J, although water levels in 

these wells were not measured in 1987. In both of these wells, water level depths started in the 

range of 69 to 84 ft (21 to 26 m) in 2000, and ranged from 92 to 102 ft (28 to 31) in 2008. 

The reason for the declining water levels in the Upper PRM Aquifer over the last decade cannot 

be determined from the limited data set, but they could indicate that long-term production is 

resulting in dewatering of the aquifer, which could potentially cause groundwater use conflicts. 

The results could also be due to: continuing development of the cone of depression for the 

withdrawal system before it stabilizes, long-term precipitation trends that are not associated with 

production, or the limited duration of the monitoring period. 

Because the trend in water levels in the Upper PRM Aquifer may indicate potential groundwater 

use limitations, the staff identified other local users of the aquifer, and evaluated regional trends 

and regulatory actions to determine if groundwater use conflicts could exist. Due to the rural 

location of the facilities, there are no other local municipalities or industrial facilities which use 

groundwater from any aquifer, including the Upper PRM Aquifer. As discussed in Section 2.2.7, 

the closest municipal use of groundwater for potable water supply is the Artesian Water 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-4 

Company’s Bayview system in New Castle County, Delaware (DNREC, 2003). The Bayview 

system is located approximately 3.5 miles (mi; 5.6 kilometers [km]) west of the site, and supplies 

132 residents from two wells in the Mount Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer. In Salem County, the City 

of Salem uses groundwater as a component of their water supply. The City of Salem system is 

located 9 mi (14 km) from the Salem and HCGS facilities, and serves approximately 9,000 

persons. The two largest water supply systems in Salem County (the Penns Grove and 

Pennsville systems) both produce water from the Upper PRM Aquifer (EPA, 2010; NJAW, 2010; 

NJDEP, 2007), but both systems are located more than 15 mi (24 km) to the north of the Salem 

and HCGS facilities. 

In addition to being distant from potentially affected users, the water volume produced from the 

Upper PRM Aquifer by the Salem and HCGS wells is also small compared to municipal users in 

the region. The authorized water withdrawal rate for all six production wells at the Salem and 

HCGS facilities is 43.2 million gallons ( 164,000 m3

) per 30 day period (1.44 MGD [5,470 

m3

/day]) (DRBC, 2000). The actual production rate is approximately 0.58 MGD (2,200 m3/day), 

or about 40% of the authorized volume. The Pennsville system is authorized by DRBC to 

produce 1.75 MGD (6,600m3

/day) (PA Bulletin, 2005) to service approximately 13,500 

residents; therefore, the volume produced by the Salem and HCGS facilities is approximately 

equivalent to a municipal supply system servicing less than 4,500 persons. 

Additional information on groundwater use conflicts in the region is found in studies associated 

with the Water-Supply Critical Areas in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Two areas (Critical Area 

1 and Critical Area 2) were established in 1986 to manage withdrawals from aquifers which had 

water level declines that were a cause of concern (Watt, 2000). The management measures 

included reducing authorized withdrawals and new allocations from specific aquifers, including 

the Upper and Middle PRM Aquifers, and shifting water supply sources from confined aquifers 

to shallow unconfined aquifer and surface water sources. These measures resulted in a regionwide rise in groundwater levels. Currently, both the USGS and New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) are performing additional monitoring and modeling studies in 

order to determine if water management strategies in the Critical Areas can be modified in 

response to their success in recovering groundwater levels (Voronin, 2005). 

Although groundwater use conflicts were enough of a regional concern to cause designation of 

the Critical Areas, the Salem and HCGS facility location was not included within either of the two 

Critical Areas. Critical Area 2 includes a small portion of eastern Salem County, but does not 

include the northern portion of the county (location of the Pennsville and Pennsgrove water 

systems) or the western portion of the county (location of Salem and HCGS). Also, the success 

of the program in allowing groundwater levels to recover suggests that groundwater use 

conflicts in western Salem County are likely to become less of a concern, rather than greater. 

Based on these lines of evidence, it appears that although groundwater production at Salem 

and HCGS may be contributing to a gradual reduction in groundwater availability locally, this 

reduction is not likely to impact other groundwater users. Therefore, the staff concludes that 

impacts on nearby groundwater users would be SMALL. 

4.4 Surface Water 

The following sections discuss the surface water quality issues applicable to Salem and HCGS, 

which are listed in Table 4-4. The staff did not identify any new and significant information 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-5 

during the review of the applicant’s ER (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping 

process. Therefore, no impacts are related to these issues beyond those discussed in the 

GEIS. For these issues, the GEIS concludes that the impacts are SMALL. 

Table 4-4. Surface Water Quality Issues. Section 2.2.4 of this report describes 

surface water quality conditions at Salem and HCGS.

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1 1 

Altered salinity gradients 4.2.1.2.2 1 

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3 1 

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 1 

Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3 1 

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4 1 

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4 1 

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4 1 

4.5 Aquatic Resources 

4.5.1 Categorization of Aquatic Resources Issues 

The Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to aquatic resources and applicable to HCGS 

and Salem are listed in Table 4-5 and discussed below. Section 2.1.6 of this report describes 

the HCGS and Salem cooling water systems, and Section 2.2.5 describes the potentially 

affected aquatic resources. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-6 

Table 4-5. Aquatic Resources Issues. 

Issues GEIS Section Category 

For All Plants 

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4 1 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1 1 

Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5 1 

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6 1 

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6 1 

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7 1 

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8 1 

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9 1 

Losses from parasitism, predation, and disease among 

organisms exposed to sublethal stresses 4.2.2.1.10 1 

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11 1 

For Plants with Cooling-Tower-Based Heat Dissipation Systems(a)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3 1 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3 1 

Heat shock 4.3.3 1 

For Plants with Once-Through Heat Dissipation Systems(b) 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.2.2.1.2 2 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3 2 

Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4 2 

(a)Applicable to HCGS. (b)Applicable to Salem. 

The staff did not identify any new and significant information related to Category 1 aquatic 

resources issues during the review of the applicant’s ERs for Salem (PSEG, 2009a) and HCGS 

(PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping process. Consequently, there are no impacts 

related to the generic, Category 1 issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-7 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages, impingement of fish and shellfish, and heat 

shock are Category 1 issues at power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems and are 

Category 2 issues at plants with once-through cooling systems. Hope Creek uses a closedcycle cooling system with a cooling tower. This type of cooling system substantially reduces the 

volume of water withdrawn by the plant and substantially reduces entrainment, impingement, 

and thermal discharge effects (heat shock potential). Entrainment, impingement, and heat 

shock are Category 1 issues for Hope Creek and do not require further analysis to determine 

that their impacts during the relicensing period would be SMALL. In contrast, the cooling water 

system at Salem is a once-through system, and for such systems entrainment, impingement, 

and heat shock are Category 2 issues that require site-specific analysis. The remainder of 

Section 4.5 discusses these Category 2 issues for Salem. 

4.5.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages 

Entrainment occurs when early life stages of fish and shellfish are drawn into cooling water 

intake systems along with the cooling water. Cooling water intake systems are designed to 

screen out larger organisms, but small life stages, such as eggs and larvae, can pass through 

the screens and be drawn into the plant condensers. Once inside, organisms may be killed or 

injured by heat, physical stress, or chemicals. 

Regulatory Background

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) requires that the location, design, 

construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology 

available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). In July 2004, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Phase II Rule implementing Section 

316(b) of the CWA for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), which applied to large power producers 

that withdraw large amounts of surface water for cooling (50 MGD or more) (189,000 m3

/day or 

more). The rule became effective on September 7, 2004 and included numeric performance 

standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment that would demonstrate that 

the cooling water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing impingement and entrainment 

impacts. Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstrate compliance with the 

rule’s performance standards during the renewal process for their National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit through development of a Comprehensive Demonstration 

Study (CDS). As a result of a Federal court decision, EPA officially suspended the Phase II rule 

on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37107) pending further rulemaking. EPA instructed permitting 

authorities to utilize best professional judgment in establishing permit requirements on a caseby-case basis for cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities until it has resolved the 

issues raised by the court’s ruling. 

EPA delegated authority for NPDES permitting to NJDEP in 1984. In 1990, NJDEP issued a 

draft New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit that proposed 

closed-cycle cooling as BTA for Salem. In 1993, NJDEP concluded that the cost of retrofitting 

Salem to closed-cycle cooling would be wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits 

realized, and a new draft permit was issued in 1994 (PSEG, 1999a). The 1994 final NJPDES 

permit stated that the existing cooling water intake system was BTA for Salem, with certain 

conditions (NJDEP, 1994). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-8 

Conditions of the 1994 permit included improvements to the screens and Ristroph buckets, a 

monthly average limitation on cooling water flow of 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m3

/day), and a pilot 

study for the use of a sound deterrent system. In addition to technology and operational 

measures, the 1994 permit required restoration measures that included a wetlands restoration 

and enhancement program designed to increase primary production in the Delaware Estuary 

and fish ladders at dams along the Delaware River to restore access to traditional spawning 

runs for anadromous species such as blueback herring and alewife. A Biological Monitoring 

Work Plan (BMWP) was also required to monitor the efficacy of the technology and operational 

measures employed at the site and the restoration programs funded by PSEG (NJDEP, 1994). 

The BMWP included monitoring plans for fish utilization of restored wetlands, elimination of 

impediments to fish migration, bay-wide trawl survey, and beach seine survey, in addition to the 

entrainment and impingement abundance monitoring (PSEG, 1994). The main purpose of 

these studies was to monitor the success of the wetland restoration activities and screen 

modifications undertaken by PSEG. 

The 2001 NJPDES permit required continuation of the restoration programs implemented in 

response to the 1994 permit, an Improved Biological Monitoring Work Plan (IBMWP), and a 

more detailed analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment losses at the facility (NJDEP, 

2001). The 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application responded to the requirement for a 

detailed analysis by including a CDS as required by the Phase II rule and an assessment of 

alternative intake technologies (AIT). The AIT assessment includes a detailed analysis of the 

costs and benefits associated with the existing intake configuration and alternatives along with 

an analysis of the costs and benefits of the wetlands restoration program that PSEG 

implemented in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit (PSEG, 2006c). 

The IBMWP was submitted to NJDEP in April 2002 and approved in July 2003. A reduction in 

the frequency of monitoring at fish ladder sites that successfully pass river herring was 

submitted in December 2003 and approved was in May 2004. In 2006 PSEG submitted a 

revised IBMWP that proposed a reduction in sampling at the restored wetland sites. Sampling 

would be conducted at representative locations instead of at every restoration site (PSEG, 

2006c). 

Salem’s 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application included a CDS because the Phase II rule 

was still in effect at that time. The CDS for Salem was completed in 2006 and included an 

analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment at the facility’s cooling water intake system. 

According to PSEG (2006c), this analysis shows that the changes in technology and operation 

of the Salem cooling water intake system satisfied the performance standards of the Phase II 

rule and that the current configuration constitutes BTA. In 2006, NJDEP administratively 

continued Salem’s 2001 NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), and no timeframe has been determined 

for issuance of the new NJPDES permit. 

Entrainment Studies

Prior to construction of the Salem facility, baseline biological studies were begun in 1968 to 

characterize the biological community in the Delaware Estuary. The study area consisted of the 

estuary 10 mi (16 km) to the north and south of Salem. In 1969 with the passing of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the study program was expanded to include ichthyoplankton 

and benthos studies and to gather information on the feeding habits and life histories of the 

common species. In 1973 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published its Final 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-9 

Environmental Statement (FES) for Salem, which concluded that the effects of impingement and 

entrainment on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary would not be significant 

(PSEG, 1999a). 

The Salem facility began operation in 1977, and monitoring has been performed on an annual 

basis since then to evaluate the impacts on the aquatic environment of the Delaware Estuary 

from entrainment of organisms through the cooling water system. Methods and results of these 

studies are summarized in several reports, including the 1984 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 

1984), the 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a), and the 2006 316(b) Demonstration 

(PSEG, 2006c). In addition, biological monitoring reports were submitted to NJDEP on an 

annual basis from 1995 through the present (PSEG, 1996; PSEG,1997; PSEG, 1998; 

PSEG,1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 

2005; PSEG, 2006a; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). 

The 1977 EPA Draft Development Document for Section 316(b) of the CWA included a 

provision to select Representative Important Species (RIS) to focus the investigations, and 

previous demonstrations evaluated RIS as well as additional target species (PSEG, 1984; 

1999a). The 2006 CDS used the term Representative Species (RS) to comprise both RIS and 

target species and to be consistent with the then effective Phase II Rule. RS were selected 

based on several criteria including susceptibility to impingement and entrainment at the facility, 

importance to the ecological community, recreational or commercial value, and threatened or 

endangered status (PSEG, 2006c). 

The 1984 316(b) Demonstration was a five-year study from 1978 to 1983 that focused on 11 

RS, including nine fish species and two macroinvertebrates. These species are weakfish 

(Cynoscion regalis), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), white perch (Morone americana), striped 

bass (Morone saxatilis), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), 

American shad (Alosa sapidissima), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker 

(Micropogonias undulatus), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and scud (Gammarus sp.) 

(PSEG, 1984). 

In 1999 PSEG submitted a 316(b) demonstration that included the same RS fish species as the 

previous studies and added the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). Scud and opossum shrimp 

were removed from the list of RS because they have high productivity, high natural mortality, 

and assessments completed prior to PSEG’s 1999 NJPDES application concluded that Salem 

does not and will not have an adverse environmental impact on these macroinvertebrates 

(PSEG, 1999a). 

The 316(b) demonstration submitted during the 2006 NJPDES renewal process included an 

estimation of entrainment losses for the RS developed from data collected during annual 

entrainment monitoring conducted in accordance with the IBMWP. A revised RS list was 

developed that included the nine finfish and the blue crab from previous studies and added the 

Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and bluefish 

(Pomatomus saltarix) (PSEG, 2006c). 

Entrainment samples typically were collected from the circulating water system intake bays 11A, 

12B, or 22A or at discharge standpipes 12 or 22. From August 1977 through May 1980, intake 

samples were collected from the circulating water after it passed through the travelling screens 

and the circulating water pumps. In June 1980 the sample location was changed to the 

discharge pipes (PSEG, 1984). Beginning in 1994, samples were collected from either intake 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-10 

bay 12B or 22A (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG,1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 

2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006a; PSEG, 2007a; 

PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). 

Samples were collected by pumping water through a Nielsen fish pump through a 1.0 meter (m; 

3.2 feet [ft]) diameter, 0.5 milimeter (mm; 0.02 inches) mesh, conical plankton net in an 

abundance chamber. A total sample volume of 50 to 100 m3

 (13,000 to 26,000 gallons) was 

filtered at a rate not to exceed 2.0 m3

/minute (500 gpm). Sample contents were rinsed into a jar 

and preserved for laboratory analysis. Ichthyoplankton collected was identified to the lowest 

practical taxon and life stage, counted, and a subset was measured (PSEG, 1984). 

From August 1977 to April 1978, entrainment samples were collected monthly from September 

through May and twice monthly from June through August. In 1979, samples were collected 

once monthly in March, April, October, and November; twice monthly in May, August, and 

September, and four times monthly in June and July. In 1980 through 1982 additional samples 

were collected every fourth day from May through October. Samples were collected every 4 

hours (hrs) during a 24-hr period (PSEG, 1984). In 1994 and 1995 samples were collected 

three times a day, once a week from January through December (PSEG, 1994; PSEG, 1996). 

Beginning in April 1996 samples were typically collected three times a week in the summer 

months (April through September) and once a week throughout the remainder of the year 

(PSEG, 1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG, 1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 

2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006a; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). 

Samples were collected every 4 hrs during a 24-hr period. 

Ichthyoplankton samples also were collected from June through August in 1981 and 1982 

adjacent to the intake structure in five horizontal offshore strata to develop model inputs for bay 

anchovy and weakfish. These samples were collected with a conical plankton net 0.5 m (1.6 ft) 

wide with a mesh size of 0.5 mm (0.02 in; PSEG, 1984). 

Entrainment survival studies were conducted from 1977 through 1982. Survival studies were 

conducted twice in 1977 and three times in 1978. In 1979 no samples were collected for 

survival studies. In 1980 sampling was conducted from April through October with 10 events. 

In 1981 and 1982 the sampling schedule was expanded to include four times monthly in June 

and July, twice monthly in May and August, and once each in September and October with 14 

events occurring in May through October of 1981 and 11 events in June through September of 

1982. Sampling locations for the survival studies were the same as for the abundance studies. 

Intake and discharge locations were sampled with a lag to account for plant transit time with 

duplicate sampling gear to account for sampling induced mortality (PSEG, 1984). 

Samples were collected using a centrifugal fish transfer pump and a one-screen larval table until 

1980. After 1980 a low velocity flume was used to allow for a larger sample volume. 

Specimens were taken to an onsite laboratory where their condition was recorded. Individuals 

were classified as live, stunned, or dead according to pre-established criteria. Live and stunned 

specimens were held for 12 hrs to determine latent mortality (PSEG, 1984). 

In addition, tests were conducted from 1979 through 1981 to quantify mortality caused by the 

collection equipment. Tests were conducted with alewife, blueback herring, white perch, 

weakfish, spot, N. americana, and Gammarus spp. Mortality rates due to the larval table, the 

low velocity flume, and the fish pump combined with the larval table were estimated separately. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-11 

Entrainment simulation tests also were conducted from 1974 through 1982 to quantify the 

effects of pressure and temperature changes on entrained organisms (PSEG, 1984). 

For the 1984 316(b) Demonstration, weekly entrainment densities (numbers of organisms per 

volume of water) were estimated based on densities in both the intake and the estuary. These 

projected densities then were used along with estimated weekly mortality rates to project annual 

entrainment losses due to the facility. Weekly mortality rates were estimated from the results of 

the onsite studies, simulation studies conducted in the laboratory, and literature values. 

Mortality rates were calculated for the effects of mechanical and chemical stresses separately 

from thermal stresses. Total entrainment mortality was estimated under the assumption that the 

thermal and nonthermal mortality rates are independent of one another as shown in the 

following equation (PSEG, 1984). 

ܯ் ൌ1െ ሺ1െܯ௡ሻ ൈ ሺ1 െ ܯ௧ሻ

 where 

 MT = total entrainment mortality rate 

 Mn = nonthermal mortality rate 

 Mt = thermal mortality rate 

Projected entrainment losses for each species were calculated on a daily basis using the 

following equation. Daily entrainment losses were then summed on a weekly basis and 

projected based on plant operating schedules (PSEG, 1984). 

 Daily entrainment loss = CWS1i + SWS1i + CWS2i + SWS2i 

 CWS1i = K1 x Density i x (F i - R x Fi) / (1 - R + R x Fi) 

SWS1i = K2 x Density i x (1 – R) 

where 

CWS1i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 1 circulating waters system (CWS) on the i th day 

 SWS1i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 1 service water system (SWS) on the i th day 

 CWS2i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 2 CWS on the i th day 

 SWS2i = entrainment loss at Unit No. 2 SWS on the i th day 

 K1 = plant withdrawal at Unit No. 1 CWS on the i th day 

= 11.672 m3

/sec x 86,400 seconds x the number of CWS pumps operating in 

 Unit No. 1 

 K2 = plant withdrawal at Unit No. 1 SWS on the i th day 

= 0.686 m3

/sec x 86,400 seconds x the number of CWS pumps operating in 

 Unit No. 1 

 Density i = estimated entrainment density on the i th day 

 Fi = estimated total entrainment density on the i th day 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-12 

 R = recirculation factor 

The 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a) used data from entrainment monitoring that 

was conducted annually from 1995 through 1998 in accordance with the BMWP. PSEG 

calculated total entrainment loss by species and life stage by summing the individual 

occurrences in samples taken at the intakes for both the circulating water system (CWS) and 

the service water system (SWS) for Units 1 and 2; using correction factors for collection 

efficiency, recirculation (re-entrainment), and mortality; and then scaling for plant flow. The 

equation used for this calculation of entrainment loss follows (PSEG, 1999a). 

ଵିܥ ڄ ௬ܦ෍෍ ൌ ܧ

ଷ଺ହ

௝ୀଵ

௄

௜ୀଵ

· ቆ ݂௬ିܴ݂௜௝

1 െ ܴ ൅ ܴ݂௜௝ቇ·ܳ௬

 where 

 E = entrainment (number of organisms) 

 i = i th water system, i.e., Unit 1 CWS, Unit 1 SWS, Unit 2 

 CWS, and Unit 2 SWS 

 j = j th day of the year 

 Dy = average concentration (number per m3 of intake water) 

 C = collection efficiency 

 Fij = daily through-plant mortality 

 R = recirculation factor 

 Qy = average daily plant flow for i th water system (m3

) 

PSEG (PSEG, 1999a) used the results of these calculations to estimate densities for each 

week of the year, which then were scaled up based on weekly flow through the facility to 

estimate total entrainment losses for each year by species (Table 4-6). The years 1978 through 

1981 were a transitional period between the beginning of commercial operation of Salem Unit 1 

in 1978 and Unit 2 in 1982 (PSEG, 1999a). 

In the 2006 316(b) Demonstration, PSEG estimated annual entrainment losses for the years 

2002 through 2004 by using entrainment density data from sampling conducted at the intakes 

and scaling for total water withdrawal volume using the same methodology as described above 

for the 1999 316(b) study (Table 4-7). Entrainment losses were calculated by assuming an 

entrainment mortality rate of 100 percent (PSEG, 2006c). From 1978 through 1998 (Table 4-6) 

and 2002 through 2004 (Table 4-7), bay anchovy was the species with the greatest entrainment 

losses for all life stages (PSEG, 1999a; PSEG, 2006c). 

Results of the annual entrainment monitoring for the RS at Salem from 1995 through 2008 were 

reported in annual biological monitoring reports for 1995 through 2008 (PSEG, 1996; PSEG, 

1997; PSEG,1998; PSEG,1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 

2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006a; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). Total annual 

entrainment was reported by species and life stage based on mean density expressed as 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-13 

number of organisms per 100 cubic meters (n/100 m3

) of water withdrawn through the intake 

screens (Table 4-8). 

Table 4-9 provides a list of species collected during the annual entrainment monitoring 

conducted at Salem from 1995 through 2008 and their average densities in cooling water during 

that period. On average, the RS constituted approximately 75 percent of total entrainment 

abundance based on average densities for these species from 1995 through 2008, and bay 

anchovy alone made up approximately 50 percent of total entrainment during this period. 

Entrainment Reductions

Due to the potential for entrainment to have adverse effects on the aquatic environment in the 

vicinity of Salem, and in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit, PSEG has 

employed technological and operational changes to reduce entrainment and impingement and 

mitigate their effects on the Delaware Estuary. While improvements to the cooling water intake 

system were targeted mainly toward reducing impingement mortality, improvement in 

entrainment rates also has resulted. In response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES 

permit, PSEG made modifications to the trash racks, intake screens, and fish return system 

(PSEG, 1999a). 

Improved intake screen panels were installed that use a thinner wire in the mesh (14 gage 

instead of 12 gage), which in combination with smaller screen openings allowed for a 20 percent 

decrease in through-screen velocity. Lower velocities through the screens allow more small fish 

to be able to swim away from the screens and escape entrainment. Screen openings also were 

reduced in size from 10 mm (3/8 inch) square mesh to 6 mm (1/4 inch) wide by 13 mm (1/2 

inch) high rectangular mesh. The smaller screen openings reduce the size of organisms that 

can be drawn through the screens, thus reducing entrainment. The smaller screen mesh 

excludes more organisms, which then may be impinged and could be returned to the estuary 

alive (PSEG, 1999a). While impingement mortality rates for these smaller organisms generally 

are higher than for larger organisms, they are lower than estimated entrainment mortality rates 

(PSEG, 1999a). 
Table 4-6. Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978 to 1998 

Year Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses (in Millions) 

Alewife 

American 

shad 

Atlantic 

croaker 

Bay 

anchovy 

Blueback 

herring 

Striped 

bass Spot Weakfish 

White 

perch 

Atlantic 

menhaden Silversides(1)

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

1979 0.050 0 14.515 3,535.1 0.019 0.020 1.095 23.193 0.625 0.072 18.083 1980 0.860 0.015 0.756 15,155.9 2.813 0 10.296 256.708 27.514 4.277 145.109 1981 2.002 0 8.157 11,714.1 11.853 0 5.418 45.765 0.969 9.207 113.240 1982 0 0 0 3,712.9 0.017 0 29.963 74.457 18.857 4.157 22.201 1985 0.163 0.126 0.933 29,463.7 1.151 0 0.184 63.616 0.447 0 0 1986 0.348 0.059 0.492 45,248.6 1.594 0 0.858 110.397 0.654 0 0 1987 0 0.062 0.000 40,172.4 0.082 0 0.055 61.267 0.628 0 0 1988 0.749 0 1.710 22,331.5 2.988 0 73.502 57.063 8.968 0 0 1989 0.541 0 56.341 10,163.5 2.395 47.946 1.027 3.026 192.131 0 0 1990 0.101 0 123.375 7,678.4 0.260 1.313 4.395 6.685 2.626 0 0 1991 0 0 131.798 19,506.6 0 0.778 1.096 72.478 1.108 0 0 1992 0.319 0 71.352 1,570.5 0.864 1.728 0.000 10.375 3.393 0 0 1993 0.676 0 75.030 11,774.2 2.340 108.065 0.585 122.672 37.635 0 0 1994 0.697 0 24.783 1,120.3 2.623 7.490 46.859 88.781 66.927 0 0 1995 0.477 0.014 31.454 1,404.5 0.082 0.579 0.071 335.083 2.039 177.221 31.019 1996 0.083 0.028 4.385 70.6 0.425 7.289 0.025 14.258 16.800 3.039 1.227 1997 0.053 0.747 71.819 1,811.8 0.318 6.505 0.007 12.601 7.865 16.668 6.919 1998 14.480 0 132.130 2,003.7 59.282 448.563 0.020 76.343 412.839 480.557 51.528 

(1) Silversides were not identified to species. Source: NJPDES Application (PSEG, 1999a). 

Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-14 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-15 

Table 4-7. Estimated Annual Entrainment and Annual Entrainment Losses for 

Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 2002-2004 

Total Entrained 

(in millions) 

 Entrainment Losses 

(in millions) 

Taxon 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 

Alewife 9.8 5.2 2.5 9.4 4.5 2.4 

American shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Atlantic croaker 448.0 211.5 213.2 182.5 86.4 87.9 

Bay anchovy 946.4 366.4 2,343.2 946.4 366.4 2,343.2 

Blueback herring 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.934 

Spot 2.3 0.047 0 0.454 0.009 0 

Striped bass 403.6 120.3 35.7 159.5 37.6 14.3 

Weakfish 29.2 11.9 46.8 19.2 8.5 32.8 

White perch 18.7 19.5 25.8 18.0 13.9 23.9 

Atlantic silverside 44.8 3.6 10.1 44.8 3.6 10.1 

Atlantic menhaden 190.3 4.9 6.8 190.3 4.9 6.8 

Source: Comprehensive Demonstration Study (PSEG, 2006c). 
Table 4-8. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1995-2008 

Density (n/100 m3) 

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

Alewife 0.01 

—

—

—

—

— 0.05 <0.01 0.11 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.05 <0.01 

American shad 

— 0.01 0.01 

—

— 0.00 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Atlantic croaker 3.03 1.60 8.19 9.48 15.45 6.70 4.17 12.52 2.62 5.05 5.56 10.51 5.88 7.74 Atlantic menhaden 2.91 0.38 0.46 1.68 2.23 1.34 1.04 4.92 0.20 0.47 1.06 5.01 1.47 16.21 Atlantic silverside 0.13 0.29 0.69 0.22 2.20 0.36 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.47 0.55 0.29 0.12 0.10 Bay anchovy 66.55 17.43 42.95 61.88 292.14 12.72 8.86 24.18 13.15 100.52 54.57 101.45 174.66 41.87 Blueback herring 

— 0.02 

— 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 

Blueback herring/alewife 0.01 0.12 

— 2.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 

— 0.03 0.72 

Bluefish 0.01 

—

—

—

— 0.00 

—

—

—

—

—

—

— <0.01 

Spot 0.01 

—

— 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.10 <0.01 

— 0.25 <0.01 0.03 0.14 

Striped bass 0.03 1.55 0.02 11.50 0.03 13.97 9.07 7.20 5.07 1.84 4.03 0.55 42.34 1.72 Weakfish 11.86 3.69 0.76 1.99 6.61 2.48 2.25 0.64 0.43 1.10 2.09 0.70 1.44 0.52 White perch 0.02 0.88 

— 4.49 0.11 6.15 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.64 0.24 0.55 1.19 0.01 

White perch/striped bass 0.06 1.10 

— 3.63 0.00 

—

— <0.01 0.87 0.44 0.40 0.11 10.69 0.02 

Eggs 47.54 0.51 21.41 41.84 278.18 0.35 2.97 8.42 2.06 74.22 28.56 78.20 149.59 23.82 

Larvae 48.46 26.52 31.66 78.64 97.93 47.13 29.13 67.53 46.10 51.12 62.67 82.92 103.57 39.65 Juveniles 11.84 7.87 19.15 13.11 21.17 11.10 7.27 16.74 5.67 7.84 9.46 15.99 10.79 21.86 Adults 0.14 0.07 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.19 Note: Blank spaces (

—) indicate the species was not identified in entrainment samples that year. 

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

2008a; 2009c). 

Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-16 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-17 

Table 4-9. Species Entrained at Salem During Annual Entrainment Monitoring, 

1995-2008 

Common Name Scientific Name Average Density (n/100 m3) 

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 72.35 

Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 27.58 

Striped bass Morone saxatilis 7.07 

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 7.04 

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 6.91 

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 2.81 

Goby Gobiidae 2.61

White perch/striped bass Morone spp. 1.57 

White perch Morone americana 1.15 

Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 0.66 

Unidentifiable silverside Atherinidae 0.47

Blueback herring/alewife Alosa spp. 0.37 

Silversides Menidia spp. 0.22

Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 0.18 

American eel Anguilla rostrata 0.13 

Unidentifiable fish 0.13 

Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus 0.12 

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 0.10 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 0.09 

Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.08 

Herrings Clupeidae 0.08 

Black drum Pogonias cromis 0.07 

Carps and minnows Cyprinidae 0.06 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 0.06 

Unidentifiable larvae 0.06 

Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 0.06

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 0.05 

Smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus 0.04 

Rough silverside Membras martinica 0.03

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 0.03 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 0.03 

Spotted hake Urophycis regia 0.02 

Killifishes Fundulus spp. 0.02

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 0.01 

Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus 0.01 

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 0.01 

Unidentifiable eggs 0.01 

Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura 0.01 

Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus 0.01 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-18 

Common Name Scientific Name Average Density (n/100 m3) 

Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 0.01 

Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 0.01

Unidentifiable 0.01 

Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 0.01 

Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 0.01 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0.01 

American shad Alosa sapidissima 0.01 

Striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 0.01 

Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 0.004 

Green goby Microgobius thalassinus 0.004 

Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 0.004 

Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 0.004 

American sand lance Ammodytes americanus 0.004 

Bluefish Pomatomus salatrix 0.003 

Unidentifiable juvenile 0.003 

Striped searobin Prionotus evolans 0.003 

Conger eel Conger oceanicus 0.003 

Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens 0.003 

Unidentifiable drum Sciaenidae 0.003 

Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 0.003 

Perches Percidae 0.003 

Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis 0.003 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0.002 

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 0.002 

Unidentifiable sucker Catostomidae 0.002 

Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 0.002 

Northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 0.002 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0.002 

Tautog Tautoga onitis 0.002 

Unidentifiable porgy Sparidae 0.001 

Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 0.001 

Black sea bass Centropristis striata 0.001 

Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 0.001 

Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 0.001 

Unidentifiable sunfish Centrarchidae 0.001 

White sucker Catostomus commersoni 0.001 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 0.001

1) Species in bold are RS at Salem. 

(2) Average density expressed as number of organisms entrained (n) per 100 cubic meters (m3

) of water 

withdrawn through the intake screens. 

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999b; 2000; 2001; 

2002; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006a; 2007a; 2008a; 2009c). 
Table 4-10. Entrainment Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978-2008 

Density (n/100 m3) 

Taxon 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Alewife 

—

— 0.03 

—

—

— 0.01 

— 0.01 

—

—

—

—

—

—

Alosa sp. 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— 0.14 0.01 

— 0.02 0.15 0.11 

American shad 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Atlantic croaker 0.10 0.02 0.02 1.24 

— 0.02 0.07 

— 0.07 2.76 0.72 3.47 2.51 2.71 1.19 

Atlantic menhaden 

— 0.02 0.25 1.13 0.27 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Atlantic silverside 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Bay anchovy 349.64 1848.55 845.68 706.22 148.12 1799.26 2527.17 2094.53 618.68 314.27 243.26 416.78 111.59 416.25 27.22 

Blueback herring 0.06 

— 0.07 0.12 

— 0.03 

—

— 0.04 

—

—

—

—

—

—

Blueback herring/alewife 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Morone sp. 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— 0.21 0.01 

— 0.03 0.90 0.01 

Bluefish 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Silversides 6.32 15.33 4.77 4.04 0.86 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Spot 0.07 0.10 1.53 0.86 3.69 0.04 0.01 

— 1.64 0.02 0.16 0.09 

— 0.01 1.17 

Striped bass 0.05 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— 1.87 0.01 0.03 0.06 3.63 0.29 

Weakfish 16.31 3.35 5.15 1.20 2.63 1.77 4.50 3.09 1.11 0.08 0.28 1.43 0.25 1.91 2.46 

White perch 

—

— 0.09 

— 0.26 

— 0.01 0.01 0.10 4.16 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.46 0.81 

White perch/striped bass 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

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

Alewife 0.01 

—

—

—

—

— 0.05 < 0.01 0.11 0.02 < 0.01 0.02 0.05 < 0.01 

Alosa sp. 0.01 0.13 

— 1.58 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

American shad 0.01 

—

—

—

— 0.00 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Atlantic croaker 3.07 1.64 12.48 8.52 15.45 6.70 4.17 12.52 2.62 5.05 5.56 10.51 5.88 7.74 Atlantic menhaden 2.90 0.37 0.86 3.19 2.23 1.34 1.04 4.92 0.20 0.47 1.06 5.01 1.47 16.21 Atlantic silverside 

—

—

—

— 2.20 0.36 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.47 0.55 0.29 0.12 0.10 

Bay anchovy 64.18 17.63 52.89 53.31 292.14 12.72 8.86 24.18 13.15 100.52 54.57 101.45 174.66 41.87 Blueback herring 

— 0.02 

— 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 < 0.01 

Blueback herring/alewife 

—

—

—

— 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05 

— 0.03 0.72 

Morone sp. 0.06 1.11 

— 2.92 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

— 0.02 

Bluefish 

—

—

—

—

— 0.00 

—

—

—

—

—

—

— < 0.01 

Silversides 0.99 0.30 0.96 0.87 

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Spot 0.01 0.03 

— 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.10 < 0.01 

— 0.25 < 0.01 0.03 0.14 

Striped bass 0.03 1.58 0.03 9.92 0.03 13.97 9.07 7.20 5.07 1.84 4.03 0.55 42.34 1.72 Weakfish 11.78 3.75 0.77 1.80 6.61 2.48 2.25 0.64 0.43 1.10 2.09 0.70 1.44 0.52 White perch 0.02 0.90 

— 3.73 0.11 6.15 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.64 0.24 0.55 1.19 0.01 

White perch/striped bass 

—

—

—

— 0.00 

—

— < 0.01 0.87 0.44 0.40 0.11 10.69 

—

Note: Blank spaces (

—) indicate the species was not identified in entrainment samples that year. 

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

 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-19 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-20 

4.5.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish 

Impingement occurs when fish and shellfish are held against the intake screens by the force of 

the water being drawn into the cooling system. Impingement mortality can occur directly as a 

result of the force of the water, or indirectly due to stresses from the time spent on the screens 

or as a result of being washed off the screens. 

Regulatory Background

EPA regulates impingement and entrainment under Section 316(b) of the CWA through the 

NPDES permit renewal process. A history of NPDES permitting at Salem can be found in 

Section 4.5.2 under the heading Regulatory Background. 

Impingement Studies

PSEG has performed annual impingement monitoring at the Salem plant since 1977 in order to 

determine the impacts that impingement at Salem might have on the aquatic environment of the 

Delaware Estuary. The monitoring program described in the early 316(b) demonstration 

focused on seven target fish species. The two macroinvertebrates included in the entrainment 

study program are too small to be impinged and, therefore, were not included in the 

impingement study program. The fish species are weakfish, bay anchovy, white perch, striped 

bass, blueback herring, alewife, American shad, spot, and Atlantic croaker (PSEG, 1984). 

Impingement abundance samples were collected at the CWS and SWS intakes from May 1977 

through December 1982. CWS samples were collected at least four times per day at six-hour 

intervals three days a week from May 1977 through September 1978. In September 1978 

sampling frequency was increased to a minimum of 10 samples per day six days a week. In the 

spring of 1980, sampling frequency was reduced to four times a day, but remained at six days a 

week (PSEG, 1984). 

Impinged organisms are washed off the CWS intake screens and returned to the Delaware 

Estuary through a fish return system. Impingement samples were collected in fish counting 

pools constructed for this purpose that are located adjacent to the fish return system discharge 

troughs at both the northern and southern ends of the CWS intake structure. Screen-wash 

water was diverted into the counting pools for an average sample duration of 3 minutes (min; 

depending on debris load, sampling time varied from 1 to 15 min). Water then was drained from 

the pools, and organisms were sorted by species, counted, measured, and weighed (PSEG, 

1984). 

Impingement abundance samples were collected from the SWS intake screens by a highpressure spray wash into collection baskets through a trough. Screen washes were conducted 

at either 12 hr or 24 hr intervals depending on debris loads. Samples were collected from the 

SWS three times a week from April 1977 through September 1979. Organisms were sorted, 

counted, and weighed (PSEG, 1984). 

Special impingement-related studies in addition to impingement monitoring studies also were 

performed. Studies were conducted from 1979 through February 1982 to quantify impingement 

collection efficiency. Studies of blueback herring, bay anchovy, white perch, weakfish, spot, and 

Atlantic croaker were conducted to determine the percentage of different size classes of fish 

that would not be collected by the screen washing and fish collection procedures (PSEG, 1984). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-21 

Because individual organisms that are impinged on the intake screens are washed off and 

returned to the estuary, studies of impingement mortality rates also were conducted from May 

1977 through December 1982. Studies were conducted to estimate the percentage of impinged 

individuals that do not survive being impinged and washed from the intake screens (initial 

mortality) and the percentage that exhibit delayed mortality and do not survive for a longer 

period of at least two days (extended or latent mortality). Studies of initial mortality were 

conducted at a rate of three times per week until October 1978, after which samples were 

collected six times per week if impingement levels for target species exceeded predetermined 

levels. Initial mortality studies were conducted using the same counting pools as the 

abundance samples. Screen-wash water was diverted into the counting pool, samples were 

held for five min, the water was drained from the pool, and organisms were sorted as live, 

damaged, or dead. Each subset was identified to species and the total number and weight, 

maximum and minimum lengths, and length frequency distribution were recorded. Studies of 

latent mortality were conducted using the organisms classified as live or damaged in the studies 

of initial mortality. At the beginning of the latent mortality studies, only organisms classified as 

live were used, but damaged fish also were evaluated after November 1978. Two-day latent 

mortality studies were conducted at least weekly and entailed holding impinged organisms in 

aerated tanks for 48 hrs. Organisms were monitored continuously for the first 30 min, at hour 

intervals for the next four hrs, and then at approximately 24-hr intervals. Control specimens 

also were collected with a seine and subjected to the same survival study (PSEG, 1984). 

Impingement mortality was found to be seasonally variable and dependent on several 

environmental factors, including temperature and salinity. Initial and latent mortality rates were 

estimated on a monthly basis and summed to provide a total mortality rate (PSEG, 1984). 

Estimated impingement mortality rates by species evaluated are summarized in Table 4-11. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-22 

Table 4-11. Estimated Impingement Mortality Rates by Species at Salem, 1977-1982 

Taxon 

Estimated 

Impingement Mortality 

(percent) 

Spot 30.2 – 67.7 

Blueback herring 71.9 - 100 

Alewife 72.6 – 100 

American shad 20.8 – 100 

Atlantic croaker 38.8 – 87.9 

Striped bass 10.0 – 84.8 

White perch 29.4 – 52.9 

Bay anchovy 77.0 – 95.1 

Weakfish 71.2 – 78.3 

Source: PSEG, 1984. 

PSEG submitted a 316(b) demonstration in 1999 as part of the application for NJPDES permit 

renewal (PSEG, 1999a). This demonstration assessed the effects of Salem’s cooling water 

intake structure on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary (PSEG, 1999a). It 

focused on the same RS fish species as the earlier studies and added the blue crab (Callinectes 

sapidus). Impingement losses at Salem were estimated using impingement density (the 

number of impinged individuals collected divided by the total volume sampled, expressed as 

number/m3

) and adjusting for impingement survival, collection efficiency, and recirculation 

factor. This result was then scaled by month using the water withdrawal rates and summed for 

the year to provide annual impingement losses for the facility. Estimated annual impingement 

losses for the RS at Salem from 1978 through 1998 are summarized in Table 4-12. Bay 

anchovy was the species most frequently lost to impingement from 1978 to 1998, constituting 

46 percent of the RS impingement loss. Weakfish was the next most frequently lost species, 

making up 20 percent of the RS impingement losses (PSEG, 1999a). 

Impingement monitoring was conducted annually in accordance with the BMWP from 1995 

through 2002. In 2002, the IBMWP was developed to include improvements to the BMWP. 

These monitoring plans include provisions to quantify impingement and entrainment losses at 

Salem, as well as fish populations in the Delaware Estuary and the positive effects of the 

restoration program (PSEG, 2006c). 
Table 4-12. Estimated Annual Impingement Losses for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978 to 1998 

Estimated Annual Impingement Losses 

Year Alewife 

American 

Shad 

Atlantic 

croaker 

Bay 

anchovy 

Blueback 

herring Blue crab Spot 

Striped 

bass Weakfish 

White 

perch 

1978 17,057 4,549 125,822 2,623,694 438,248 111,627 84,519 3,213 6,391,256 254,688 

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

Source: PSEG, 1999a. 

 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-23 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-24 

The 316(b) demonstration submitted during the 2006 NJPDES renewal process (PSEG, 2006c) 

included the CDS as required by the Phase II rule and a demonstration that the plant satisfies 

the impingement mortality and entrainment reductions required by the rule. The CDS included 

an estimation of impingement losses for the RS developed from data collected during annual 

impingement monitoring conducted in accordance with the IBMWP. A revised RS list was 

developed for the IBMWP and subsequently used in the 2006 CDS that included the nine finfish 

and the blue crab from previous studies and added the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), 

Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) (PSEG, 2006c). 

Estimated annual impingement and impingement losses for the study period 2002 to 2004 are 

summarized in Table 4-13. Atlantic croaker was the species most impinged in 2002 and the RS 

most often lost to impingement that year. White perch was the RS most impinged in 2003 and 

2004, while weakfish was the species most often lost to impingement in those years. 

Table 4-13. Estimated Annual Impingement and Annual Impingement Losses for 

Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 2002-2004 

Total Impingement Impingement Losses 

Taxon 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 

Alewife 87,001 31,275 134,149 10,996 16,360 63,492 

American shad 5,879 31,584 227,103 1,672 15,354 72,486 

Atlantic croaker 21,313,809 620,754 3,260,494 6,332,522 143,298 332,644 

Bay anchovy 424,168 475,799 544,177 197,496 326,839 341,135 

Blueback herring 184,095 133,328 1,110,952 28,113 50,790 265,866 

Spot 1,131 2,714 366 253 721 133 

Striped bass 101,208 776,934 505,340 5,351 167,332 66,007 

Weakfish 722,090 3,129,152 3,531,713 428,300 1,953,299 2,118,736 

White perch 2,044,207 9,424,768 11,181,299 163,505 773,818 970,462 

Atlantic silverside 509,142 220,114 156,495 138,270 44,951 48,609 

Atlantic menhaden 534,646 31,211 20,420 360,931 21,769 15,724 

Blue crab 2,739,118 356,983 831,320 172,725 27,483 57,931 

Bluefish 45,292 31,311 44,533 3,884 7,592 17,433 

Source: PSEG, 2006c. 

Table 4-14 provides a summary of annual impingement densities based on monitoring results 

for RS at Salem from the annual monitoring reports for the period 1995 through 2008. 

Impingement densities were calculated by relating impingement abundance to the circulating 

water flow and extrapolating to the number of organisms impinged per million m3

 for every week 

of each year (PSEG, 1999a). The four most commonly impinged species were Atlantic croaker 

(23 percent), blue crab (21 percent), white perch (19 percent), and weakfish (14 percent). Table 

4-15 provides a list of species collected and average densities impinged during this period. 
Table 4-14. Impingement Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1995-2008 

Density (n/106 m3) 

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

Blue crab 1901.05 620.48 2033.08 824.27 636.84 393.89 606.88 502.13 76.41 171.28 1895.82 694.73 797.66 640.45 

Alewife 3.09 5.47 10.8 12.09 15.78 27.41 20.55 13.91 4.84 25.99 8.19 2.41 7.66 0.66 American shad 3.1 2.63 1.00 3.39 14.5 3.82 0.57 0.79 6.43 43.24 10.11 4.01 16.98 1.7 Atlantic croaker 887.71 112.71 623.81 1489.08 625.94 403.53 412.56 3820.65 101.22 626.74 845.57 1405.31 951.09 545.25 

Atlantic menhaden 14.72 9.9 38.36 78.79 15.78 20.5 25.55 88.9 6.26 4.82 22.22 44 27.49 57.85 Atlantic silverside 44.15 12.61 40.7 43.54 111.15 49.67 42.28 78.46 35.67 25.71 24.08 46.89 44.52 56.28 Bay anchovy 136.82 66.52 229.13 367 127.83 122.62 84.1 74.09 89.5 93.89 49.33 202.44 132.62 72.27 Blueback herring 30.78 8.64 126.62 107.8 110.7 73.14 81.06 31.05 23.27 156.55 19.75 25.37 17.76 7.34 

Bluefish 2.69 8.88 6.41 4.79 2.55 6.00 1.14 7.89 8.14 11.67 2.06 7.44 2.95 5.7 

Spot 10.28 3.38 88.74 3.94 0.53 7.28 0.05 0.34 0.8 0.14 55.11 10.38 3.73 23.65 

Striped bass 64.89 82.05 62.91 28.61 52.83 102.49 54.62 20.04 159.93 110.86 29.72 10.22 47.88 32.56 White perch 641.12 543.08 1625.16 425.98 384.33 273.32 263.56 427.71 1771.18 2113.19 1042.62 360.51 429.81 662.14 

Weakfish 1071.27 441.89 1370.74 528.95 228.01 369.57 524.64 172.98 530.71 725.72 930.88 343.81 379.65 304.8 

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

 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-25 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-26 

Table 4-15. Species Impinged at Salem and Average Impingement Densities, 

Based on Annual Impingement Monitoring for 1995-2008 

Common Name(1) Scientific Name(1)

Average Density (n/106

 m3) (2)

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus 917.94 

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 842.50 

White perch Morone americana 783.12 

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis 565.97 

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 231.95 

Spotted hake Urophycis regia 135.03 

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 132.01 

Striped bass Morone saxatilis 61.40 

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 58.56 

Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 46.84 

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 42.11 

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 32.51 

Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 27.64 

Striped cusk-eel Ophidion marginatum 20.78 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 14.88 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 11.35 

Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus 10.53 

American shad Alosa sapidissima 8.02 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 7.71 

Black drum Pogonias cromis 6.29

Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 6.05 

Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 5.60 

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix 5.59 

American eel Anguilla rostrata 5.32 

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4.90 

Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura 4.62 

Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus 4.48 

Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis 4.29 

Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau 3.68 

Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 3.59 

Red hake Urophycis chuss 3.26 

Naked goby Gobiosoma bosc 3.25 

Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus 2.59 

Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus 2.41 

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus 2.13 

Smallmouth flounder Etropus microstomus 2.00 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1.89 

Striped searobin Prionotus evolans 1.81 

Scup Stenotomus chrysops 1.38 

Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus 1.01 

Striped killifish Fundulus majalis 1.00 

Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 0.87 

Black sea bass Centropristis striata 0.83 

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus 0.76 

River herring Alosa spp. 0.75 

Unknown spp. Unknown spp. 0.52 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-27 

Common Name(1) Scientific Name(1)

Average Density (n/106 m3) (2)

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus 0.52 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus 0.51 

Rainbow smelt Osmerus punctatus 0.48 

Northern stargazer Astroscopus guttatus 0.45 

Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus 0.44 

Conger eel Conger oceanicus 0.43 

Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 0.43 

Temperate bass Morone sp. 0.38 

Rough silverside Membras martinica 0.36 

Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 0.36 

Inland silverside Menidia beryllina 0.33 

White mullet Mugil curema 0.32 

Spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus 0.28 

Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina 0.27 

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis 0.26 

Crevalle jack Caranx hippos 0.25 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.24 

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus 0.24 

Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis 0.23 

Lookdown Selene vomer 0.20 

Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa 0.20 

Permit Trachinotus falcatus 0.16 

Common carp Cyprinus carpio 0.14 

Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus 0.14 

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.14 

Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus 0.14 

Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 0.13 

Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus 0.13 

Fourspot flounder Paralichthys oblongus 0.12 

Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis 0.12 

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 0.12 

Lined seahorse Hippocampus erectus 0.11 

Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens 0.11 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 0.11 

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.11 

Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber 0.10 

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 0.10 

Unidentifiable Fish Unidentifiable fish 0.10 

White catfish Ameiurus catus 0.10 

White sucker Catostomus commersoni 0.09 

Spotfin killifish Fundulus luciae 0.09 

Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera 0.09 

Feather blenny Hypsoblennius hentz 0.09 

Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 0.09 

Bluespotted cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria 0.09 

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 0.08 

Goosefish Lophius americanus 0.08 

Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema oglinum 0.07 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 0.07 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-28 

Common Name(1) Scientific Name(1)

Average Density (n/106 m3) (2)

Redfin pickerel Esox americanus 0.07 

Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 0.07 

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0.07 

Tautog Tautoga onitis 0.06 

Fat sleeper Dormitator maculatus 0.06 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0.06 

Cownose Rhinoptera bonasus 0.06 

Satinfin shiner Cyprinella analostana 0.06 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 0.06 

Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 0.06 

Green goby Microgobius thalassinus 0.06 

Eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea 0.06 

Mud sunfish Acantharchus pomotis 0.05 

Atlantc sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus 0.05 

Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus 0.05 

Southern kingfish Menticirrhus americanus 0.05 

(1) Species in bold are RS at Salem. 

(2) Average density expressed as number of fish impinged (n) per million (106

) cubic meters (m3) of water 

withdrawn through the intake screens. 

Source: Biological Monitoring Program Annual Reports (PSEG, 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999b; 2000; 2001; 2002; 

2003; 2004; 2005; 2006a; 2007a; 2008a; 2009c).

Due to the differences in methods used during the more than 30 years since Salem Unit 1 

began commercial operation in 1978, it is difficult to compare impingement estimates across 

studies. The NRC staff used impingement density as a metric to evaluate trends in 

impingement and abundance of RS in water withdrawn at the Salem intake over the operational 

period 1978 through 2008 (Table 4-16). NRC staff plotted impingement density by year to 

provide an indication of trends in the abundance of RS species at the Salem intake. The annual 

average densities of most of the 13 RS were highly variable from year to year, but trends were 

discernable for all but three species (Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, and bluefish). Spot was 

the only species with an apparent overall trend of declining densities. In contrast, the densities 

of Atlantic menhaden appear to show a slight increasing trend, and the densities of eight 

species (alewife, American shad, Atlantic croaker, blue crab, blueback herring, striped bass, 

weakfish, and white perch) show apparent increasing trends, with most beginning notable 

increases in densities around 1993 to 1998. Overall, impingement densities of 12 of the 13 RS 

generally have been stable or increasing over the decades during which Salem has operated. 

The trend of declining densities of spot appears to reflect a widespread reduction in abundance 

in the species range well beyond Delaware Bay (ASFMC, 2008) and, thus, does not appear to 

be associated with Salem. Overall, these apparent trends do not suggest impacts on most fish 

populations in the estuary in the vicinity of the intake over the period of Salem operation. 
Table 4-16. Impingement Densities for Representative Species (RS) at Salem, 1978-2008

Density (n/106 m3) 

Taxon 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Alewife 0.26 0.95 0.89 26.35 2.02 0.75 3.81 0.13 0.75 2.04 0.94 3.70 1.33 0.75 0.89 0.91 American shad 0.12 0.39 0.41 0.38 0.69 0.38 0.20 0.48 0.64 1.04 1.57 2.78 0.70 1.14 4.04 0.95 Atlantic croaker 7.04 0.42 5.89 0.70 0.15 0.30 0.09 9.36 7.23 43.97 0.42 1.66 0.25 3.21 7.55 11.22 Atlantic menhaden — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Atlantic silverside — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Bay anchovy 228.56 204.95 459.35 406.60 97.15 142.69 106.59 81.99 55.35 78.23 94.96 19.52 36.61 40.94 17.09 16.44 Blue crab 56.97 44.45 151.83 66.59 16.33 16.24 19.73 141.62 181.63 109.58 160.39 47.22 38.04 45.42 75.99 65.48 Blueback herring 28.28 27.13 17.98 14.93 17.79 10.80 54.15 4.54 10.04 4.40 7.90 27.43 4.70 6.19 5.27 2.77 Bluefish — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Spot 15.42 52.60 17.58 45.34 60.92 47.50 32.48 4.37 3.85 0.09 96.29 7.08 5.43 5.38 0.12 0.98 Striped bass 0.83 2.58 0.64 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.39 1.95 1.62 3.84 3.84 2.08 3.59 15.85 Weakfish 910.81 149.03 105.78 78.91 43.69 49.78 30.34 55.38 36.60 52.25 18.39 7.27 10.70 25.20 48.07 40.86 White perch 32.27 69.78 33.33 33.24 25.47 20.91 23.30 25.69 75.29 49.20 38.93 52.33 57.08 52.80 55.23 123.43 

Density (n/106 m3) 

Taxon 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alewife 0.65 3.09 5.47 10.8 12.09 15.78 27.41 20.55 13.91 4.84 25.99 8.19 2.41 7.66 0.66 American shad 0.32 3.1 2.63 1 3.39 14.5 3.82 0.57 0.79 6.43 43.24 10.11 4.01 16.98 1.7 Atlantic croaker 3.59 887.71 112.71 623.81 1489.08 625.94 403.53 412.56 3820.65 101.22 626.74 845.57 1405.31 951.09 545.25 Atlantic menhaden — 14.72 9.9 38.36 78.79 15.78 20.5 25.55 88.9 6.26 4.82 22.22 44 27.49 57.85 Atlantic silverside — 44.15 12.61 40.7 43.54 111.15 49.67 42.28 78.46 35.67 25.71 24.08 46.89 44.52 56.28 

Bay anchovy 5.11 136.82 66.52 229.13 367 127.83 122.62 84.1 74.09 89.5 93.89 49.33 202.44 132.62 72.27 Blue crab 88.60 1901.05 620.48 2033.08 824.27 636.84 393.89 606.88 502.13 76.41 171.28 1895.82 694.73 797.66 640.45 Blueback herring 1.30 30.78 8.64 126.62 107.8 110.7 73.14 81.06 31.05 23.27 156.55 19.75 25.37 17.76 7.34 Bluefish — 2.69 8.88 6.41 4.79 2.55 6 1.14 7.89 8.14 11.67 2.06 7.44 2.95 5.7 Spot 26.78 10.28 3.38 88.74 3.94 0.53 7.28 0.05 0.34 0.8 0.14 55.11 10.38 3.73 23.65 Striped bass 0.73 64.89 82.05 62.91 28.61 52.83 102.49 54.62 20.04 159.93 110.86 29.72 10.22 47.88 32.56 Weakfish 132.51 1071.27 441.89 1370.74 528.95 228.01 369.57 524.64 172.98 530.71 725.72 930.88 343.81 379.65 304.8 White perch 96.26 641.12 543.08 1625.16 425.98 384.33 273.32 263.56 427.71 1771.18 2113.19 1042.62 360.51 429.81 662.14 

Note: Blank spaces (

—) indicate the species was not identified in impingement samples that year. 

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

2007a; 2008a; 2009c).

Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-29 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-30 

Reductions in Impingement Mortality

Due to the potential for impingement to have adverse effects on the aquatic environment in the 

vicinity of Salem and requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit, PSEG has taken steps to 

reduce impingement mortality and its effects in the Delaware Estuary. PSEG has made many 

improvements to the cooling water intake system at Salem over the years, including 

modifications to the intake screens and fish return system (PSEG, 1999a). 

Improved intake screen panels have a smooth mesh surface to allow impinged fish to more 

easily slide across the panels. The Ristroph buckets and screen-wash system were modified to 

increase survival of impinged organisms. The new buckets are constructed from smooth, nonmetallic materials and have several design elements that minimize turbulence inside the bucket, 

including a reshaped lower lip, mounting hardware located behind the screen mesh, a flow 

spoiler inside the bucket, and flap seals to prevent fish and debris from bypassing their 

respective troughs (PSEG, 1999a). The screen wash system was redesigned to provide an 

optimal spray pattern using low-pressure nozzles to more gently remove organisms from the 

screens prior to use of high pressure nozzles that remove debris. In addition, the maximum 

screen rotation speed was increased from 17.5 feet per minute (fpm) (5.3 m/min) to 35 fpm (11 

m/min) to reduce the differential pressure across the screens during times of high debris 

loading. The screens are continuously rotated, and the rotation speed automatically adjusts as 

the pressure differential increases. The fish return trough was redesigned from the original 

rectangular trough to incorporate a custom formed fiberglass trough with radius rounded 

corners. The fish return system has a bi-directional flow that is coordinated with the tidal cycle 

to minimize re-impingement. The flow from the trough discharges to the downstream side of the 

cooling water intake system on the ebb tide and to the upstream side on the flood tide (PSEG, 

1999a). 

PSEG (PSEG, 1999a) reports estimates of impingement mortality with the modified screens 

were compared to estimates of mortality with the original screens to assess the reduction in 

impingement mortality due to the screen modifications. The assessment relied on data from 

impingement studies conducted in 1995, 1997, and 1998 and compared to data collected in 

1978 through 1982 when impingement survival studies were conducted for the original screen 

configuration. A side-by-side comparison also was conducted in 1995 when only one of the 

units had the modified intake system. Table 4-17 showing data from PSEG (PSEG, 1999a) 

provides a comparison of estimated impingement mortality rates for the original screens versus 

the modified screens. 

PSEG (PSEG, 1999a) concluded that results from the comparison of 1997 and 1998 data for 

the modified screens to data from 1978 to 1982 for the original screens indicate that the 

modified intake system generally provides reductions in impingement mortality. The study 

found that white perch, bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, and Alosa species (blueback 

herring, alewife, and American shad combined) had lower mortality rates for all months studied 

during the 1997 and 1998 studies compared to those estimated for the 1978 to 1982 study of 

the original screens. In contrast, weakfish had higher mortality rates for the modified screens in 

June and July, but lower in August and September. Those authors speculated that this 

difference may result from the much smaller size of the weakfish impinged in June and July – 

impingement mortality rates for smaller fish generally are higher than for larger fish (however, 

they are lower than estimated entrainment mortality rates, and the modifications to improve 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-31 

impingement survival increase this difference). PSEG (1999a) found that the 1995 side-by-side 

study showed higher survival rate estimates for weakfish with the modified screens. 

Table 4-17. Comparison of Impingement Mortality Rates (percent) for Original Screens 

(1978-1982 and 1995 Studies) and Modified Screens (1995 and 1997-1998 Studies) 

 Original Screens Modified Screens 

Taxon Month 1978-1982 1995 1995 1997-1998 

Weakfish June 39 33 17 79 

July 51 31 18 82 

August 52 51 25 38 

September 40 - - 12 

October 53 - - - 

White perch January 13 - - - 

February 16 - - - 

March 12 - - - 

April 15 - - 7 

October 21 - - - 

November 16 - - 7 

December 8 - - 2 

Bay anchovy April - - - 54 

May 81 - - 55 

June 89 - - 78 

July 90 - - 80 

August 85 - - - 

September 72 - - - 

October 65 - - 35 

November 32 - - 28 

Atlantic croaker April - - - 42 

May - - - 34 

June - - - 28 

July - - - 35 

October - - - 5 

November - - - 2 

Dec-Jan 49 - - 15 

Spot June 31 - - - 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-32 

July 48 - - - 

August 47 - - - 

 Original Screens Modified Screens

October 38 - - - 

November 19 - - 7 

December 29 - - - 

Alosa species Mar-Apr 89 - - 18 

Oct - Dec 31 - - 22 

Note: Mortality rate estimates for Alosa species for original screens are based on blueback herring only while estimates for modified 

screens are based on Alosa species (blueback herring, alewife, and American shad combined). Estimates include initial and 48-hr latent 

mortalities. 

Blank spaces (-) indicate months in which the species was not identified in sufficient numbers in the impingement survival studies to allow 

reliable estimates of impingement mortality rates. 

Source: PSEG, 1999a.

4.5.4 Heat Shock 

NRC uses the term heat shock to refer to the acute thermal stress caused by exposure to a 

sudden elevation of water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of 

fish and can lead to death. Heat shock can occur at power plants when the cooling water 

discharge elevates the temperature of the surrounding water. 

The NRC considers heat shock to be a generic (Category 1) issue at power plants with closedcycle cooling systems. HCGS uses closed-cycle cooling and if NRC finds no new and 

significant information, site-specific evaluation is not required to determine that impacts to fish 

and shellfish from heat shock associated with the continued operation of HCGS during the 

renewal term would be SMALL. In contrast, heat shock is a Category 2 issue at power plants 

with once-through cooling systems. Salem has a once-through cooling system; therefore, heat 

shock is considered a site-specific (Category 2) issue for Salem, and a site-specific analysis is 

required to determine the level of impact that heat shock may have on the aquatic environment. 

The potential for heat shock at Salem is discussed below. 

Regulatory Background

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is a federal interstate compact agency charged 

with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin without regard to political 

boundaries. It regulates water quality in the Delaware River and Delaware Estuary through 

DRBC Water Quality Regulations, including temperature standards. The temperature standards 

for Water Quality Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary, where the Salem discharge is located, state 

that the temperature in the river outside of designated heat dissipation areas (HDAs) may not be 

raised above ambient by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F; 2.2 degrees Celsius [°C]) during 

non-summer months (September through May) or 1.5°F (0.8°C) during the summer (June 

through August), and a maximum temperature of 86°F (30.0°C) in the river cannot be exceeded 

year-round (18 CFR 410; DRBC, 2001). HDAs are zones outside of which the DRBC 

temperature-increase standards shall not be exceeded. HDAs are established on a case-bycase basis. The thermal mixing zone requirements and HDAs that had been in effect for Salem 

since it initiated operations in 1977 were modified by the DRBC in 1995 and again in 2001 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-33 

(DRBC, 2001), and the 2001 requirements were included in the 2001 NJPDES permit. The 

HDAs at Salem are seasonal. In the summer period (June through August), the Salem HDA 

extends 25,300 ft (7,710 m) upstream and 21,100 ft (6,430 m) downstream of the discharge and 

does not extend closer than 1,320 ft (402 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel. In 

the non-summer period (September through May), the HDA extends 3,300 ft (1,000 m) 

upstream and 6,000 ft (1,800 m) downstream of the discharge and does not extend closer than 

3,200 ft (970 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel (DRBC, 2001). 

Section 316(a) of the CWA regulates thermal discharges from power plants. This regulation 

includes a process by which a discharger can obtain a variance from thermal discharge limits 

when it can be demonstrated that the limits are more stringent than necessary to protect aquatic 

life (33 USC 1326). PSEG submitted a comprehensive Section 316(a) study for Salem in 1974, 

filed three supplements through 1979, and provided further review and analysis in 1991 and 

1993. In 1994, NJDEP granted PSEG’s request for a thermal variance and concluded that the 

continued operation of Salem in accordance with the terms of the NJPDES permit “would 

ensure the continued protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population of 

aquatic life” in the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 1994). The 1994 permit continued the same 

thermal limitations that had been imposed by the prior NJPDES permits for Salem. This 

variance has been continued through the current NJPDES permit. PSEG subsequently 

provided comprehensive Section 316(a) Demonstrations in the 1999 and 2006 NJPDES permit 

renewal applications for Salem. NJDEP reissued the Section 316(a) variance in the 2001 

NJPDES Permit (NJDEP, 2001). 

The Section 316(a) variance for Salem limits the temperature of the discharge, the difference in 

temperature (∆T) between the thermal plume and the ambient water, and the rate of water 

withdrawal from the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 2001). During the summer period the maximum 

permissible discharge temperature is 115°F (46.1°C). In non-summer months, the maximum 

permissible discharge temperature is 110°F (43.3°C). The maximum permissible temperature 

differential year round is 27.5°F (15.3°C). The permit also limits the amount of water that Salem 

withdraws to a monthly average of 3,024 MGD (11 million m3

/day) (NJDEP, 2001). 

In 2006, PSEG submitted an NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006c) with a request 

for renewal of the Section 316(a) variance. The variance renewal request summarizes studies 

that have been conducted at the Salem plant, including the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, 

and evaluates the changes in the thermal discharge characteristics, facility operations, and 

aquatic environment since the time of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration. PSEG 

concluded that Salem’s thermal discharge had not changed significantly since the 1999 

application and that the thermal variance should be continued. In 2006, NJDEP administratively 

continued Salem’s NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), including the Section 316(a) variance. No 

timeframe for issuance of the new NJPDES permit has been determined. 

Characteristics of the Thermal Plume

Cooling water from Salem is discharged through six adjacent 10 ft (3 m) diameter pipes spaced 

15 ft (4.6 m) apart on center that extend approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the shore (PSEG, 

1999c). The discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they discharge horizontally 

into the water of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 31 ft (9.5 m). The discharge 

is approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. Figure 4-1 provides a plan view of the 

Salem discharge, and Figure 4-2 is a section view. At full power, Salem is designed to 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-34 

discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3

/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s). 

The location of the discharge and its general design characteristics have remained essentially 

the same over the period of operation of the Salem facility (PSEG, 1999c). 

The thermal plume at Salem can be defined by the regulatory thresholds contained in the DRBC 

water quality regulations, consisting of the 1.5°F (0.83°C) isopleth of ΔT during the summer 

period and the 4°F (2.2°C) isopleth of ΔT during non-summer months. Thermal modeling, to 

characterize the thermal plume, has been conducted numerous times over the period of 

operation of Salem. Since Unit 2 began operation in 1981, operations at Salem have been 

essentially the same and studies have indicated that the characteristics of the thermal plume 

have remained relatively constant (PSEG, 1999c). 

The most recent thermal modeling was conducted during the 1999 Section 316(a) 

Demonstration. Three linked models were used to characterize the size and shape of the 

thermal plume: an ambient temperature model, a far-field model (RMA-10), and a near-field 

model (CORMIX). The plume is narrow and approximately follows the contour of the shoreline 

at the discharge. The width of the plume varies from about 4,000 ft (1,200 m) on the flood tide 

to about 10,000 ft (3,000 m) on the ebb tide. The maximum plume length extends to 

approximately 43,000 ft (13,000 m) upstream and 36,000 ft (11,000 m) downstream (PSEG, 

1999c). Figures 4-3 through 4-6 depict the expansion and contraction of the surface and bottom 

plumes through the tidal cycle. Table 4-18 includes the surface area occupied by the plume 

within each ΔT isopleth through the tidal cycle. 

The thermal plume consists of a near-field region, a transition region, and a far-field region. The 

near-field region, also referred to as the zone of initial mixing, is the region closest to the outlet 

of the discharge pipes where the mixing of the discharge with the waters of the Delaware 

Estuary is induced by the velocity of the discharge itself. The length of the near-field region is 

approximately 300 ft (90 m) during ebb and flood tides and 1,000 ft (300 m) during slack tide. 

The transition region is the area where the plume spreads horizontally and stratifies vertically 

due to the buoyancy of the warmer waters. The length of the transition region is approximately 

700 ft (200 m). In the far-field region, mixing is controlled by the ambient currents induced 

mainly by the tidal nature of the receiving water. The ebb tide draws the discharge downstream, 

and the flood tide draws it upstream. The boundary of the far-field region is delineated by a line 

of constant ΔT (PSEG, 1999c). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-35 

Table 4-18. Surface Area within Each ΔT Contour through the Tidal Cycle 

Ebb: 6/2/1998 at 

0830 hrs 

End of Ebb: 

6/2/1998 at 0000 hrs 

Flood: 6/4/1998 at 

1630 hrs 

End of Flood: 

5/31/1998 at 1600 hrs 

ΔT 

(°F)

Surface 

Area 

(Acres) 

Percent of 

Estuary 

Area 

Surface 

Area 

(Acres) 

Percent of 

Estuary 

Area 

Surface 

Area 

(Acres) 

Percent of 

Estuary 

Area 

Surface 

Area 

(Acres) 

Percent of 

Estuary 

Area 

>13 0.08 0.00002 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00000 0.00 0.00000 

>12 0.46 0.00010 0.47 0.00010 0.21 0.00004 0.00 0.00000 

>11 0.98 0.00020 2.15 0.00045 0.61 0.00013 0.00 0.00000 

>10 1.66 0.00034 2.15 0.00045 1.15 0.00024 0.85 0.00018 

>9 2.22 0.00046 2.15 0.00045 1.82 0.00038 1.93 0.00040 

>8 3.19 0.00066 2.15 0.00045 2.64 0.00055 1.93 0.00040 

>7 4.32 0.00090 5.10 0.00106 3.59 0.00075 1.93 0.00040 

>6 5.61 0.00116 11.32 0.00235 4.68 0.00097 1.93 0.00040 

>5 36.60 0.00760 21.43 0.00445 56.58 0.01174 2.14 0.00044 

>4 150.08 0.03115 45.11 0.00936 245.94 0.05105 205.37 0.04263 

>3 631.42 0.13106 739.88 0.15357 585.78 0.12158 920.75 0.19111 

>2 1947.91 0.40430 2519.94 0.52303 2212.75 0.45927 2093.04 0.43442 

>1.5 3156.56 0.65517 3725.19 0.77319 3703.61 0.76871 3596.95 0.74657 

Notes: 

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

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

To convert acres to hectares, multiply by 0.4047. 

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

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

Source: PSEG, 1999c. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-36 

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

 

 4-37 

 

Figure 4-2. Section View of Salem discharge pipes (Source: PSEG, 1999c). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-38 

Figure 4-3. Surface ΔT isotherms for Salem’s longest plume at the end of flood on May 

31, 1998 (Source: PSEG, 1999c). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-39 

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

PSEG, 1999c). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-40 

Figure 4-5. Bottom ΔT isotherms for Salem’s longest plume at the end of the flood on 

May 31, 1998 (Source: PSEG, 1999c). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-41 

Figure 4-6. Bottom ΔT isotherms for Salem at the end of the ebb on June 2, 1998 

(Source: PSEG, 1999c). 

 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-42 

Thermal Discharge Studies

Extensive studies were conducted at Salem between 1968 and 1999 to determine the effects of 

the thermal plume on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary. Initial studies were 

conducted in 1968 to determine the location and design for the outfall that would best minimize 

the potential for adverse environmental effects. Several hydrothermal and biothermal studies 

subsequently have been conducted in support of requests for variance from thermal discharge 

limitations pursuant to Section 316(a). The Section 316(a) Demonstrations from 1974 through 

1979 evaluated information on the life history, geographical distribution, and thermal tolerances 

of the RIS compared to the characteristics of the projected thermal plume. Supplements 

included information on the potential for Salem’s thermal plume to promote the presence of 

undesirable organisms; use of the area in the vicinity of the Salem facility as spawning and 

nursery habitat; attraction of fish to the thermal plume and the potential for cold shock; effects of 

thermal plume entrainment on ichthyoplankton and zooplankton; effects of the plume on 

migration of anadromous fishes; and effects of the thermal plume on macroinvertebrates, such 

as blue crabs, oysters (Crassostrea virginica), and shipworms (Teredinidae), and other benthos 

(PSEG, 1975). 

In 1995, PSEG applied to the DRBC for revision of the Salem Docket to provide seasonal HDAs 

to assure compliance with DRBC’s water quality regulations. PSEG used mathematical 

modeling and statistical analyses to characterize the maximum size of the summer thermal 

plume (June through August) and non-summer thermal plume (September through May) in 

terms of the 24-hr average ∆T between the thermal plume and ambient water temperatures. 

PSEG also updated the information collected on the thermal tolerances, preferences, and 

avoidances of the RIS and conducted an evaluation of the potential for the thermal plume to 

have adverse effects on these species. The assessment indicated that Salem’s thermal plume 

and the proposed HDAs would not have the potential to adversely affect aquatic life or 

recreational uses in the Delaware Estuary, and the DRBC granted the requested HDAs (PSEG, 

1999c). 

In 1999 PSEG submitted an application to renew the NJPDES permit for Salem, and the 

Section 316(a) Demonstration included provided another thermal plume characterization, 

biothermal assessment, and detailed analysis of the potential effects of Salem’s thermal plume 

on the aquatic community. NJDEP reviewed this Section 316(a) Demonstration, determined 

that a “thermal discharge at the Station, which does not exceed a maximum of 115 oF, is 

expected to assure the protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population,” and 

included a Section 316(a) variance in Salem’s 2001 NJPDES permit (NJDEP, 2001). 

The 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration includes the most detailed and most recent evaluation 

of the potential effects of the thermal discharge on the aquatic environment near Salem. This 

evaluation includes a four-part assessment of the potential for the discharge to negatively affect 

the balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary, including consideration of the 

following factors: (1) the vulnerability of the aquatic community to thermal effects; (2) the 

potential for the survival, growth, and reproduction of the RIS to be affected; (3) the potential for 

effects of other pollutants to be increased by heat; and (4) evidence of prior appreciable harm 

from the thermal discharge (PSEG, 1999c). 

PSEG (PSEG, 1999d) concluded that the vulnerablity analysis indicates that the location and 

design of Salem’s discharge minimize the potential for adverse environmental effects. They 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-43 

report that the high exit velocity produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to 

relatively small areas in the zone of initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish 

and other nektonic organisms are essentially excluded from these areas due to high velocities 

and turbulence. PSEG (PSEG, 1999c) found that the offshore location and rapid dilution of the 

thermal discharge also places the highest temperature plumes in an area of the Estuary where 

productivity is lowest. 

The RIS evaluation in the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999c) included an 

assessment of the potential for the thermal plume to adversely affect survival, growth, and 

reproduction of the selected RIS. The RIS included alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American 

shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), bay anchovy (Anchoa 

mitchilli), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), white perch (Morone americana), blue crab (Callinectes 

sapidus), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and scud (Gammarus daiberi, G. fasciatus, 

G. tigrinus). For each of the RIS, temperature requirements and preferences as well as thermal 

limits were identified and compared to temperatures in the thermal plume to which these 

species may be exposed (PSEG, 1999c). 

This biothermal assessment (PSEG, 1999c) concluded that Salem’s thermal plume would not 

have substantial effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of the selected species from 

heat-induced mortality. Scud, blue crab, and juvenile and adult American shad, alewife, 

blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, Atlantic croaker, and spot have higher thermal 

tolerances than the temperature of the plume in areas where their swimming ability would allow 

them to be exposed. PSEG (PSEG, 1999c) concluded that juvenile and adult weakfish and bay 

anchovy could come into contact with plume waters that exceed their thermal tolerances during 

the warmer months, but the mobility of these organisms should allow them to avoid contact with 

these temperatures 

The biothermal assessment also concluded that less-mobile organisms, such as scud, juvenile 

blue crab, and fish eggs, would not be likely to experience mortality from being transported 

through the plume. American shad, alewife, blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, 

Atlantic croaker, spot, and weakfish are not likely to spawn in the vicinity of the discharge. 

Scud, juvenile blue crab, and eggs and larvae that do occur in the vicinity of the discharge have 

higher temperature tolerances than the maximum temperature of the centerline of the plume in 

average years. PSEG (PSEG, 1999c) concluded that opossum shrimp, weakfish, and bay 

anchovy may experience some mortality during peak summer water temperatures in warm 

years (approximately 1 to 3 percent of the time). 

Interactions of heat with other pollutants were also evaluated in the 1999 Section 316(a) 

Demonstration. The assessment concluded that the thermal plume has no observable effects 

on the dissolved oxygen level near the Salem discharge. In addition, the assessment indicates 

that there is no potential for plume interaction with other contaminants in the Estuary from other 

industrial, municipal, or agricultural sources such as polycarbonated biphenyols (PCBs), 

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

tetrachloroethene (PCE), dichloroethene (DCE), and copper due to the low concentrations of 

such contaminants in the vicinity of Salem (PSEG, 1999c). 

As part of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, an analysis of the biological community in 

the Delaware Estuary was conducted to determine whether there has been evidence of 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-44 

changes within the community that could be attributable to the thermal discharge at Salem. 

PSEG (PSEG, 1999c) concluded that observed changes in the species composition or overall 

abundance in organisms in the estuary since Salem began operation are within the range 

expected to occur as a result of natural variation or changes in water quality. PSEG found no 

indications of increases in populations of nuisance species or stress-tolerant species, and it 

found statistically significant increases in the abundance of juveniles for almost all species of 

RIS evaluated. PSEG (PSEG, 1999c) concluded that a declining trend for blueback herring was 

a coast-wide trend and not related to Salem’s operation. 

4.5.5 Restoration Activities 

In addition to the changes in technology and operations of the Salem facility, PSEG has 

implemented restoration activities that enhance the fish and shellfish populations in the 

Delaware Estuary. In compliance with Salem’s 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, PSEG 

implemented the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP), which has preserved and/or restored 

more than 20,000 acres (ac; 8,000 hectares [ha]) of wetland and adjoining upland buffers 

(PSEG, 2009a). 

In particular, the program restored 4,400 ac (1,800 ha) of formerly diked salt hay farms to 

reestablish conditions suitable for the growth of low marsh vegetation such as saltmarsh cord 

grass (Spartina alterniflora) and provide for tidal exchange with the estuary. These restored 

wetlands increase the production of fish and shellfish by increasing primary production in the 

detritus-based food web of the Delaware Estuary. Both primary and secondary consumers 

benefit from this increase in production, including many of the RS at Salem and federally 

managed species with essential fish habitat (EFH) in the estuary. PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) 

estimated the increase in production of secondary consumers due to this restoration to be at 

least 18.6 million lbs/yr (8.44 million kg/yr). These secondary consumers include species of fish 

and shellfish affected by impingement and entrainment at Salem, as well as other species. 

The EEP also included the installation of 13 fish ladders at impoundments in New Jersey and 

Delaware (PSEG, 2009a). The fish ladders eliminate blockages to spawning areas for 

anadromous fish species such as alewife and blueback herring (both RS at Salem). Fish 

ladders were constructed in New Jersey at Sunset Lake, Stewart Lake (two ladders), Newton 

Lake and Cooper River Lake, and in Delaware at Noxontown Pond, Silver Lake (Dover), Silver 

Lake (Milford), McGinnis Pond, Coursey Pond, McColley Pond, Garrisons Lake, and Moore’s 

Lake (PSEG, 2009a). Most anadromous fish exhibit spawning site fidelity, returning to the same 

areas where they hatched to spawn. Therefore, PSEG undertook a stocking program that 

transplanted gravid adults into the newly accessible impoundments to induce future spawning 

runs (PSEG, 2009a). 

Along with the active restoration programs described above, PSEG has provided funding 

through the EEP for many other programs in the area, including some managed by NJDEP and 

the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). 

Examples of these funded programs are restoration of three areas in Delaware dominated by 

common reed (Phragmites australis), State-managed artificial reef programs, revitalization of 

150 ac (61 ha) of State-managed oyster habitat, and restoration of 964 ac (390 ha) of degraded 

wetlands at the Augustine Creek impoundment (PSEG, 2009a). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-45 

A requirement of the 2001 NJPDES permit for Salem was for PSEG to evaluate and quantify the 

increased production associated with its restoration activities and compare it to the production 

lost due to entrainment and impingement at the facility. These restoration production estimates 

were provided in Section 7 of the 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006c). 

The assessment included estimates of increased production associated with the restoration of 

the three salt hay farms and 13 fish ladder sites. It did not include production associated with 

the restoration of marshes dominated by common reed, upland buffer areas, and artificial reefs 

(PSEG, 2006c). 

PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) used an Aggregated Food Chain Model (AFCM) to estimate the annual 

production (lbs wet weight/yr) of secondary consumers attributable to the restoration of the salt 

hay farm sites. This method used data for the biomass of above-ground vegetation collected 

during the annual monitoring from 2002 through 2004 to estimate primary production 

(production of above-ground marsh vegetation). This primary production was then converted to 

production of secondary consumers through three trophic transfers: vegetation to detrital 

complex (dissolved and particulate organic matter, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, 

rotifers, copepods, and other microscopic organisms) to primary consumers (zooplankton and 

macroinvertebrates) to secondary consumers (age-0 fish). PSEG also used two independent 

methods, an ecosystem model and a fish abundance model, to corroborate the AFCM 

estimates. 

PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) calculated the production of secondary consumers attributable to the 

restoration of the salt hay marsh sites to be 11,228,415 lbs wet weight/yr (5,093,209 kg wet 

weight/yr). PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) concluded that the methods used were likely to have 

underestimated total production attributable to the salt hay marsh restoration because they did 

not include production associated with below-ground plant parts (roots and rhizomes), benthic 

algae, or other primary producers such as photosynthetic bacteria. PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) 

estimated the increase in production attributable to restoration of the salt hay farms to be 2.3 

times the annual production lost from impingement and entrainment at Salem. 

PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) estimated the annual production of river herring (blueback herring and 

alewife) attributable to the installation of fish ladders at 12 impoundments in New Jersey and 

Delaware using results from surveys of juvenile fish in the impoundments, which were then 

converted to weight using an age-1 average weight. PSEG (PSEG, 2006c) calculated the 

production of river herring due to the fish ladders to be 944 lbs wet weight/yr (428 kg wet 

weight/yr), which it estimated was equivalent to about 1/6 of the production of river herring lost 

to impingement and entrainment at the facility. 

4.5.6 Conclusions 

Entrainment, impingement, heat shock, and the restoration programs simultaneously affect the 

aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary. PSEG has conducted extensive studies of the 

effects of entrainment (Section 4.5.2) and impingement (Section 4.5.3) at Salem over the more 

than 30-yr period during which it has been operating. PSEG also has conducted extensive 

studies of the thermal plume at Salem (Section 4.5.4) that have shown that the thermal 

discharge from operation of the Salem facility has not had a noticeable adverse effect on the 

balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the outfall. Thus, 

PSEG was granted a thermal variance in accordance with Section 316(a) of the CWA in 1994, 

and this variance remains a part of the current NJPDES permit issued to PSEG in 2001 and 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-46 

was administratively continued in 2006. As a clarification, the term “administratively continued” 

indicates that PSEG submitted its permit application and is able to continue to operating on its 

current NJPDES permit even though the state has not yet reviewed the application to determine 

its adequacy and acceptability. Reviewing 316(b) demonstrations for the purpose of NPDES 

permitting is outside of NRC’s purview. 

As described in previous sections, the effects of operation on many species have not been 

noticeable and have not shown signs of destabilizing any species populations, which satisfies 

the NRC’s definition of a small level of impact. However, in the comments received on the draft 

SEIS from members of the public, the NJDEP, and the FWS, the NRC identified new 

information suggesting that the level of impact due to entrainment, impingement, and heat 

shock is greater than small. For example, The NJDEP’s, which is much more familiar with the 

studies at the site than the NRC, continues to be concerned with the issue of impacts to the 

eggs, larval forms, juveniles and adults of fish, shellfish and other invertebrate species which 

exist in the Delaware River Estuary (Brubaker 2010). The Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources & Environmental Control (DNREC) has conducted studies indicating that loss of 

striped bass to the fishery could be as large as 181 percent of Delaware’s average combined 

sport and commercial harvest from 1995 through 1999 (Kahn 2001). Both PSEG’s and the 

Delaware DNREC’s studies indicate that loss of weakfish to the fishery is 165 percent of 

Delaware’s average combined sport and commercial harvest from 1999 (Kahn 2000). Similar 

levels of impact could occur for other species. Such effects would clearly be noticeable, 

although the current available information is inadequate to conclude that operation of the plant 

has destabilized aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary within the vicinity of the Salem and 

Hope Creek facilities. Due to the uncertainty of definitive data, these conditions have the 

potential to satisfy the NRC’s definition of a moderate level of impact. PSEG has agreed to 

restore a large area of degraded wetlands, acquire more upland buffers in addition to the 

acreage required in the permit, and fund construction of artificial reefs on the Delaware side of 

the Delaware Estuary (PSEG 2009b). Such measures would increase productivity of the 

estuary and make any adverse effects of plant operation less noticeable. For example, 

modeling of marsh productivity and food web transfer indicate that both striped bass and 

weakfish would benefit from marsh restoration (PSEG 2006c, Page 144). 

The staff considered these results and reviewed the available information, including that 

provided by the applicant, the staff’s site visit, the States of New Jersey and Delaware, the 

NJPDES permits and applications, and other public sources. The NJDEP, not the NRC, is 

responsible for issuing and enforcing NPDES permits. NRC staff’s review assumes that NJDEP 

will continue to apply the best information available to the evaluation and approval of future 

NJPDES permits. The staff concludes that impacts to fish and shellfish from the collective 

effects of entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at Salem during the renewal term would be 

SMALL to MODERATE. The staff identified a variety of measures that could mitigate potential 

impacts resulting from continued operation of the Salem cooling water system, although it 

should be noted that the NRC cannot impose mitigation requirements on the applicant. The 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in the “Yellow Creek” case determined that EPA has 

sole jurisdiction over the regulation of water quality with respect to the withdrawal and discharge 

of waters for nuclear power stations and that the NRC is prohibited from placing any restrictions 

or requirements upon the licensees of those facilities with regards to water quality (Tennessee 

Valley Authority [Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 712-13 

[1978]). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-47 

A few mitigation measures for the effects of the cooling water system on aquatic organisms 

include conversion to a closed cycle cooling water system, scheduling plant outages during 

historic peak impingement and entrainment periods, installing variable speed drive controllers 

on the pump motors to allow flow reductions during months of high biological activity, the use of 

dual-flow fine-mesh screens, and the use of a sound deterrent system for fish. These mitigation 

measures could reduce impacts by reducing the flow rate of water drawn into the facility, 

resulting in a commensurate decrease in impingement and entrainment, or by excluding 

organisms from the intake or deterring them from entering the area. 

PSEG performed a cost-benefit analysis of these mitigation measures as part of its CDS for the 

2006 NPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006c). EPA’s evaluation of the Salem 

NPDES permit renewal application would likely address any applicable site-specific mitigation 

measures that may reduce entrainment and impingement impacts. EPA’s Phase II Rule has 

been suspended, and compliance with CWA Section 316(b) is presently based on NJDEP’s 

best professional judgment. 

4.6 Terrestrial Resources 

The Category 1 issues related to terrestrial resources and applicable to Salem and HCGS are 

listed in Table 4-19. There are no Category 2 issues related to terrestrial resources. Section 

2.2.6 provides a description of the terrestrial resources at the site of the Salem and HCGS 

facilities and in the surrounding area. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-48 

Table 4-19. Terrestrial Resources Issues Applicable to Salem and/or HCGS. 

Issues GEIS 

Section Category 

Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation(a) 4.3.4 1 

Cooling tower impacts on native plants(a) 4.3.5.1 1 

Bird collisions with cooling towers(a) 4.3.5.2 1 

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide 

application)(b) 4.5.6.1 1 

Bird collisions with power lines(b) 4.5.6.1 1 

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, 

agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) (b) 4.5.6.3 1 

Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-way(b) 4.5.7 1 

(a)Applicable only to HCGS. (b)Applicable to Salem and HCGS. 

The staff did not identify any new and significant information during the review of the Salem and 

HCGS ER documents (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b), the staff’s site audit, the scoping process, or the 

evaluation of other available information (including bird mortality surveys conducted for the 

HCGS cooling tower from 1984 to 1986). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would 

be no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GElS (NRC, 1996). 

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

4.7 Threatened or Endangered Species 

Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are listed as a site-specific or Category 

2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The GEIS section and category 

for this issue are listed in Table 4-20. 

Table 4-20. Category 2 Issues Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species During 

the Renewal Term 

Issue GEIS Section Category

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 2 

This site-specific issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether 

threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by 

continued operation of the nuclear facility during the license renewal term. The characteristics 

and habitats of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the site of the Salem and 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-49 

HCGS facilities is discussed in Sections 2.2.7.1 and 2.2.7.2. The NRC contacted the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on December 23, 

2009 to request information on the occurrence of threatened, endangered, or other protected 

species in the vicinity of the site and the potential for impacts on those species from license 

renewal (NRC, 2009a; 2009b). On February 11, 2010, NMFS, identified the endangered 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) as having the potential to be affected by the proposed action (NMFS, 2010). The 

Atlantic sturgeon is currently a candidate species be considered for being listed as an 

endangered species. Additionally, NMFS identified four Federally listed sea turtle species: the 

loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), green turtle (Chelonia 

mydas), and leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), as having the potential to be adversely 

affected by the proposed action. These six species, their habitats, and their life histories, are 

described in Section 2.2.7.1. 

The FWS (2010) responded on June 29, 2010, and indicated that no Federally listed species 

are known to occur in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. Potential habitat for the bog 

turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergil) and swamp pink (Helonias bullata) exist along the New Freedom 

North and New Freedom South transmission line ROWs; however, the FWS concluded that the 

continued operation of Salem and HCGS is unlikely to adversely affect these species (FWS, 

2010).

4.7.1 Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species of the Delaware Estuary 

Pursuant to consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

the staff sent a letter to NMFS dated December 23, 2009 (NRC, 2009a) requesting information 

on Federally listed endangered or threatened species and proposed or candidate species. In its 

response on February 11, 2010, NMFS stated that the shortnose sturgeon, the Atlantic 

sturgeon, and four sea turtle species are known to occur in the Delaware River and estuary in 

the vicinity of Salem and HCGS, and that no critical habitat is currently designated by NMFS 

near these facilities (NMFS, 2010). 

At Salem, NMFS considers takes to include mortalities as well as turtles that are impinged but 

removed alive and released. In 1991, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion that found that 

continued operation of Salem and HCGS would affect threatened or endangered sea turtles but 

was not likely to jeopardize any populations, and it issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 

for Kemp’s ridley, green, and loggerhead turtles and shortnose sturgeon. The number of turtles 

impinged in 1991 was unexpectedly high, exceeding the incidental take allowed and resulting in 

additional consultation. An opinion issued in 1992 revised the ITS. The impingement of sea 

turtles exceeded the allowable take in 1992 as well, prompting additional consultation between 

NRC and NMFS (NMFS, 1999). A 1993 Biological Opinion (NMFS 1993) required that PSEG 

track all loggerhead sea turtles taken alive at the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and 

released. Also in 1993, PSEG implemented a policy of removing the ice barriers from the trash 

racks on the intake structure during the period between May 1 and October 24, which resulted 

in substantially lower turtle impingement rates at Salem. 

In 1999, NRC requested that the studies of released turtles be eliminated due to the reduction in 

the number of turtles impinged after the 1993 change in procedure regarding the removal of ice 

barriers. NMFS responded in 1999 with a letter and an incidental take statement stating that 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-50 

these studies could be discontinued because it appeared that the reason for the relatively high 

impingement numbers previously was the ice barriers that had been left on the intake structure 

during the warmer months (NMFS, 1999). This letter allowed an annual incidental take of 5 

shortnose sturgeon, 30 loggerhead sea turtles, 5 green sea turtles, and 5 Kemp's ridley sea 

turtles. In addition, the statement required ice barrier removal by May 1 and replacement after 

October 24, and it required that in the warmer months the trash racks must be cleaned weekly 

and inspected every other hour, and in the winter they should be cleaned every other week. 

The statement requires that if a turtle is killed, the racks must be inspected every hour for the 

rest of the warm season. Dead shortnose sturgeon are required to be inspected for tags, and 

live sturgeon are to be tagged and released (NMFS, 1999). No sea turtles have been captured 

at Salem since 2001 (NMFS, 2009). 

No shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles have been impinged at the HCGS intake structure (NMFS, 

2009), and NMFS has not required monitoring at HCGS beyond normal cleaning of the intake 

structure (NMFS, 1993). 

The staff discusses the potential effects of entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharges 

on these and other important species in Sections 4.5.2, 4.5.3, and 4.5.4. Based on examination 

by the staff of entrainment data provided by PSEG, there is no evidence that the eggs or larvae 

of either sturgeon species are commonly entrained at Salem and HCGS. Neither of the 

sturgeon species is on the list of species that has been identified in annual entrainment 

monitoring during the 1978 – 2008 period (Table 4.21). The life histories of these sturgeon, 

described in Section 2.2.7.1, suggest that entrainment of their eggs or larvae is unlikely. 

Shortnose sturgeon spawn upstream in freshwater reaches of the Delaware River and are most 

abundant between Philadelphia and Trenton. Their eggs are demersal and adhere to the 

substrate, and juvenile stages tend to remain in freshwater or fresher areas of the estuary for 3 

to 5 years before moving to more saline areas such as the nearshore ocean. Thus, shortnose 

sturgeon eggs or larvae are unlikely to be present in the water column at the Salem or HCGS 

intakes well downstream of the spawning areas. Similarly, the life history of the Atlantic 

sturgeon makes entrainment of its eggs or larvae very unlikely. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-51 

Table 4-21. Impingement data for shortnose sturgeon and three sea turtle species with 

recorded impingements at Salem intakes, 1978-2008. 

Year Number Impinged(1)

Shortnose 

sturgeon 

Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle 

Green sea 

turtle 

Loggerhead sea 

turtle 

1978 2 (2) 0 0 0 

1979 0 0 0 0 

1980 0 1 1 2 (2) 

1981 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 3 (2) 

1982 0 0 0 1 (1) 

1983 0 1 (1) 0 2 (2) 

1984 0 1 0 2 (2) 

1985 0 2 (1) 0 6 (5) 

1986 0 1 (1) 0 0 

1987 0 3 (1) 0 3 

1988 0 2 (1) 0 8 (6) 

1989 0 6 (2) 0 2 

1990 0 0 0 0 

1991 3 (3) 1 1 23 (1) 

1992 2 (2) 4 (2) 1 (1) 10 

1993 0 1 0 0 

1994 2 (2) 0 0 1 

1995 0 0 0 1 (1) 

1996 0 0 0 0 

1997 0 0 0 0 

1998 3 (1) 0 0 1 (1) 

1999 1 0 0 0 

2000 1 (1) 0 0 2 (1) 

2001 0 0 0 1 (1) 

2002 0 0 0 0 

2003 1 (1) 0 0 0

2004 2 (1) 0 0 1

2005 0 0 0 0

2006 0 0 0 0

2007 1 (1) 0 0 0

2008 1 (1) 0 0 0

2009 0 0 0 0 

Total 20 (16) 24 (10) 3 (1) 69 (25) 

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

either dead when found at the intakes or died afterward. Impingements of Atlantic sturgeon or 

leatherback sea turtles were not reported in the data on which this table was based.

Source: PSEG, 2010d. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-52 

Both sturgeon species and three of the four turtle species have been impinged at Salem. 

Atlantic sturgeon were collected in impingement studies in a single year, 2006 (PSEG, 2006a). 

From 1978 through 2009, 20 shortnose sturgeon were impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 

16 died. Between 1978 and 2008, 24 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles were impinged, of which ten 

died. Three green turtles (one died) and 69 loggerhead turtles (25 died) also were impinged. 

Impingement of the turtles was greatest in 1991 and 1992 (Table 4.21). After PSEG modified its 

use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement numbers returned to levels much lower than 

in 1991. From 1994 through 2009, Salem impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads), and 

four of these died. Also during this 16-yr period, 12 shortnose sturgeon were impinged, of which 

eight died. Sea turtles have not been impinged at Salem since 2004 (NMFS, 2009). 

Section 4.5.4 discusses potential impacts of thermal discharges on the aquatic biota of the 

Delaware Estuary, and the staff expects that impacts on fish and invertebrates, including those 

preyed upon by sturgeon and sea turtles, to be minimal. The high exit velocity of the discharge 

produces rapid dilution, which limits high temperatures to relatively small areas in the zone of 

initial mixing in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Fish and many other organisms are 

largely excluded from these areas due to high velocities and turbulence. Shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon and the four sea turtle species have little potential to experience adverse effects from 

exposure to the temperatures at the discharge because of their life history characteristics and 

their mobility. Sturgeon spawning and nursery areas do not occur in the area of the discharge 

in the estuary, and adult sturgeon forage on the bottom while the buoyant thermal plume rises 

toward the surface. Sea turtles prefer warmer water temperatures, occur in the region only 

during warm months, and are unlikely to be sensitive to the localized area of elevated 

temperatures at the discharge. NMFS (1993) considered the possibility that the warm water 

near the discharge could cause sea turtles to remain in the area until surrounding waters are too 

cold for their safe departure in the fall, but it concluded that this scenario was not supported by 

any existing data. 

The staff reviewed information from the site audit, the applicant’s ERs for Salem and HCGS, 

biological monitoring reports, other reports, and coordination with NMFS, FWS, and State 

regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding listed species. The staff concludes 

that the impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species of the Delaware 

Estuary during an additional 20 years of operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities would be 

SMALL. 

4.7.2 Terrestrial and Freshwater Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 

The staff reviewed information from the site audit, ERs for Salem and HCGS, other reports, and 

coordinated with FWS and State regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Delaware regarding 

listed species. The FWS (2010) indicated that no Federally listed terrestrial species are known 

to occur on or in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS sites. As noted by the FWS, the bald 

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), while not a listed threatened and endangered species, has 

numerous areas of foraging, nesting, and wintering habitat along the in-scope transmission 

lines. The FWS (2010) also noted that areas of potential habitat and/or known occurrences of 

the bog turtle and swamp pink exist along the New Freedom North and New Freedom South 

transmission line ROWs, but that the continued operation of Salem and HCGS are unlikely to 

adversely affect either species because of a commitment by Public Service Electric and Gas 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-53 

Company to the FWS, by letter dated October 23, 2009, which adopted FWS-recommended 

conservation measures along the transmission line ROWS. 

After further consultation between NRC staff, the FWS and the applicant, it was clarified that the 

referenced October 23, 2009, letter was submitted to the FWS by Public Service Electric and 

Gas Company (not the applicant). Public Service Electric and Gas Company is a subsidiary of 

Public Service Enterprise Group, which also owns PSEG Nuclear. Public Service Electric and 

Gas owns and maintains the transmission lines; however, it is not a licensee of the NRC. 

In its review of potential impact to terrestrial and freshwater aquatic threatended or endangered 

species, the NRC staff acknowledges that efforts by the Public Service Electric and Gas 

Company to adopt conservation measures along the transmission lines, as described in the 

letter dated October 23, 2009, provide mitigative measures for adverse impacts. Should the 

NRC be informed of future changes to the maintenance practices along the transmission line 

ROWs that may remove such mitigative measures, the NRC staff would initiate consultation with 

the FWS, where appropriate. In addition, the NRC staff also acknowledges other mitigative 

measures along the transmission lines taken by Public Service Electric and Gas including its 

commitments to comply with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and other 

recommendations provided by the FWS in its letter dated September 9, 2009. 

Based on the conservation measures described in Public Service Electric and Gas Company’s 

letter dated October 23, 2009, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts on Federally-listed 

terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species from an additional 20 years of operation and 

maintenance of the Salem and HCGS facilities and associated transmission line ROWs would 

be SMALL. 

4.8 Human Health 

The human health issues applicable to Salem and HCGS are discussed below and listed in 

Table 4-22 for Category 1, Category 2, and uncategorized issues.

Table 4-22. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 

contains more information on these issues. 

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1a 1 

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2a 1 

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1 

Microbiological organisms (public health, for plants 

using lakes or canals or discharging small rivers) 4.3.6b

 2 

Noise 4.3.7 1 

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2 1 

Occupation radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 1 

Electromagnetic fields – acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 2 

Electromagnetic fields – chronic effects 4.5.4.2 Uncategorized 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-54 

a

 - Issues apply to refurbishment, an activity that neither Salem nor HCGS plan to undertake. 

b

 - Issue applies to plant features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small 

rivers. Neither Salem nor HCGS have applicable features. 

4.8.1 Generic Human Health Issues 

The staff did not identify any new and significant information related to human health issues or 

radiation exposures during its review of the PSEG environmental reports, the site audit, or the 

scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those 

discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are SMALL, and 

additional site-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be 

warranted (Category 1 issues). These impacts will remain SMALL through the license renewal 

term. 

4.8.2 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, applicable to Salem 

and HCGS in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-22. PSEG stated in its ER that 

it was not aware of any new radiological issues associated with the renewal of the Salem and 

HCGS operating licenses. The staff has not identified any new and significant information, 

during its independent review of PSEG’s ER, the site audit, the scoping process, or its 

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no 

impact from radiation exposures to the public or to workers during the renewal term beyond 

those discussed in the GEIS. 

According to the GEIS, the impacts to human health are SMALL, and additional plant-specific 

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted 

• Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, 

the Commission found the following: 

Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with 

normal operations. 

• Occupational exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the 

Commission found the following: 

Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are 

within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal 

maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits. 

Therefore, the staff expects that there would be no impacts during the renewal term beyond 

those discussed in the GEIS. 

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

The information presented below is a discussion of selected radiological programs conducted at 

Salem and HCGS. 

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-55 

PSEG conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) to assess the 

radiological impact, if any, to its employees, the public, and the environment around the plant 

site. The REMP provides measurements of radiation and of radioactive materials for the 

exposure pathways and the radionuclides which lead to the highest potential radiation 

exposures to the public. The REMP supplements the radioactive effluent monitoring program 

by verifying that any measurable concentrations of radioactive materials and levels of radiation 

in the environment are not higher than those calculated using the radioactive effluent release 

measurements and transport models. 

The objectives of the REMP are as follows: 

• To fulfill the requirements of the radiological surveillance sections of the Plants’ Technical 

Specifications and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. 

• To determine whether any significant increase occurred in the concentration of radionuclides 

in critical pathways for the transfer of radionuclides through the environment to man. 

• To determine if operation of the plants caused an increase in the radioactive inventory of 

long-lived radionuclides in the environment. 

• To detect any change in ambient gamma radiation levels. 

• To verify that operation of the plants have no detrimental effects on the health and safety of 

the public or on the environment. 

 An annual radiological environmental operating report is issued, which contains a discussion of 

the results of the monitoring program. The report contains data on the monitoring performed for 

the most recent year as well as graphs containing historical information. The REMP collects 

samples of environmental media in order to measure the radioactivity levels that may be 

present. The media samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways that may 

impact the public. The REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environment 

for radioactivity, as well as the ambient radiation. Ambient radiation pathways include radiation 

from radioactive material inside buildings and plant structures and airborne material that may be 

released from the plant. In addition, the REMP measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic 

sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring radioactive material, including radon). 

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure ambient radiation. The 

atmospheric environmental monitoring consists of sampling and analyzing the air for 

particulates and radioiodine. Terrestrial environmental monitoring consists of analyzing 

samples of locally grown vegetables and fodder crops, drinking water, groundwater, meat, and 

milk. The aquatic environmental monitoring consists of analyzing samples of surface water, 

fish, crabs, and sediment. An annual land use census is conducted to determine if the REMP 

needs to be revised to reflect changes in the environment or population that might alter the 

radiation exposure pathways. Salem and HCGS has an onsite groundwater protection program 

designed to monitor the onsite plant environment for early detection of leaks from plant systems 

and pipes containing radioactive liquid (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b; 2010c). Additional information on 

the groundwater protection program is contained later in this section and in the Ground Water 

Quality section in Chapter 2 of this document. 

The staff reviewed the Salem and HCGS annual radiological environmental operating reports for 

2005 through 2009 to look for any significant impacts to the environment or any unusual trends 

in the data (PSEG, 2006b; 2007b; 2008c; 2009f; 2010c). A five year period provides a 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-56 

representative data set that covers a broad range of activities that occur at a nuclear power 

plant such as refueling outages, non-refueling outage years, routine operation, and years where 

there may be significant maintenance activities. Based on the staff’s review, no unusual trends 

were observed and the data showed that there was no significant radiological impact to the 

environment from operations at Salem and HCGS. Small amounts of radioactive material (i.e., 

tritium, cesium-137, and manganese-54) were detected below NRC’s reporting values for 

radionuclides in environmental samples. Overall, the results, with the exception of the on-site 

groundwater contaminated with tritium, were comparable to the results obtained during the 

preoperational phase of the REMP and with historical results obtained since commercial 

operation. 

The NJDEP’s Bureau of Nuclear Engineering performs an independent Environmental 

Surveillance and Monitoring Program (ESMP) in the environment around the Salem and Hope 

Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. The ESMP provides a comprehensive monitoring strategy 

that ensures that New Jersey citizens are aware of and, if necessary, protected from harmful 

exposure to radioactive effluent discharges from New Jersey’s nuclear power plants during 

normal or accident operations. 

The specific objectives of the ESMP are to monitor pathways for entry of radioactivity into the 

environment in order to identify potential exposures to the population from routine and 

accidental releases of radioactive effluent, and to provide a summary and interpretation of this 

information to members of the public and government agencies. 

The staff reviewed the NJDEP’s 2008 report (the most recent report available to the staff at the 

time this draft SEIS was prepared) which contains information on the environmental sampling 

conducted during the time period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. The State 

reported the following: “Overall, the data collected by the NJDEP’s ESMP throughout 2008 

indicate that residents living in the area around Oyster Creek and Salem/Hope Creek nuclear 

power plants have not received measurable exposures of radiation above normal background” 

(NJDEP, 2009). 

Radiological Groundwater Protection Program

In response to an identified radioactive liquid release from the Salem Unit 1 spent fuel pool in 

2002, PSEG implemented a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) and developed a voluntary 

Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) in 2006 that added additional 

groundwater sampling locations, outside the scope of the REMP. The RAWP, which was 

reviewed by the NRC and approved by the NJDEP, is a program designed to remediate the 

site’s groundwater to remove the tritiated groundwater and control the tritium plume from 

reaching the site boundary and impacting the off-site environment. The results of the RGPP 

groundwater monitoring program have been reported in the annual radiological environmental 

operating report since 2006. 

The radiological monitoring data for 2009 showed a wide range of tritium concentrations in the 

on-site groundwater. For HCGS, the results show that tritium was detected at concentrations 

that ranged from the lower limit of detection value of 200 pico Curies per liter (pCi/L) to a 

maximum of 7,778 pCi/L. As a result of the positive indications of tritium, the applicant 

increased the sampling frequency for the monitoring wells. Subsequent sampling did not 

reproduce the highest levels observed; however, variations in the levels were observed 

throughout 2009. As a result, the applicant continues to track the concentrations of tritium in the 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-57 

groundwater to determine if a trend can be observed. For the Salem units, the results show that 

tritium was detected in on-site groundwater in concentrations that ranged from the lower limit of 

detection value of 200 pCi/L to a maximum of 2,259 pCi/L. The applicant is tracking the tritium 

concentration levels to determine if a trend can be observed (PSEG, 2010c). The staff notes 

that no groundwater samples reached the NRC’s reporting level of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium in 

environmental samples. 

As part of the applicant’s investigation for new and significant information that is relevant to its 

license renewal application, the issue of tritium in the groundwater was evaluated. The 

applicant’s evaluation concludes that changes in tritium-related groundwater quality are not 

significant at Salem and would not preclude current or future uses of the groundwater for the 

following reasons: 

• Although tritium concentrations are elevated in the shallow aquifer beneath Salem, PSEG 

has been performing remedial actions since 2004, and concentrations continue to decrease. 

• Tritium concentrations in groundwater are due to an historic incident; the source (spend fuel 

pool water leak) has been eliminated. 

• No tritium concentrations above either the EPA Drinking Water Standard or the NJDEP 

Ground Water Quality Criterion have migrated to the property boundary or into geologic 

formations deeper than the shallow aquifer. Offsite tritium concentrations are below 

regulatory limits. 

• There is no human exposure pathway and, therefore, no threat to public or employee health 

or safety. 

Radioactive Effluent Release Program

All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release radioactive 

material to both the air and water during normal operation. However, NRC regulations require 

that radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from nuclear power plants must meet radiation 

dose-based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, and as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) 

criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The regulatory limits protect plant workers and 

members of the public from radioactive material released by a nuclear power plant. In addition, 

nuclear power plants are required to file an annual report to the NRC which lists the types and 

quantities of radioactive effluents released into the environment. The radioactive effluent 

release and radiological environmental monitoring reports are available for review by the public 

through the NRC’s ADAMS electronic reading room on the NRC website. 

The staff reviewed the annual radioactive effluent release reports for 2005 through 2009 (PSEG, 

2006d; PSEG, 2007c; PSEG, 2008b; PSEG, 2008e; PSEG, 2010b). The review focused on the 

calculated doses to a member of the public from radioactive effluents released from Salem and 

HCGS. The doses were compared to the radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301 and 

the ALARA dose design objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

Dose estimates for members of the public are calculated based on radioactive gaseous and 

liquid effluent release data and atmospheric and aquatic transport models. The 2009 annual 

radioactive material release report (PSEG, 2010b) contains a detailed presentation of the 

radioactive discharges and the resultant calculated doses. The following summarizes the 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-58 

calculated dose to a member of the public located outside the Salem and HCGS site boundary 

from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released during 2009: 

Salem Units 1 and 2

• The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents 

from Salem Unit 1 was 3.22 ×10-5 millirem (mrem; 3.22 ×10-7 millisieverts [mSv]) and 

2.72 ×10-5 mrem (2.72 ×10-7 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) 

dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

• The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite 

member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents from Salem Unit 1 was 8.60 ×10-05

mrem (8.60 ×10-7 mSv) and 8.89 × 10-5 (8.89 ×10-7 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below 

the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 

CFR Part 50. 

• The air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous effluents from Salem 

Unit 1 was 1.28 × 10-4 millirad (mrad; 1.28 ×10-6 megagray [mGy]), and 2.74 ×10-5 mrad 

(2.74 ×10-7 mGy) for Unit 2, which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose criterion for 

an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

• The air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous effluents from Salem 

Unit 1 was 3.14 × 10-4 mrad (3.14 10-6 mGy) and 1.46 ×10-5 mrad (1.46 ×10-7 mGy) for 

Unit 2, which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 mGy) dose criterion for an individual reactor 

unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

• The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of a member of 

the public at the site boundary from radioactive iodine, tritium, and radioactive particulate 

matter from Unit 1 was 2.70 ×10-3 mrem (2.70 ×10-5 mSv) and 1.65 ×10-3 mrem (1.65 

×10-5 mSv) for Unit 2, which is well below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) dose criterion for an 

individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

Hope Creek Generating Station

• The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents 

from HCGS was 8.32 ×10-5 mrem (8.32 ×10-7 mSv), which is well below the 3 mrem 

(0.03 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

• The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite 

member of the public from radioactive liquid effluents from HCGS was 3.05 ×10-4 mrem 

(3.05 ×10-6 mSv), which is well below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion for an 

individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

• The air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous effluents from HCGS 

was 7.29 ×10-4 mrad (7.29 ×10-6 mGy), which is well below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose 

criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

• The air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous effluents from HCGS 

was 7.34 ×10-4 mrad (7.34 ×10-6 mGy), which is well below the 20 mrad (0.2 mGy) dose 

criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-59 

• The maximum dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of a member of 

the public at the site boundary from radioactive iodine, tritium, and radioactive particulate 

matter from HCGS was 1.97 ×10-2 mrem (1.97 ×10-4 mSv), which is well below the 15 

mrem (0.15 mSv) dose criterion for an individual reactor unit in Appendix I to 10 CFR 

Part 50. 

Salem – Hope Creek Site Total

• The total-body dose to an offsite member of the public from the combined radioactive 

effluents from all three reactor units was 7.26 ×10-3 mrem (7.26 ×10-5 mSv), which is well 

below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) dose criterion in 40 CFR Part 190. 

• The dose to any organ (i.e., skin, thyroid, liver, G.I. tract, etc.) of an offsite member of 

the public from the combined radioactive effluents from all three reactor units was 

2.54×10 -2 mrem (2.54 ×10-4 mSv), which is well below the 25 mrem (0.25 mSv) dose 

criterion in 40 CFR Part 190. 

• The thyroid dose to an offsite member of the public from the combined radioactive 

effluents from all three reactor units was 2.41 ×10-2 mrem (2.41 ×10-4 mSv), which is well 

below the 75 mrem (0.75 mSv) dose criterion in 40 CFR Part 190. 

Based on the staff’s review of the Salem and HCGS radioactive waste system’s performance in 

controlling radioactive effluents and the resultant doses to members of the public in 

conformance with the ALARA criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, the staff found that the 

2009 radiological effluent data for Salem and HCGS are consistent, within reasonable variation 

attributable to operating conditions and outages, with the historical data. The results 

demonstrate that Salem and HCGS are operating in compliance with Federal radiation 

protection standards contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 20, and 40 CFR 

Part 190. 

Routine plant operational and maintenance activities currently performed will continue during 

the license renewal term. Based on the past performance of the radioactive waste system to 

maintain the dose from radioactive effluents to be ALARA, similar performance is expected 

during the license renewal term. 

The radiological impacts from the current operation of Salem and HCGS are not expected to 

change significantly. Continued compliance with regulatory requirements is expected during the 

license renewal term; therefore, the impacts from radioactive effluents would be SMALL. 

4.8.3 Microbiological Organisms – Public Health 

Both Salem and HCGS have thermal discharges to the Delaware Estuary, a large brackish, 

tidally-influenced water body that allows their thermal plumes to disperse quickly. There are no 

other facilities that release thermal discharges to the Estuary in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. 

Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and Table 4-22 list the effects of 

thermophilic microbiological organisms on human health as a Category 2 issue and requires the 

conduct of a plant-specific evaluation before license renewal. This issue applies to plant 

features such as cooling lakes or cooling towers that discharge to small rivers. NRC has 

determined that Salem and HCGS discharge to an estuary (NRC, 1996). Neither Salem nor 

HCGS use cooling ponds, cooling lakes, cooling canals, or discharge to a small river. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-60 

Therefore, this issue does not apply and the effects of plant discharges on microbiological 

organisms do not need to be addressed for license renewal. 

4.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields – Acute Effects 

Based on the GEIS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 

energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 

problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the 

license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 

the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 

of this SEIS. 

In the GEIS (NRC, 1996), the staff found that without a review of the conformance of each 

nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria, it was not 

possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential (IEEE, 2007). Evaluation of 

individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was 

not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity 

of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to 

upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an 

assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the 

transmission lines if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of 

connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC 

for preventing electric shock from induced currents. 

As described in Section 2.1.5, four 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines were specifically 

constructed to distribute power to the electrical grid from the Salem and HCGS. One 500-kV 

line, the HCGS-New Freedom line, was originally constructed to connect HCGS to the 

transmission system. Two additional lines, Salem-New Freedom North and Salem-Keeney (via 

Red Lion substation), were originally built for Salem but have since been connected to HCGS. 

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

PSEG conducted an analysis of the Salem and HCGS transmission lines using a computer 

model of induced current under the line and the results were field verified. PSEG calculated 

electric field strength and induced current using a computer code called ACDCLINE, produced 

by the Electric Power Research Institute. The analysis determined that there are no locations 

under the transmission lines that have the capacity to induce more than 5 milliamperes (mA) in 

a vehicle parked beneath the line. Therefore, the lines meet the NESC 5 mA criterion. The 

maximum induced current calculated for the power lines was 4.2 mA for the Salem-New 

Freedom South line (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 

PSEG also conducts regular aerial and ground surveillance and maintenance to ensure that 

design ground clearances do not change. The aerial patrols of all corridors include checks for 

encroachments, broken conductors, broken or leaning structures, and signs of burnt trees, any 

of which would be evidence of clearance problems. Ground inspections include examination for 

clearance at questionable locations, examination for integrity of structures, and surveillance for 

dead or diseased trees that might fall on the transmission line. Problems noted during any 

inspection are brought to the attention of the appropriate organizations for corrective action 

(PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-61 

The staff has reviewed the available information, including the applicant's evaluation and 

computational results for the potential impacts of electric shock resulting from operation of 

Salem and HCGS and their associated transmission lines. The staff concludes that the 

potential impacts of electric shock during the renewal term would be SMALL. 

4.8.5 Electromagnetic Fields – Chronic Effects

In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-hertz (Hz) electromagnetic fields from power lines were 

not designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the 

health implications of these fields. 

The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at 

this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 

research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 

The report by NIEHS (NIEHS, 1999) contains the following conclusion: 

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field) 

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that 

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to 

warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the 

United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive 

regulatory action is warranted such as continued emphasis on educating both the public 

and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does 

not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence 

of a risk to currently warrant concern. 

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the 

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The NRC staff considers the GEIS finding of “not 

applicable” still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue. 

4.9 Socioeconomics 

The socioeconomic issues applicable to Salem and HCGS during the license renewal term are 

listed in Table 4-23, including applicable GEIS section and category (Category 1, Category 2, or 

uncategorized). 

Table 4-23. Socioeconomic Issues. Section 2.2.8 of this report describes the 

socioeconomic conditions near Salem and HCGS.

Issue GEIS Section Category 

Housing impacts 4.7.1 2 

Public services: public safety, social 

services, and tourism and recreation 

4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6 1 

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 2 

Public services: education (license renewal 

term) 

4.7.3.1 1 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-62 

Issue GEIS Section Category 

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 2 

Public services: transportation 4.7.3.2 2 

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 2 

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6 1 

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines 

(license renewal term) 

4.5.8 1 

Environmental justice Not addressed (a) Uncategorized (a) 

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated 

revisions to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in 

plant-specific reviews. 

4.9.1 Generic Socioeconomic Issues 

The NRC reviewed and evaluated the Salem and HCGS ERs (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b), scoping 

comments, and other available information, and visited the Salem and HCGS sites and did not 

identify any new and significant information that would change the conclusions presented in the 

GElS. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the Category 1 issues during the period 

of extended operation beyond those discussed in the GElS. For Salem and HCGS, the GElS 

conclusions for Category 1 issues are incorporated by reference. Impacts for Category 2 and 

uncategorized issues are discussed in the following sections. 

4.9.2 Housing Impacts 

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 501,820 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) of 

Salem and HCGS, which equates to a population density of 450 persons per square mile 

(PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). This density translates to GEIS Category 4 – least sparse (greater than 

or equal to 120 persons per square mile within 20 mi [32km]). Approximately 5,201,842 people 

live within 50 mi (80 km) of Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). This equates to a 

population density of 771 persons per square mile. Applying the GEIS proximity measures, this 

value translates to a Category 4 – in close proximity (greater than or equal to 190 persons per 

square mile within 50 mi [80 km]). Therefore, according to the sparseness and proximity matrix 

presented in the GEIS, the sparseness Category 4 and proximity Category 4 indicate that Salem 

and HCGS are located in a high population area. 

Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that impacts on housing 

availability are expected to be of small significance in high-density population areas where 

growth control measures are not in effect. Since Salem and HCGS are located in a high 

population area, and Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem, and New Castle Counties are not subject 

to growth control measures that would limit housing development, any changes in employment 

at Salem and HCGS would have little noticeable effect on housing availability in these counties. 

Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 

employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively constant with no additional 

demand for permanent housing during the license renewal term. In addition, the number of 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-63 

available housing units has kept pace with or exceeded the growth in the area population. 

Based on this information, there would be no additional impact on housing during the license 

renewal term beyond what has already been experienced. 

4.9.3 Public Services: Public Utilities 

As discussed in Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS, impacts on public utility services (e.g., water, sewer) 

are considered SMALL if the public utility has the ability to respond to changes in demand and 

would have no need to add or modify facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if service 

capabilities are overtaxed during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if 

additional system capacity is needed to meet ongoing demand. 

Analysis of impacts on the public water and sewer systems considered both facility demand and 

facility-related population growth. As previously discussed in Section 2.1.7, Salem and HCGS 

obtain their potable water supply directly from groundwater sources. The facility does not 

purchase water from a public water system. Water usage by Salem and HCGS has not 

stressed the supply source capacity (usage is approximately 41 percent of the permitted 

withdrawal [DRBC, 2000; NJDEP, 2004b]) and is not currently an issue. PSEG has no plans to 

increase Salem and HCGS staffing due to refurbishment or new construction activities, and has 

identified no operational changes during the license renewal term that would increase potable 

water use by the facilities. 

Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 

employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged with no additional 

demand for public water services. Public water systems in the region are adequate to meet the 

demand of residential and industrial customers in the area. Therefore, there would be no 

additional impact to public water services during the license renewal term beyond what is 

currently being experienced. 

4.9.4 Offsite Land Use – License Renewal Period 

Off-site land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue. Table B-1 of Appendix 

B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 notes that “significant changes in land use may be associated 

with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal.” In Section 4.7.4 of 

the GEIS, the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant operation during the period of 

extended operation is defined as follows: 

SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use 

pattern. 

MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the landuse pattern. 

LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use 

pattern. 

Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public 

services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1 of 

the GEIS states that the assessment of tax-driven land-use impacts during the license renewal 

term should consider (1) the size of the plant’s payments relative to the community’s total 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-64 

revenues, (2) the nature of the community’s existing land-use pattern, and (3) the extent to 

which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If 

the plant’s tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community’s total revenue, taxdriven land-use changes during the plant’s license renewal term would be SMALL, especially 

where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has provided adequate 

public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GEIS states that if tax 

payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction’s revenue, the 

significance level would be SMALL. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be medium to 

large relative to the community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be 

MODERATE. If the plant’s tax payments are projected to be a dominant source of the 

community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land-use changes would be LARGE. This would be 

especially true where the community has no pre-established pattern of development or has not 

provided adequate public services to support and guide development. 

Population-Related Impacts

Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 

there would be no noticeable change in land use conditions in the vicinity of the Salem and 

HCGS. Therefore, there would be no population-related land use impacts during the license 

renewal term beyond those already being experienced. 

Tax Revenue-Related Impacts

As previously discussed in Section 2.2.8.6, PSEG and the Salem site’s minority owner Exelon

pay annual real estate taxes to Lower Alloways Creek Township. From 2003 through 2009, the 

owners paid between $1.2 and $1.5 million annually in property taxes to Lower Alloways Creek 

Township. This represented between 54 and 59 percent of the township’s total annual property 

tax revenue. Each year, Lower Alloways Creek Township forwards this tax money to Salem 

County, which provides most services to township residents. The property taxes paid annually 

for Salem and HCGS during 2003 through 2009 represent approximately 2.5 to 3.5 percent of 

Salem County’s total annual property tax revenues during that time period. PSEG pays annual 

property taxes to the City of Salem for the Energy and Environmental Resource Center, located 

in Salem. However, the tax payments for the Center would continue even if the licenses for 

Salem and HCGS were not renewed; therefore, these tax payments are not considered in the 

evaluation of tax revenue-related impacts during the license renewal term. 

Since PSEG started making payments to the local jurisdiction, population levels and land use 

conditions in Lower Alloways Creek Township and Salem County have not changed 

significantly, which might indicate that these tax revenues have had little or no effect on land 

use activities within the township or county. 

Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 

employment levels at Salem and HCGS would remain relatively unchanged. There would be no 

increase in the assessed value of Salem and HCGS, and annual property tax payments to 

Lower Alloways Creek Township would be expected to remain relatively constant throughout the 

license renewal period. Based on this information, there would be no tax revenue-related landuse impacts during the license renewal term beyond those already being experienced.
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-65 

4.9.5 Public Services: Transportation Impacts 

Table B-1, 10 CFR Part 51 states: “Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic 

generated... during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small 

significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local 

road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some 

sites.” All applicants are required to assess the impacts of highway traffic generated by the 

proposed project on the level of service of local highways during the term of the renewed 

license (see 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J)). 

Since PSEG has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal period, 

traffic volume and levels of service on roadways in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS would not 

change. Therefore, there would be no transportation impacts during the license renewal term 

beyond those already being experienced. 

4.9.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take in to account 

the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic preservation review process 

mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an operating license is an undertaking 

that could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the NHPA, the NRC is to 

make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in areas of potential effects. If no historic 

properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the State Historic Preservation 

Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present the NRC is 

required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking. 

A review of the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM) files shows that there are no previously 

recorded archaeological or above ground historic architectural resources identified on the 

Salem/Hope Creek property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.1, literature review and background 

research of the plant property was conducted as part of the applicant’s ER; however, no 

systematic pedestrian or subsurface archaeological surveys have been conducted at the 

Salem/Hope Creek site to date. Background research identified 23 National Register of Historic 

Places listed resources within a 10 mi (16 km) radius of the facility; however, none are located 

within the boundaries of the Salem/Hope Creek property. 

There is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be present on most of the 

Salem/Hope Creek property. As noted in Section 2.2.9.2, due to the fact that the Salem and 

Hope Creek generating stations are located on a manmade island, there is little potential for 

prehistoric archaeological resources to be present. However, because the creation of the island 

dates to the historic period, there is potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be 

present in areas not previously disturbed by construction activities. 

No new facilities, service roads, or transmission lines are proposed for the Salem/Hope Creek 

site as a part of this operating license renewal, nor are refurbishment activities proposed. 

Therefore, the potential for National Register eligible historic or archaeological resources to be 

impacted by renewal of this operating license is SMALL. Based on this conclusion there would 

be no need to review mitigation measures. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-66 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, potential disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the 

Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in 

NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, "The Commission is 

committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of 

its NEPA review process." 

The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 

Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997):

Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. 

Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer 

fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse 

health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. 

Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 

exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is 

significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 

the general population or for another appropriate comparison group (CEQ, 1997). 

Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. 

A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) 

refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a lowincome or minority community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the 

larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 

economic, or social impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is 

determined to be both harmful and significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing 

cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically 

dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are 

considered (CEQ, 1997). 

The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the operation of Salem and HCGS during the renewal term. In assessing the 

impacts, the following definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income 

population were used (CEQ, 1997): 

Minority individuals

Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population groups: 

Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races, meaning individuals 

who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races, 

for example, Hispanic and Asian. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-67 

Minority populations

Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of an affected area 

exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population 

or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

Low-income population 

Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the annual statistical 

poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau's Current Population Reports, Series P60, 

on Income and Poverty. 

Minority Population in 2000

There are a total of 23 counties in the 50-mi (80-km) radius surrounding Salem and HCGS. Of 

these, seven are in New Jersey (Salem, Cumberland, Cape May, Atlantic, Gloucester, Camden 

and Burlington), three are in Delaware (New Castle, Kent and Sussex), six are in Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Lancaster, and York) and seven are in 

Maryland (Harford, Cecil, Baltimore, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Caroline and Talbot). 

According to 2000 Census data, 35.1 percent of the population (1,872,783 persons) residing 

within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of Salem and HCGS identified themselves as minority individuals. 

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

followed by Asian (190,983 persons or 3.1 percent). A total of 341,886 persons (5.5 percent) 

identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (USCB, 2003). 

Of the 4,579 census block groups located wholly or partly within the 50-mi radius of Salem and 

HCGS, 1,860 block groups were determined to have minority population percentages that 

exceeded the 50-mi (80-km) radius percentage (USCB, 2000a). The largest minority group was 

Black or African American, with 1,284 block groups that exceed the 50-mi (80-km) radius 

percentage. These block groups are primarily located in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. 

There were 24 block groups with Asian, 94 block groups with Some Other Race, and 1 block 

group with Two or More Races minority classifications that exceeded the 50-mi (80-km) radius 

percentage. A total of 202 block groups exceeded the 80-km (50-mi) radius percentage for 

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The minority population nearest to Salem and HCGS is located in 

the City of Salem, New Jersey. 

Based on 2000 Census data, Figure 4-7 shows minority block groups within an 50-mi (80-km) 

radius of Salem and HCGS. 

Low-Income Population in 2000

According to 2000 Census data, 119,283 families (2.2 percent) and 620,903 individuals (11.6 

percent) residing within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS were identified as living 

below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2003). (The 1999 Federal poverty 

threshold was $17,029 for a family of four). The USCB reported 6.3 percent of families and 8.5 

percent of individuals in New Jersey, 6.5 percent of families and 9.2 percent of individuals in 

Delaware, 7.8 percent of families and 11.0 percent of individuals in Pennsylvania, and 6.1 

percent of families and 8.5 percent of individuals in Maryland living below the Federal poverty 

threshold in 1999 (USCB, 2000a; 2000b). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-68 

Census block groups were considered low-income block groups if the percentage of families 

and individuals living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded the 50-mi (80 km) radius 

percentage. Based on 2000 Census data, there were 1,778 block groups within a 50-mi (80 

km) radius of Salem and HCGS that could be considered low-income block groups. The 

majority of low-income population census block groups were located in Philadelphia County, 

Pennsylvania. The low-income population nearest to Salem and HCGS is located in Lower 

Alloways Creek Township in Salem County, New Jersey. Figure 4-8 shows low-income census 

block groups within a 50-mi (80 km) radius of Salem and HCGS. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-69 

Source: USCB, 2003

Figure 4-7. Census 2000 minority block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and HCGS
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-70 

Source: USCB, 2003

Figure 4-8. Census 2000 low-income block groups within a 50-mi radius of Salem and 

HCGS 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-71 

Analysis of Impacts 

The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal through (1) identification 

of minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed license renewal, 

and (2) examining any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations to 

determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. 

The discussion and figures above indentifies the location of minority and low-income 

populations residing within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of Salem and HCGS. This area of 

impact is consistent with the impact analysis for public and occupational health and safety, 

which also considers the radiological effects on populations located within a 50-mile (80-

kilometer) radius of the plant. As previously discussed for the other resource areas in Chapter 

4, the analyses of impacts for all resource areas indicated that the impact from license renewal 

would be SMALL. 

Chapter 5 discusses the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur 

during the license renewal term, which include both design basis and severe accidents. In both 

cases, the Commission has generically determined that impacts associated with such accidents 

are SMALL because nuclear plants are designed to successfully withstand design basis 

accidents, and that any risk associated with severe accidents were also SMALL. 

Therefore, based on the overall findings discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, the NRC concludes that 

there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income 

populations from the continued operation of Salem and HCGS during the license renewal term. 

As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license renewal, the staff also 

analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of special pathway 

receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, native vegetation, surface 

waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the 

skin; and inhalation of plant materials. The special pathway receptors analysis, discussed 

below, is important to the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may 

reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area. 

Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife

Section 4-4 of EO 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and 

appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that 

rely principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

consumption patterns to the public. In this SEIS, the staff considered whether there were any 

means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining 

impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. 

Special pathways that took into account the levels of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, 

soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near Salem and HCGS were 

considered. 

PSEG has an ongoing comprehensive Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) 

at Salem and HCGS to assess the impact of site operations on the environment (see section 

4.8.2 of this draft SEIS for a complete discussion of the REMP). To assess the impact of the 

plant on the environment, samples of environmental media are collected and analyzed for 

radioactivity. A plant effect would be indicated if the radioactive material detected in a sample 

was significantly larger than the background level. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-72 

The REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environment for radioactivity, as 

well as the ambient radiation. In addition, the REMP measures background radiations (i.e., 

cosmic sources, global fallout, and naturally occurring radioactive material, including radon). 

Ambient radiation pathways include radiation from radioactive material inside buildings and 

plant structures and airborne material that may be released from the plants. Thermoluminescent 

dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure ambient radiation. The atmospheric environmental 

monitoring consists of sampling and analyzing the air for radioactive particulates and 

radioiodine. The aquatic pathways include surface water, fish, crabs, and sediment. The 

terrestrial environmental monitoring consists of analyzing locally grown vegetables and fodder 

crops, drinking water, groundwater, meat, and milk. During 2009, analyses performed on 

samples of environmental media showed no significant or measurable radiological impact above 

background levels from Salem and HCGS site operations (PSEG, 2010b). The 2009 Salem and 

Hope Creek REMP report is incorporated by reference in this SEIS. 

Previously, PSEG had also tested muskrat populations in the area. Muskrats are trapped and 

consumed by the local population (PSEG, 2006c). As of 2006, no muskrat samples have been 

available for testing as the trappers who were supplying PSEG with samples were no longer 

operating (PSEG, 2007c). The last muskrat data was collected in 2005; only one sample 

detectable levels of potassium-40; no other radionuclides were detected (PSEG, 2006c). 

The results of the 2009 REMP sampling and previous REMP reports (including the 

consideration of 2005 REMP muskrat data) demonstrate that the routine operation at Salem and 

HCGS has had no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. No 

elevated radiation levels have been detected in the offsite environment as a result of plant 

operations and the storage of radioactive waste. 

The NJDEP’s Bureau of Nuclear Engineering performs an independent Environmental 

Surveillance and Monitoring Program (ESMP) in the environment around the Salem and Hope 

Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. The ESMP provides a comprehensive monitoring strategy 

that ensures that New Jersey citizens are aware of and, if necessary, protected from harmful 

exposure to radioactive effluent discharges from New Jersey’s nuclear power plants during 

normal or accident operations. 

The specific objectives of the ESMP are to monitor pathways for entry of radioactivity into the 

environment in order to identify potential exposures to the population from routine and 

accidental releases of radioactive effluent, and to provide a summary and interpretation of this 

information to members of the public and government agencies. 

The NRC reviewed the NJDEP’s 2008 report (the most recent report available at the time this 

draft SEIS was prepared) which contains information on the environmental sampling conducted 

during the time period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. The State reported the 

following: “Overall, the data collected by the NJDEP’s ESMP throughout 2008 indicate that 

residents living in the area around Oyster Creek and Salem/Hope Creek nuclear power plants 

have not received measurable exposures of radiation above normal background” (NJDEP, 

2009a). 

Additionally, NJDEP BNE monitors the groundwater on site at Artificial Island in conjunction with 

the remedial action being undertaken by PSEG to address tritium contamination detected in 

shallow groundwater near Salem Unit 1. There is no evidence that the tritium has reached any 

areas outside of the PSEG property. Analyses of fish, shellfish, vegetation, and sediment 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-73 

samples contained only potassium-40, a naturally-occurring radionuclide. Trace amounts of 

strontium-90 were detected in all milk samples, at levels consistent with what is expected as a 

result of past atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (NJDEP, 2009b). 

Based on these and previous monitoring results, concentrations of radioactive contaminants in 

native leafy vegetation, sediments, surface water, and fish and game animals in areas 

surrounding Salem and HCGS have been low. Consequently, no disproportionately high and 

adverse human health impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in 

the region as a result of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. 

4.10 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information 

New and significant information is: (1) information that identifies a significant environmental 

issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS 

and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and 

codified in 10 CFR Part 51. 

The new and significant assessment that PSEG conducted during preparation of this license 

renewal application included: (1) interviews with PSEG subject matter experts on the validity of 

the conclusions in the GEIS as they relate to Salem and HCGS, (2) an extensive review of 

documents related to environmental issues at Salem and HCGS and within the Delaware 

Estuary, (3) correspondence with state and federal agencies to determine if the agencies had 

concerns relevant to their resource areas that had not been addressed in the GEIS, (4) credit for 

PSEG environmental monitoring and reporting required by regulations and oversight of station 

facilities and operations by state and federal regulatory agencies (permanent activities that 

would bring significant issues to PSEG’s attention), and (5) review of previous license renewal 

applications for issues relevant to the Salem and HCGS license renewal applications. 

The NRC also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is 

described in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews 

for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC, 1999b). The 

search for new information includes: (1) review of an applicant’s ER and the process for 

discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public 

comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with 

Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies, and (5) review of the 

technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated for significance using 

the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information 

is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the 

assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does 

not include other facets of an issue that are not affected by the new information. 

The staff has not identified any new and significant information on environmental issues listed in 

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, related to the operation of Salem and 

HCGS during the period of license renewal. PSEG stated in its Environmental Reports for 

Salem and HCGS that it is not aware of any new and significant information regarding the 

environment or plant operations. However, as part of its investigation for new and significant 

information, PSEG evaluated information about tritium in the groundwater beneath the Salem 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-74 

site. Based on that evaluation, PSEG has concluded that changes in groundwater quality due to 

the tritium are not significant at Salem and would not preclude current or future uses of the 

groundwater. The staff evaluated the applicant’s information in section 4.8.2 and agrees that the 

tritium in the groundwater is not new and significant information. The staff also determined that 

information provided during the public comment period did not identify any new issues that 

require site-specific assessment. The staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts in 

the GEIS (NRC, 1996) and conducted its own independent review (including two public scoping 

meetings held in November 2009) to identify new and significant information. The staff 

concludes that there are no new and significant information related to the environmental impacts 

of the Salem and HCGS license renewal.

4.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those related 

to the resources at the time of the power plants licensing and construction; present actions are 

those related to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plants; and future 

actions are considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant 

operations including the period of extended operation. Therefore, the analysis considers 

potential impacts through the end of the current license terms as well as the 20-year renewal 

license renewal terms. The geographic area over which past, present, and future actions would 

occur depend on the type of action considered and is described below for each impact area. 

4.11.1 Cumulative Impact on Water Resources 

For the purposes of this cumulative impact assessment, the spatial boundary of the 

groundwater system is the PRM Aquifer, which is a large aquifer of regional importance for 

municipal and domestic water supply. Although other aquifers (the shallow water-bearing zone, 

Vincentown Aquifer, and Mt. Laurel-Wenonah Aquifer) underlie the Salem and HCGS facilities, 

almost all groundwater use by the facilities is from the PRM Aquifer. The spatial boundary for 

potential cumulative surface water impacts is the Delaware River Basin. 

Actions that can impact groundwater and surface water resources in the region include overuse 

of groundwater resources, unregulated use of water resources, drought impacts, and the need 

for flow compensation in the Delaware River for consumptive water use. 

Within the Salem and HCGS local area, groundwater is not accessed for public or domestic 

water supply within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). 

However, groundwater is the primary source of municipal water supply within Salem and the 

surrounding counties, and groundwater within the PRM Aquifer is an important resource for 

water supply in a region extending from Mercer and Middlesex counties in New Jersey to the 

north, and towards Maryland to the southwest. Groundwater withdrawal from the early part of 

the twentieth century through the 1970s resulted in the development of large-scale cones of 

depression in the elevation of the piezometric surface, and therefore had a cumulative adverse 

impact on the availability of groundwater within the aquifer (Walker, 1983). In reaction to this 

impact, NJDEP implemented water management measures, including limitations on pumping. 

As of 1998, NJDEP-mandated decreases in water withdrawals had resulted in general recovery 

of water level elevations in both the Upper and Middle PRM Aquifers in the Salem County area 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-75 

(USGS, 2009). Therefore, the use of groundwater by the facilities is not contributing to a 

cumulative effect on local groundwater users or larger regional users. Based on these 

observations, the staff concludes that, when added to the groundwater usage from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative impact on groundwater use 

is SMALL. 

Although the Salem and HCGS facilities use surface water from the Delaware River for cooling 

purposes, the Delaware River is a tidal estuary at the facility location. Therefore, there is no 

potential for cumulative surface water use conflicts, and the cumulative impact on surface water 

use is SMALL. 

4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts on Estuarine Aquatic Resources 

This section addresses past, present, and future actions that have created or could result in 

cumulative adverse impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary, the geographic 

area of interest for this analysis. Cumulative impacts on freshwater aquatic resources other 

than the Delaware River are discussed with terrestrial resources in Section 4.11.3. A wide 

variety of historical events have cumulatively affected the Delaware Estuary and its resources 

(Delaware Estuary Program 1995). Europeans began settling the estuary region early in the 

17th century. By 1660 the English had established multiple small settlements, and major 

changes in the environment began. Philadelphia had 5,000 inhabitants by 1700 and became 

the predominant city and port in America. Agriculture grew throughout the region, and the 

clearing of forest led to erosion. Dredging, diking, and filling gradually altered extensive areas 

of shoreline and tidal marsh. By the late 1800s, industrialization had altered much of the 

watershed of the upper estuary, and fisheries were declining due to overfishing as well as 

pollution from ships, sewers, and industry. By the 1940s, anadromous fish were blocked from 

migrating upstream to spawn due to a barrier of low oxygen levels in the Philadelphia area. 

This barrier combined with small dams on tributaries nearly destroyed the herring and shad 

fisheries. A large increase in industrial pollution during and after World War II resulted in the 

Delaware River near Philadelphia becoming one of the most polluted river reaches in the world. 

Major improvements in water quality began in the 1960s through the 1980s as a result of State, 

multi-State, and Federal action, including the Clean Water Act and the activities of the Delaware 

River Basin Commission. (Delaware Estuary Program, 1995) 

In addition to past events, a variety of current and likely future activities and processes also 

have cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary to which the 

proposed action may contribute. Stressors associated with the proposed action and other 

activities or processes that may contribute to cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the 

estuary include the following: 

• continued operation of the once-through cooling system for Salem Units 1 and 2 

• continued operation of the closed-cycle cooling system for HCGS 

• construction and operation of proposed additional unit at Salem/HCGS site 

• continued withdrawal and discharge of water to support power generation, industry, and 

municipal water suppliers 

• fishing pressure 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-76 

• habitat loss and restoration 

• changes in water quality 

• climate change. 

Each of these stressors may influence the structure and function of estuarine food webs and 

result in observable changes to the aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary. In most cases, 

it is not possible to determine quantitatively the impact of individual stressors or groups of 

stressors on aquatic resources. The stressors affect the estuary simultaneously, and their 

effects are cumulative. A discussion follows of how the stressors listed above may contribute to 

cumulative impacts on aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary. 

Continued Operation of the Salem Once-Through Cooling System

Based on the assessment presented in Section 4.5 of this draft SEIS, the staff concluded that 

entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharge impacts on aquatic resources from the 

operation of Salem Units 1 and 2 collectively have not had a noticeable adverse effect on the 

balanced indigenous community of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of Salem. The 

continued operation of Salem during the renewal term would continue to contribute to 

cumulative impacts on the estuarine community of fish and shellfish. As discussed in Sections 

4.5.2 through 4.5.5, there has been extensive, long-term monitoring of fish and invertebrate 

populations of the Delaware Estuary. The data collected by these studies reflect the cumulative 

effects of multiple stressors acting on the estuarine community. For example, data from 1970 

through 2004 were analyzed using commonly accepted techniques for assessing species 

richness (the average number of species in the community) and species density (the average 

number of species per unit volume or area). This analysis found that in the vicinity of Salem 

and HCGS since 1978, when Salem began operation, finfish species richness has not changed, 

and species density has increased (PSEG, 2006c). Operation of Salem during the relicensing 

period likely would continue to contribute substantially to cumulative impacts on aquatic 

resources in conjunction with HCGS and other facilities that withdraw water from or discharge to 

the Delaware Estuary. However, given the long-term improvements in the estuarine community 

during recent decades while these facilities were operating, NRC expects their cumulative 

impacts are expected to be limited, with effects on individual species populations potentially 

ranging from negligible to noticeable. 

Continued Operation of the HCGS Closed-Cycle Cooling System

As discussed in Section 4.5.1, the closed-cycle cooling system used by HCGS substantially 

reduces the volume of water withdrawn by the facility and substantially reduces entrainment, 

impingement, and thermal discharge effects compared to the Salem once-through cooling 

system. Accordingly, the impacts of these effects from operation of the HCGS cooling system 

during the relicensing period would be limited, and the incremental contribution of HCGS to 

cumulative impacts on the estuarine community would be minimal. HCGS has operated in 

conjunction with Salem since 1986 and the community has been simultaneously affected by 

both facilities. Therefore, the analysis of Salem’s effects on the aquatic community discussed 

above incorporates the cumulative effects of both HCGS and Salem. Operation of HCGS 

during the relicensing period would continue to contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction 

with Salem and other facilities that withdraw water from or discharge to the Delaware Estuary. 

As described above for Salem, NRC expects these cumulative impacts are expected to be 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-77 

limited, with effects on individual species populations potentially ranging from negligible to 

noticeable. 

Construction and Operation of Proposed Additional Unit at Salem/HCGS Site

On May 25, 2010, PSEG submitted to NRC an application for an Early Site Permit for the 

possible construction and operation of a new nuclear facility with two reactor units on Artificial 

Island adjacent to Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2010a). The projected start of construction would 

be in 2016 (NRC, 2010). If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new nuclear power 

facililty at the Salem/HCGS site, it would contribute to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources 

during construction and operation. The impacts of this action on aquatic resources during the 

construction period may be substantial in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities, but 

would be limited in extent and unlikely to significantly contribute to cumulative impacts on the 

estuarine community in conjunction with the ongoing operation of Salem and HCGS. Given the 

planned use of a closed-cycle cooling system for the new facility, the impacts on aquatic 

resources from its operation likely would be similar to those of HCGS and substantially smaller 

than those of Salem. Nevertheless, the long-term operation of the new facility would add to the 

cumulative impacts on the estuarine community from Salem and HCGS during the period in 

which their operations overlap. 

NRC concluded in the GEIS that impacts on aquatic ecology are Category 1 issues at individual 

power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems, such as the system at HCGS and the system 

planned for the new facility. The staff concludes in this SEIS (see Section 4.5.5) that impacts on 

aquatic ecology from the collective effects of entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at 

Salem during the renewal term would be SMALL. Thus, the incremental contributions of each of 

the three facilities to impacts on aquatic resources would be minor. However, it is possible that, 

depending on the characteristics of the new facility, their cumulative impacts could alter an 

important attribute of the Delaware Estuary, such as certain fish populations, to a noticeable 

degree. 

The specific impacts of this action ultimately would depend on the actual design, operating 

characteristics, and construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details are not 

available at this time. However, if a combined license application is submitted to NRC, the 

detailed impacts of this additional unit adjacent to the site of the existing Salem and HCGS units 

then would be analyzed and addressed in a separate NEPA document prepared by NRC. 

Continued Water Withdrawals and Discharges

No large industrial facilities lie downstream of Artificial Island on either side of the estuary south 

to the mouth of Delaware Bay. An oil refinery lies upstream of Artificial Island in Delaware 

approximately 8 mi (13 km) to the north, and many industrial facilities are upstream from there 

(PSEG, 2009a). Many of these facilities are permitted to withdraw water from the river and to 

discharge effluents to the river. In addition, water is withdrawn from the nontidal, freshwater 

reaches of the river to supply municipal water throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New 

York (DRBC, 2010). In the tidal portion of the river, water is used for power plant cooling 

systems as well as industrial operations. DRBC-approved water users in this reach include 22 

industrial facilities and 14 power plants in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (DRBC, 

2005). Of these facilities, Salem uses by far the largest volume of water, with a reported water 

withdrawal volume in 2005 of 1,067,892 million gallons (4,042 million m3

) (DRBC, 2005). This 

volume exceeds the combined total withdrawal for all other industrial, power, and public water 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-78 

supply purposes in the tidal portion of the river. The volume of water withdrawn by HCGS in 

2005 was much lower, at 19,561 million gallons (74 million m3

) (DRBC, 2005). 

These activities will likely continue into the future, and water supply withdrawals likely will 

increase in the future in conjunction with population growth. Because water withdrawals from 

the Delaware River will continue, and are likely to increase, during the relicensing term, this 

activity will continue to contribute to cumulative effects in the estuary. Similarly, ongoing 

discharges of effluents to the river and estuary will continue to have cumulative effects. 

Withdrawals and discharges are regulated by Federal and State agencies as well as by the 

DRBC, and such regulation should limit the magnitude of their effects. Permit requirements are 

expected to limit adverse effects from withdrawals and discharges, and cumulative impacts from 

these activities on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary are expected to be minimal. 

Fishing Pressure

The majority of the RS and EFH species at Salem are commercially or recreationally important 

and, thus, are subject to effects from the harvesting of fish stocks. Losses from fish populations 

due to fishing pressure are cumulative in conjunction with losses due to entrainment and 

impingement at Salem and HCGS as well as other water intakes. In most cases, Federal or 

State agencies regulate the commercial or recreational catches of RS, but losses of some RS 

continue to occur as bycatch caught unintentionally when fishing for other species. The extent 

and magnitude of fishing pressure and its relationship to cumulative impacts on fish populations 

and the overall aquatic community of the Delaware Estuary are difficult to determine because of 

the large geographic scale of the fisheries and the natural variability that occurs in fish 

populations and the ecosystem. Fishing pressure (and protection of fisheries through catch 

restrictions) has the potential to influence the food web of the Delaware Estuary by affecting fish 

and invertebrate populations in areas extending from the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay 

through the estuary and upriver. 

Habitat Loss and Restoration

As described above, alterations to terrestrial, wetland, shoreline, and aquatic habitats have 

occurred in the Delaware Estuary since colonial times. Development, agriculture, and other 

upland habitat alterations in the watershed have affected water quality. The creation of dams 

and the filling or isolation of wetlands to support industrial and agricultural activities has 

dramatically changed patterns of nutrient and sediment loading to the estuary. Such activities 

also have reduced productive marsh habitats and limited access of anadromous fish to 

upstream spawning habitats. In addition, historic dredging and deposition activities have altered 

estuarine environments and affected flow patterns, and future activities, such as dredging to 

deepen the shipping channel through the estuary, may continue to influence estuarine habitats. 

Development along the shores of the estuary in some places also has resulted in the loss of 

shoreline habitat. 

Although habitat loss in the vicinity of the Delaware Estuary continues to occur currently and is 

likely in the future, habitat restoration activities have had a beneficial effect on the estuary and 

are expected to continue as a requirement of the Salem NJPDES permit during the license 

renewal term (see Section 4.5.5). In addition, NRC expects wetland permitting regulations to 

limit future losses of wetland habitat from development in the watershed. Thus, the net 

cumulative impacts on aquatic habitats associated with the estuary are likely to be minimal in 

the future, and restoration activities are expected to provide ongoing habitat improvements. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-79 

Water Quality

In general, there is evidence that water quality in the Delaware River Basin, including the 

estuary, is improving. Upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities and improved agricultural 

practices during the past 25 years have reduced the amount of untreated sewage, manure, and 

fertilizer entering the river and contributed to reductions in nutrients and an apparent increase in 

dissolved oxygen. Chemical contaminants persist in sediments and the tissues of fish and 

invertebrates, and nonpoint discharges of chemicals still occur (Kauffmann et al, 2008). Water 

quality in the Delaware Estuary likely will continue to be adversely affected by human activities; 

however, improvement may continue in many water quality parameters, and the incremental 

contribution of Salem and HCGS to adverse effects on water quality is expected to be minimal. 

Climate Change

The potential cumulative effects of climate change on the Delaware Estuary, whether from 

natural cycles or related to anthropogenic activities, could result in a variety of environmental 

alterations that would affect aquatic resources. The environmental changes that could affect 

estuarine systems include sea level rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, and wind and 

water circulation changes. Changes in sea level could result in dramatic effects on tidal 

wetlands and other shoreline communities. Water temperature increases could affect spawning 

patterns or success, or influence species distributions when cold-water species move northward 

while warm-water species become established in new habitats. Changes in estuarine salinity 

patterns could influence the spawning and distribution of RS and the ranges of exotic or 

nuisance species. Changes in precipitation patterns could have major effects on water 

circulation and alter the nature of sediment and nutrient inputs to the system. This could result 

in changes to primary production and influence the estuarine food web on many levels. Thus, 

the extent and magnitude of climate change impacts may make this process an important 

contributor to cumulative impacts on the aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary, and these 

impacts could be substantial over the long term. 

Final Assessment of Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources

Aquatic resources of the Delaware Estuary are cumulatively affected to varying degrees by 

multiple activities and processes that have occurred in the past, are occurring currently, and are 

likely to occur in the future. The food web and the abundance of RS and other species have 

been substantially affected by these stressors historically. The impacts of some of these 

stressors associated with human activities have been and can be addressed by management 

actions (e.g., cooling system operation, fishing pressure, water quality, and habitat restoration). 

Other stressors, such as climate change and increased human population and associated 

development in the Delaware River Basin, cannot be directly managed and their effects are 

more difficult to quantify and predict. It is likely, however, that future anthropogenic and natural 

environmental stressors would cumulatively affect the aquatic community of the Delaware 

Estuary sufficiently that they would noticeably alter important attributes, such as species ranges, 

populations, diversity, habitats, and ecosystem processes, just as they have in the past. These 

stressors have not only modified important attributes of aquatic resources, they have and will 

continue to change in the future, potentially destabilizing some of the attributes. Based on these 

observations, the staff concludes that cumulative impacts during the relicensing period from 

past, present, and future stressors affecting aquatic resources in the Delaware Estuary would 

range from MODERATE to LARGE according to the definitions of impact levels NRC uses for 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-80 

the purposes of NEPA. 

4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial and Freshwater Resources 

This section addresses past, present, and future actions that could result in adverse cumulative 

impacts on terrestrial resources, including resources associated with uplands, wetlands, and 

bodies of freshwater other than the Delaware River (discussed in Section 4.11.2). For the 

purpose of this analysis, the geographic area of interest includes the Salem and HCGS site on 

Artificial Island and the associated transmission line ROWs identified in Section 2.1.5. 

Impacts on terrestrial and freshwater resources in the area began with historical settlement and 

development by Europeans, which involved clearing of forests and filling and draining of 

wetlands for agriculture. Colonial settlement of the Delaware River area of southern New 

Jersey began in 1638. During the 1640s, a fortification, Fort Elfsborg, was built in an area that 

previously was mostly swampland between Salem and Alloway Creek. As settlement 

progressed, forested regions in this part of southern New Jersey were further cleared for towns, 

farming, and lumber (Morris Land Conservancy, 2006). Tidal marshes along the margins of the 

Delaware Estuary were managed for salt hay farms and other agricultural uses, the hydrology of 

marshes was altered for mosquito control, and marshes were filled for disposal of dredged 

material and for development (Philipp, 2005). Industrial development in the area began with the 

glassmaking industry in the early 1700s and continued through the 1800s (Morris Land 

Conservancy, 2006). The Industrial Revolution and other historical trends continued the 

changes in land use and the loss of terrestrial communities of native vegetation and wildlife. 

The Salem and HCGS facilities are located within 740 ac (300 ha) of PSEG property on 1,500-

ac (600 ha) Artificial Island. Construction of Salem and HCGS converted 373 ac (151 ha) in the 

southwest corner of Artificial Island to facilities and industrial uses. Artificial Island was 

originally created by deposition of hydraulic dredge material in the early 20th century, and all 

terrestrial resources on the island have become established since then. Before development of 

the land on the Salem and HCGS sites, the vegetative communities of the island consisted 

mainly of typical coastal tidal marsh species, including salt-tolerant grasses such as cordgrass 

(Spartina spp.) and common reed (Phragmites australis), which could survive in the brackish 

habitats. There was no known previous development or use of Artificial Island prior to the 

construction of Salem and HCGS. Currently, the Salem and HCGS sites are developed and 

maintained for operation of the facilites. The remainder of Artificial Island consists mainly of 

undeveloped areas of tidal marsh with poor quality soils and very few trees. Non-wetland areas 

are vegetated mainly with grasses, small shrubs, and planted trees in developed areas (PSEG, 

2009a; 2009b). 

Construction of the transmission line ROWs maintained by PSEG for Salem and HCGS resulted 

in subsequent changes to the wildlife and plant species present within the vicinity of Artificial 

Island and along the length of the transmission line ROWs. The transmission lines ROWs have 

a total length of approximately 149 mi (240 km) and occupy approximately 4,376 ac (1,771 ha). 

The three ROWs for the Salem and HCGS power transmission system pass through a variety of 

habitat types, including marshes and other wetlands, agricultural or forested land, and some 

urban and residential areas (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). Fragmentation of the previously contiguous 

forested, agricultural, and swamp areas that the transmission ROWs traverse likely resulted in 

edge effects such as changes in light, wind, and temperature; changes in abundance and 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-81 

distribution of interior species; reduced habitat ranges for certain species; and an increased 

susceptibility to invasive species, such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) in uplands, purple 

loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in wetlands, and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) in 

both habitat types (NJDEP, 2004a). ROW maintenance is likely to continue to have future 

impacts on terrestrial habitat, such as prevention of natural succession stages within the ROWs, 

increases in edge species, and decreases in interior species. 

Land use data provide an indication of the impacts on terrestrial resources that have resulted 

from historical and ongoing development. Current land uses in the region are discussed by 

county in Section 2.2.8.3 of this draft SEIS. In Salem County, based on 2008 data, farmland 

under active cultivation is the predominant type of land cover (42 percent), followed by tidal and 

freshwater wetlands (30 percent), forests (12 percent), residential/commercial/industrial uses 

(13 percent), and other undeveloped natural areas (3 percent) (Morris Land Conservancy, 

2006). In the two adjacent counties in New Jersey (Cumberland and Gloucester), agriculture 

accounts for 19 and 26 percent of the land cover, and urban land use in the two counties was 

12 percent and 26 percent, respectively (DVRPC, 2009; Gloucester County, 2009). Thus, 

commercial and industrial facilities, including the Salem and HCGS site and ROWs, have had a 

smaller impact on the loss of native terrestrial forest and wetland habitats in the region 

compared to agricultural development. 

Although development of PSEG property on Artificial Island has had minimal impact on 

terrestrial resources as compared to historical and ongoing development in the region, portions 

of both PSEG land and the island have been protected from development. Approximately 25 

percent (100 ac [40 ha]) of PSEG property and approximately 80 percent (1,200 ac [485 ha]) of 

Artificial Island remain undeveloped. These areas consist predominantly of estuarine marsh 

and freshwater emergent marsh, wetlands, and ponds. The U.S. government owns the portions 

of the island adjacent to Salem and HCGS (to the north and east), while the State of New 

Jersey owns the rest of the island as well as much nearby inland property (LACT,1988a; 1988b; 

PSEG 2009a; 2009b). In conjunction with the Artificial Island wetlands, public lands in the 

region also preserve forest and wetland habitat and have a beneficial cumulative impact on 

terrestrial resources. In compliance with Salem’s 1994 and 2001 NJPDES permits, PSEG 

implemented the EEP, which has preserved and/or restored more than 20,000 ac (8,000 ha) of 

wetland and adjoining upland buffers around the Delaware Estuary. In particular, the program 

restored 4,400 ac (1,780 ha) of formerly diked salt hay farms to reestablish conditions suitable 

for the growth of low marsh vegetation such as saltmarsh cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) and 

provide for tidal exchange with the estuary (PSEG, 2009a). 

PSEG has indicated the possibility of constructing one or two new reactor units at the Salem 

and HCGS site on Artificial Island (PSEG, 2010b) which would be primarily located on 

previously disturbed land adjacent to the existing Salem and HCGS units. It is not know at this 

time whether new transmission lines would be constructed. If additional ROW needs to be 

cleared, terrestrial habitats and the wildlife they support could potentially be affected in the 

areas it would traverse. 

The staff concluded in Sections 4.6 and 4.7 that the the continued operation of Salem and 

HCGS, including the operation and maintenance of the transmission line ROWs, would have 

minimal impacts and would not contribute to the overall decline in the condition of terrestrial 

resources. However, while the level of impact due to direct and indirect impacts of Salem and 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-82 

HCGS on terrestrial communities is SMALL, the cumulative impacts of historical, ongoing, and 

future developments in the region combined, as discussed above, would be MODERATE. 

4.11.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts 

The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by the 

NRC and EPA to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation 

and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 

190. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within a 50-mi (80.4-km) radius of the Salem and 

HCGS site was included. The radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by 

PSEG in the vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site measures radiation and radioactive materials 

from all sources (i.e., hospitals and other licensed users of radioactive material); therefore, the 

monitoring program measures cumulative radiological impacts. Within the 50-mi (80-km) radius 

of the Salem and HCGS site, there are no other nuclear power reactors or uranium fuel cycle 

facilities. 

On May 25, 2010 PSEG submitted an application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the possible 

construction of one or two reactor units at the Salem and HCGS site (PSEG 2010a). A specific 

reactor design has not been selected; therefore, the application uses a plant parameter 

envelope approach to evaluate the suitability of the site based on the potential environmental 

impacts from a blend of reactor types. This approach uses surrogate values as upper and lower 

bounds for issues such as power level, radioactive effluents, public dose estimates, thermal 

discharges, air quality, and accident consequences, for each of the potential reactor designs 

being considered. This is a conservative approach allowed by the NRC for the analysis of the 

environmental impacts from an unspecified reactor design at a specific location. A final decision 

by the applicant on the reactor design will be deferred until the submission of an application for 

either a construction permit or a combined construction permit and operating license. 

The NRC will evaluate the ESP application in accordance with its regulations to ensure the 

application meets the NRC requirements for adequate protection and safety of the public and 

the environment. As discussed above, any new potential source of radioactive emissions from 

such a facility will be evaluated during its licensing process to address the cumulative impact of 

acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive material. 

The applicant constructed an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on the Salem 

and HCGS site in 2007 for the storage of its spent fuel. Currently, only spent fuel from HCGS is 

being stored in the ISFSI. The installation and monitoring of this facility is governed by NRC 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C 

Waste.” Radiation from this facility as well as from the operation of Salem and HCGS are 

required to be within the radiation dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, and 10 CFR 

Part 72. The NRC performs periodic inspections of the ISFSI and Salem and HCGS to verify 

their compliance with licensing and regulatory requirements. 

Radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring data for the five-year period from 2005 to 

2009 were reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts assessment. These reports show that 

past and current annual radiological doses to a maximally exposed member of the public at the 

site boundary are well below regulatory dose limits. In Section 4.8 the staff concluded that 

impacts of radiation exposure to the public and workers from operation of Salem and HCGS 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-83 

during the renewal term are SMALL. The possible addition of one or two reactor units to the 

three-reactor site is not expected to result in any substantial increases in doses that would 

cause the cumulative dose impact to approach regulatory limits. This is because the reactor 

would be required to maintain its radiological release within NRC’s dose limits for individual 

reactor units and the cumulative dose from all reactor units and the ISFSI on the site. Also, the 

NRC and the State of New Jersey would regulate any future actions in the vicinity of the Salem 

and HCGS site that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore, the staff 

concludes that the cumulative radiological impact to the public and workers from continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS, its associated ISFSI, and two potential additional reactor units 

would be SMALL. 

In addition to health impact from radiological sources, the staff also evaluated and determined 

that the electric-field-induced currents from the Salem and HCGS transmission lines are below 

the NESC criteria for preventing electric shock from induced currents. Therefore, the Salem 

and HCGS transmission lines do not significantly affect the overall potential for electric shock 

from induced currents within the area of analysis area and the human health impact from such 

source is SMALL. The potential effect from future and chronic exposure to these electric fields 

continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The staff considers the GEIS finding of 

“Uncertain” still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue. 

4.11.5 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 

The Salem and HCGS facilities are located in Salem County, which is included with the 

Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), which encompasses 

the area geographically located in five counties of New Jersey, including Salem and Gloucester 

Counties, New Castle County Delaware, and five counties of Pennsylvania (40 CFR 81.15). 

Salem County is designated as in attainment/unclassified area with respect to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in 

diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead. 

The county, along with all of southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area with respect to the 

1-hour primary ozone standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, 

Salem County is located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment 

area, and for the 8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) nonattainment area. Of the adjacent counties, Gloucester County in New 

Jersey is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, as well as the annual 

and daily PM2.5 standard (NJDEP, 2010b). New Castle County, Delaware is considered to be in 

moderate non-attainment for the ozone standards, and non-attainment for PM2.5 (40 CFR 

81.315). 

The State of New Jersey has implemented several measures to address greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions within the state. In February 2007, the governor signed EO 54 calling for a 

reduction in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 2006 levels by 

2050. These objectives became mandatory in July 2007, with passage of the Global Warming 

Response Act. New Jersey also joined with nine other northeastern and mid-Atlantic states in 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) through Assembly Bill 4559 in January 2008. 

The RGGI caps carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants, and requires utilities to 

purchase emissions credits, with the funds used to finance energy efficiency and renewable 

energy programs. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-84 

Potential cumulative effects of climate change on the State of New Jersey, whether or not from 

natural cycles of anthropogenic (man-induced) activities, could result in a variety of changes to 

the air quality of the area. As projected in the “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States” report by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009), the 

temperatures in the mid-Atlantic have already risen up to 1o

F (0.6oC) since the 1961-1979 

baseline, and are projected to increase by 3 to 6o

F (1.7 to 3.3oC) more by 2090. Increases in 

average annual temperatures, higher probability of extreme heat events, higher occurrences of 

extreme weather events (intense rainfall or drought) and changes in the wind patterns could 

affect concentrations of the air pollutants and their long-range transport, because their formation 

partially depends on temperature and humidity and is a result of the interactions between hourly 

changes in the physical and dynamic properties of the atmosphere, atmospheric circulation 

features, wind, topography, and energy use (IPCC, 2010). 

Consistent with the findings in the GEIS, the staff concludes that the impacts from continued 

operation of the Salem and HCGS facilities on air quality are SMALL. As no refurbishment is 

planned at the facilities during the license renewal period, no additional air emissions would 

result from refurbishment activities (PSEG, 2009a; 2009b). In comparison with construction and 

operation of a comparable fossil-fueled power plant, license renewal would result in a new 

cumulative deferral of GHG emissions, which would otherwise be produced if a new gas or coalfired plant were instead constructed. When compared with the alternative of a new fossil-fuel 

power plant, the option of license renewal also results in a substantial new cumulative deferral 

in toxic air emissions. 

For the purpose of this cumulative air impact assessment, the spatial bounds include the 

Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate AQCR, which encompasses the area geographically 

located in five counties of New Jersey, including Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Castle 

County Delaware, and five counties of Pennsylvania. The staff concludes that, combined with 

the emissions from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, cumulative 

hazardous and criteria air pollutant emission impacts on air quality from Salem and HCGSrelated actions would be SMALL. 

4.11.6 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 

As discussed in Section 4.9 of this draft SEIS, continued operation of Salem and HCGS during 

the license renewal term would have no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region 

beyond those already being experienced. Since PSEG has indicated that there would be no 

major plant refurbishment, overall expenditures and employment levels at Salem and HCGS 

would remain relatively constant with no additional demand for housing, public utilities, and 

public services. In addition, since employment levels and the value of Salem and HCGS would 

not change, there would be no population and tax revenue-related land use impacts. There 

would also be no disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts on 

minority and low-income populations in the region. Based on this and other information 

presented in this draft SEIS, there would be no cumulative socioeconomic impacts from Salem 

and HCGS operations during the license renewal term. 

If PSEG decides to proceed and construct a new nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and 

HCGS site, the cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts of this action 

could be MODERATE to LARGE in counties located in the immediate vicinity of Salem and 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-85 

HCGS. These impacts would be caused by the short-term increased demand for rental housing 

and other commercial and public services used by construction workers during the years of 

power plant construction. During peak construction periods there would be a noticeable 

increase in the number and volume of construction vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of 

the Salem and HCGS site. 

The cumulative long-term operations-related socioeconomic impacts of this action during the 

operation of the new power plant unit would likely be SMALL to MODERATE. These impacts 

would be caused by the increased demand for permanent housing and other commercial and 

public services, such as schools, police and fire, and public water and electric services, from the 

addition of operations workers at the Salem and HCGS site during the years of new plant 

operations. During shift changes there would be a noticeable increase in the number of 

commuter vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Salem and HCGS site. 

Since Salem County has less housing and public services available to handle the influx of 

construction workers in comparison to New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties, the 

cumulative short-term construction-related socioeconomic impacts on Salem County would 

likely be MODERATE to LARGE. Over the long-term, cumulative operations impacts on Salem 

County would likely be SMALL to MODERATE since new operations workers would likely reside 

in the same counties and in the same pattern as the current Salem and HCGS workforce. Many 

of the operations workers would be expected to settle in Salem County where nearly 40 percent 

of the current workforce reside. 

Because New Castle, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties each has a larger available 

housing supply than Salem County, and the current number of Salem and HCGS workers 

residing in these three counties combined (43 percent) is the same as those residing in Salem 

County (40 percent), the cumulative construction- and operations-related socioeconomic 

impacts are likely to be SMALL in these three counties. If PSEG decides to construct a new 

nuclear power plant unit at the Salem and HCGS site, the cumulative impacts of this action 

would likely be SMALL on the four-county socioeconomic region of influence. 

The specific impact of this action would ultimately depend on the actual design, characteristics, 

and construction practices proposed by the applicant. Such details are not available at this 

time, but if the combined license application is submitted to NRC, the detailed socioeconomic 

impacts of this action at the Salem and HCGS site would be analyzed and addressed in a 

separate NEPA document that would be prepared by NRC. 

4.11.7 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

The staff considered the potential impacts resulting from operation of Salem and HCGS during 

the period of extended operation and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. The preliminary determination is that the potential 

cumulative impacts resulting from Salem and HCGS operation during the period of extended 

operation would range from SMALL to LARGE. Table 4-24 summarizes the cumulative impact 

by resource area.
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-86 

Table 4-24. Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resource Areas

Resource Area Impact Summary 

Land Use SMALL With respect to the Salem and HCGS facilities, no 

measureable changes in land use would occur over 

the proposed license renewal term. When 

combined with other past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable future activities, impacts from continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS would constitute a 

SMALL cumulative impact on land use. 

Air Quality SMALL Impacts of air emissions over the proposed license 

renewal term would be SMALL. When combined 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities, impacts to air 

resources from the Salem and HCGS facilities 

would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact on air 

quality. In comparison with the alternative of 

constructing and operating a comparable gas or 

coal-fired power plant, license renewal would result 

in a new cumulative deferral in both GHG and other 

toxic air emissions, which would otherwise be 

produced by a fossil-fueled plant. 

Ground Water SMALL Groundwater consumption constitutes a SMALL 

cumulative impact on the resource. When this 

consumption is added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future withdrawals, 

cumulative impact on groundwater resources is 

SMALL. 

Surface Water SMALL Impacts on surface water over the proposed license 

term would be SMALL. When combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities, impacts to surface water from the Salem 

and HCGS facilities would constitute a SMALL 

cumulative impact. 

Aquatic Resources MODERATE to LARGE Past and present operations have impacted aquatic 

resources in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and 

would likely continue to in the future. Such impacts 

would continue to be SMALL. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

future activities, impacts from continued operation 

of Salem and HCGS would constitute a 

MODERATE to LARGE cumulative impact on 

aquatic resources. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-87 

Resource Area Impact Summary 

Terrestrial 

Resources 

MODERATE Past and present operations have impacted 

terrestrial habitat and species in the vicinity of 

Salem and HCGS. Continued impacts associated 

with the proposed license renewal term would be 

SMALL. When combined with other past, present, 

and reasonable foreseeable future activities, 

impacts from continued operation of Salem and 

HCGS would constitute a MODERATE cumulative 

impact on terrestrial resources. 

Threatened or 

Endangered 

Species

SMALL Past and present operations have impacted 

threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of 

Salem and HCGS and would likely continue to in 

the future. Such impacts would continue to be 

SMALL. When combined with other past, present, 

and reasonable foreseeable future activities, 

impacts from continued operation of Salem and 

HCGS would constitute a SMALL cumulative impact 

on threatened or endangered species. 

Human Health SMALL When combined with the other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities, the 

cumulative human health impacts of continued 

operation of Salem and HCGS from radiation 

exposure to the public, and electric-field-induced 

currents from the Salem and HCGS transmission 

lines would all be SMALL. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE Impacts on socioeconomics over the proposed 

license term would be SMALL depending on the 

alternative selected. When combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities, impacts to socioeconomics from the 

Salem and HCGS facilities would constitute a 

SMALL to LARGE cumulative impact. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-88 

4.12 References 

10 CFR 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for Protection 

Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Function.” 

10 CFR 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing Requirements 

for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and 

Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.” 

18 CFR 410. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water 

Resources, Part 410, “Administrative Manual – Part III: Water Quality Regulations, with 

Amendments through July 16, 2008.” 

33 USC 1326. United States Code. Title 33, Chapter 26, Part 1326, “Thermal Discharges.” 

36 CFR 800. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 

800, “Protection of Historic Properties” Federal Register. August 5, 2004. 

40 CFR 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes” Federal Register. 

40 CFR 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power to Establish Requirements 

for Coolin Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities.” Federal Register. July 9, 

2004. 

59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Vol. 59, No. 32, pp. 7629-7634. February 

16, 1994. 

69 FR 41576. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System—Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake 

Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities.” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 131, pp. 41576-41593. 

July 9, 2004. 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register, 

Vol. 69, No. 163, pp. 52040-52048. August 24, 2004. 

72 FR 37107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System – Suspension of Regulations Establishing Requirements for Cooling Water 

Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities.” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 130, pp. 37107–

37109. July 9, 2008. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-89 

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2008. “Species Profile: Spot, ShortLived Fish Supports South Atlantic Fisheries & Serves as Important Prey Species.” Excerpted 

from ASMFC Fisheries Focus, Vol. 17, Issue 6, August 2008. Available URL: 

http://www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/southAtlanticSpecies/spot/speciesProfile0505.pdf

(accessed August 12, 2010). 

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

Indicators of AEI applied to the Delaware Estuary. In Defining and Assessing Adverse 

Environmental Impact Symposium 2001. TheScientificWorldJournal, 2(S1), 168-189. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/

resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). ADAMS No. 

ML082520150. 

Dames & Moore. 1988. Final Report, Study of Groundwater Conditions and Future WaterSupply Alternatives, Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station, Artificial Island, Salem County, 

New Jersey. Prepared for PSE&G. July 15, 1988. 

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2003. 

Public Water Supply Source Water Assessment for Artesian Water Company (Bayview), PWS 

ID DE0000553. New Castle County, Delaware. October 2, 2003. Available URL: 

http://www.wr.udel.edu/swaphome_old/phase2/final_assess/artesianother/awc_bayview.pdf

(accessed February 24, 2010). 

Delaware Estuary Program. 1995. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the 

Delaware Estuary. January 1995. Available URL: 

http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/CCMP.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2000. Groundwater Withdrawal. Docket No. D90-71 Renewal. West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission. Publication 

date: November 1, 2000. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2001. Docket No. D-68-20 CP (Revision 2), 

Delaware River Basin Commission, PSEG, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Lower Alloways 

Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. September 18, 2001. 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2005. “Year 2005 Water Withdrawal and 

Consumptive Use by Large Users on the Tidal Delaware River.” Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/wateruse/largeusers_05.htm (accessed February 15, 2010). 

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2010. “The Delaware River Basin.” Available 

URL: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/thedrb.htm (accessed February 24, 2010). 

DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission). 2009. 2009 Farmland Preservation 

Plan for the County of Cumberland, New Jersey. Prepared for Cumberland County Agriculture 

Development Board. Available URL: 

http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/sadc/home/genpub/Cumberland%20Co%20FPP%2012-21-09.pdf

(accessed September 2, 2010). 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-90 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Safe Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS) for Salem County, New Jersey. Available URL: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/index.cfm (accessed September 2, 

2010). 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Letter from R. Popowski, Fish and Wildlife Service 

New Jersey Office, to B. Pham, Branch Chief, NRC. Subject: Response to NRC Request for 

Information on the Presence of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in the 

Vicinity of the Existing Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Located on Artificial Island in 

Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, NJ. June 29, 2010. ADAMS No. 

ML101970077. 

Gloucester County. 2009. “Gloucester County Online Web Book.” Available URL: 

http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/plan/webbook/web_data.html (accessed September 2, 2010). 

IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.). 2007. National Electrical Safety 

Code. 2007 Edition.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2010. Working Group II Report “Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability.” Available URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

(accessed August 5, 2010). 

Kauffmann, G., A. Belden, and A. Homsey. 2008. Technical Summary: State of the Delaware 

River Basin Report. July 4, 2008. Available URL: http://www.ipa.udel.edu/publications/

StateoftheDelRiverBasin08.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

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

Township. May 1988. ADAMS No. ML101440266. 

LACT (Lower Alloways Creek Township). 1988b. Tax Map, Zone 14, Lower Alloways Creek 

Township. May 1988. ADAMS No. ML101440267. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. 1855, et seq. 

Morris Land Conservancy. 2006. County of Salem Open Space and Farmland Preservation 

Plan, Volume 1: Open Space and Recreation Plan. Compiled by Morris Land Conservancy with 

Salem County Open Space Advisory Committee. December 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/default.asp?contentID=1208 (accessed December 9, 

2009). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act. 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. 

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 

Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication No. 

99-4493. Available URL: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/niehs-report.pdf (accessed 

September 3, 2010). 

NJAW (New Jersey American Water) 2010. “Water Quality Reports,” 2008 Annual Report for 

Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Available URL: http://www.amwater.com/njaw/ensuring-waterquality/water-quality-reports.html (accessed February 24, 2010). 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-91 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 1994. Final NJPDES Permit 

Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision, Salem 

Generating Station, NJ0005622. Trenton, NJ. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2001. Final NJPDES Permit 

Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision, Salem 

Generating Station, NJ0005622. Trenton, NJ. June 29, 2001. ADAMS No. ML022400208. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2004a. An Overview of 

Nonindigenous Plant Species in New Jersey. February 2004. Available URL: 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/njisc/InvasiveReport.pdf (accessed August 22, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2004b. Water Allocation Permit 

WAP040001. Trenton, New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

December 30, 2004. 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2007. Determination of 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples. Final Report. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/final_pfoa_report.pdf (accessed April 23, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009. Environmental 

Surveillance and Monitoring Report For the Environs of New Jersey’s Nuclear Power 

Generating Stations: January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/bne/bnedown/2008EnvironSurv-MonitReport.pdf (accessed May 

17, 2010). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1993. Biological Opinion, Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the Salem and Hope 

Creek Nuclear Generating Stations in Salem, NJ. NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Silver 

Spring, MD. ADAMS No. ML081010597. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Letter to Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief, 

NRC. Subject: Consultation and Biological Opinion for the Operation of Salem and HCGS.” 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Letter from M. A. Colligan, Assistant 

Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast Region, to E. J. Keating, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC. Subject: Response to Request from PSEG for Information on Listed 

Species or Critical Habitat at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. April 15, 2009. 

Letter provided in Appendix C of Applicant’s Environmental Report (PSEG, 2009a). 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Letter to Bo Pham, Branch Chief, NRC. 

Subject: Reply to Request for Information on the Presence of Species Listed as Threatened or 

Endangered by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service in the Vicinity of Salem and Hope 

Creek Generating Stations. February 11, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101970073. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

May 1996. ADAMS Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-92 

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS No. 

ML04069720. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. 

NUREG-1555. Washington, D.C. October 1999. ADAMS No. ML093340205. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. Letter from B. Pham, Branch Chief, to A. 

Scherer, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Subject: Request for 

Listed of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for Salem and Hope Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal Application Review. December 23, 2009. ADAMS 

No. ML093350019 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Letter from B. Pham, Branch Chief, to P 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Nation Fisheries Service. Subject: Request for List of Protected 

Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station License Renewal Application Review. December 23, 2009. ADAMS No. ML093500057. 

PA Bulletin (Pennsylvania Bulletin). 2005. “Notices: Delaware River Basin Commission 

Meeting and Public Hearing.” November 23, 2005. Available URL: 

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-48/2171.html (accessed April 23, 2010). 

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

Ecological Engineering 25 (2005) 214–230. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1975. A Report on the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 

Artificial Island, Salem County, New Jersey. Supplement to Section 316(a), Demonstration 

Type 3 (dated 18 September 1974). Newark, NJ. December 5. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1984. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration Project. 

Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. Publication date: February 1984. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1994. Work Plan for the Biological Monitoring of the Delaware 

Estuary Under Salem’s New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Prepared 

for Public Service Electric and Gas Company Estuary Enhancement Program. Prepared by EA 

Engineering, Science, and Technology. October 1994. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1996. 1995 Annual Report, Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. June 1996. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1997. 1996 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1998. 1997 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999a. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station 

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

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999b. 1998 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 1999c. Application for Renewal of the Salem Generating Station 

NJPDES Permit. Publication date March 4. 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-93 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2000. 1999 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2001. 2000 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2002. 2001 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2003. 2002 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2004. 2003 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2005. 2004 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006a. 2005 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2005 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. 

May 2006. ADAMS No. ML061300067. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006c. Salem NJPDES Permit Renewal Application. NJPDES 

Permit No. NJ0005622. Newark, New Jersey, Public Service Enterprise Group. February 1, 

2006. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2006d. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2005 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 

2006. ADAMS No. ML061290341. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007a. 2006 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. ADAMS No. ML071270331. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2006 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. 

April 2007. ADAMS No. ML071230112. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2007c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2006 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 2007 

ADAMS No. ML071230602. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008a. 2007 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. ADAMS No. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2007 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. April 

2008. ADAMS No. ML081280103. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2008c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2007 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. 

April 2008. ADAMS No. ML081280737. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-94 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. 

ADAMS Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, and ML092430231. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E - Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMs No. 

ML092430389. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009c. 2008 Annual Report. Biological Monitoring Program, 

Public Service Enterprise Group, Estuary Enhancement Program. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009f. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2008 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. 

April 2009. ADAMS No. ML091200612. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010a. Letter from D. Lewis, Nuclear Development Project 

Director, and P. Davidson, Vice President of Operations Support, to Document Control Desk, 

NRC. Subject: Application for Early Site Permit for the PSEG Site. May 25, 2010. ADAMS No. 

ML101480484.PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010b. Salem and Hope Creek Generating 

Stations 2009 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, 

New Jersey. April 2010. ADAMS No. ML101300368. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010c. Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 2009 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. 

April 2010. ADAMS No. 101241151. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010d. Tables summarizing impingement data for shortnose 

sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. April 2010. 

ADAMS No. ML101440299 

 TetraTech. 2009. “Salem/Hope Creek Generating Station Calculation Package for Ground 

Water Pumpage, Salem & Hope Creek Generating Station.” February 23, 2009. 

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

Population for whom poverty status is determined. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 

3) Sample Data.” Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed June 28, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000b. “P90. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families by Family Type 

by Presence of Related Children under 18 Years of Age by Age of Related Children [41] – 

Universe: Families. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data.” Available 

URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed June 28, 2010). 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2003. LandView 6 – Census 2000 Tables “P-4. Hispanic or 

Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race [73] – Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 

Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data”; “P87. Poverty Status in 1999 by Age [17] – 

Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary 

File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data”; and “P90. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families by Family Type by 

Presence of Related Children under 18 Years of Age by Age of Related Children [41] – 

Universe: Families. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data” for Census 
 Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 

 4-95 

Block Groups within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of Salem and HCGS. December. Available URL: 

http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed September 3, 2010). 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press. Available URL: 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf (accessed 

September 3, 2010). 

Voronin, L.M. 2003. Documentation of Revisions to the Regional Aquifer System Analysis 

Model of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 

Report 03-4268. Available URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri03-4268/pdf/WRIR03-4268.pdf

(accessed September 3, 2010). 

Walker, R.L. 1983. Evaluation of Water Levels in Major Aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal 

Plain, 1978. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4077. Available 

URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri824077 (accessed September 3, 2010). 

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

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4140. Available URL: 

http://nj.usgs.gov/publications/WRIR/00-4140/wrir00-4140.pdf (accessed September 3, 2010).

 5-1 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS 

Environmental issues associated with the postulated accidents are discussed in NUREG1437, Volumes 1 and 2, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants” (hereafter referred to as the GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1999).(1) The GEIS includes 

determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all 

plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then 

assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 

issues are those that meet all of the following criteria: 

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply 

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling 

system or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

(2) A single significance level (i.e, SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned 

to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle 

and from the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the 

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation 

measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is 

required unless new and significant information is identified. 

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and, 

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. 

This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might 

occur during the license renewal term. Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. 

These are design-basis accidents (DBA) and severe accidents, as discussed below. 

5.1 DESIGN-BASIS ACCIDENTS 

In order to receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for an operating 

license, an applicant for an initial operating license must submit a final safety analysis report 

(FSAR) as part of its application. The FSAR presents the design criteria and design 

information for the proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site. The 

FSAR also discusses various hypothetical accident situations and the safety features that 

are provided to prevent and mitigate accidents. The NRC staff (staff) reviews the application 

 

(1) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to the GEIS include the GEIS and its Addendum 1. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-2 

to determine whether or not the plant design meets the NRC’s regulations and requirements 

and includes, in part, the nuclear plant design and its anticipated response to an accident. 

DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the staff evaluate to ensure that the 

plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients, as well as a broad spectrum of 

postulated accidents, without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number 

of these postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant, but are 

evaluated to establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of 

the facility. The acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” 

(10 CFR Part 50) and 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria.” 

The environmental impacts of postulated accidents were evaluated for the license renewal 

period in Chapter 5 of the GEIS. Section 5.5.1 states: 

All plants have had a previous evaluation of the environmental impacts of 

design-basis accidents. In addition, the licensee will be required to maintain 

acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the renewal period. 

Therefore, the calculated releases from design-basis accidents would not be 

expected to change. Since the consequences of these events are evaluated 

for the hypothetical maximally exposed individual at the time of licensing, 

changes in the plant environment will not affect these evaluations. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of design-basis 

accidents are of small significance for all plants. Because the environmental 

impacts of design basis accidents are of small significance and because 

additional measures to reduce such impacts would be costly, the staff 

concludes that no mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the 

current term license would be warranted. This is a Category 1 issue. 

This issue, applicable to Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) 

and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), is listed in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1. Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term 

Issue GEIS Section Category 

DBAs 5.3.2, 5.5.1 1 

No new and significant information related to DBAs was identified during the review of 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC’s (PSEG or the applicant’s) environmental reports (ERs) (PSEG, 

2009a; PSEG, 2009b), site audit, scoping process, or evaluation of other available 

information. Therefore, there are no impacts related to DBAs beyond those discussed in the 

GEIS. 

5.2 SEVERE ACCIDENTS 

Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could 

result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite 

consequences. In the GEIS, the staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-3 

license renewal period, using the results of existing analyses and information from various 

sites to predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for plants during the renewal 

period. 

Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, 

fires, and sabotage have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in the final 

environmental impact statements (EISs) and were not specifically considered for the Salem 

and HCGS sites in the GEIS (NRC, 1996). The GEIS, however, did evaluate existing impact 

assessments performed by the staff and by the industry at 44 nuclear plants in the United 

States and segregated all sites into six general categories and then estimated that the risk 

consequences calculated in existing analyses bound the risks for all other plants within each 

category. The GEIS further concluded that the risk from beyond design-basis earthquakes 

at existing nuclear power plants is designated as SMALL. The GEIS for license renewal 

documents and concludes that the core damage and radiological release from such acts 

would be no worse than the damage and release to be expected from internally initiated 

events. 

In the GEIS, the staff concludes that the risk from sabotage and beyond design-basis 

earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is designated as SMALL, and additionally, that 

the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of 

internally initiated severe accidents (NRC, 1996). 

Based on information in the GEIS, the staff found that: 

The generic analysis...applies to all plants and that the probability-weighted 

consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, 

releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts of severe 

accidents are of small significance for all plants. However, not all plants 

have performed a site-specific analysis of measures that could mitigate 

severe accidents. Consequently, severe accidents are a Category 2 issue 

for plants that have not performed a site-specific consideration of severe 

accident mitigation and submitted that analysis for Commission review. 

This issue, applicable to Salem, and HCGS, is listed in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2. Issues Applicable to Postulated Accidents during the Renewal Term 

Issue GEIS Section Category 

Severe accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; 5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4; 

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2 

2 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-4 

The staff identified no new and significant information related to postulated accidents during 

the review of the applicant’s ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, the scoping 

process, or evaluation of other available information. Therefore, there are no impacts 

related to postulated accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS. In accordance with 10 

CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), however, the staff has reviewed severe accident mitigation 

alternatives (SAMAs) for Salem and HCGS. Review results are discussed in Section 5.3 of 

this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

5.3 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 

As required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), license renewal applicants must consider 

alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for 

the applicant's plant in an EIS, related supplement, or in an environmental assessment. The 

purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, 

and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance are 

identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for Salem and 

HCGS; therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives. 

5.3.1 Introduction 

This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for Salem and HCGS conducted 

by PSEG and the staff's reviews of those evaluations. The staff performed its review with 

contract assistance from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the staff’s reviews are 

available in greater detail in Appendices F and G; the SAMA evaluations are available in 

PSEG’s ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG 2009b) and subsequent submittals. 

The SAMA evaluations for Salem and HCGS were conducted with a four-step approach. In 

the first step, PSEG quantified the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents 

using the plant specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and other risk models. 

In the second step, PSEG examined the major risk contributors and identified possible ways 

(SAMAs) of reducing that risk. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to components, 

systems, procedures, and training. PSEG identified 27 potential SAMAs for Salem, and 23 

for HCGS. PSEG performed an initial screening to determine if any SAMAs could be 

eliminated because they are not applicable to Salem or HCGS due to design differences, or 

have estimated implementation costs that would exceed the dollar-value associated with 

completely eliminating all severe accident risks at Salem and HCGS. Four SAMAs were 

eliminated based on this screening, leaving 25 for Salem and 21 for HCGS for further 

evaluation. 

In the third step, PSEG estimated the benefits and the costs associated with each of the 

SAMAs. Estimates were made of how much each SAMA could reduce risk. Those 

estimates were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for 

performing regulatory analyses (NRC, 1997). The cost of implementing the proposed 

SAMAs was also estimated. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-5 

Finally, in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining SAMAs were 

compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost beneficial, meaning the benefits of the 

SAMA were greater than the cost (a positive cost benefit). PSEG concluded in its ERs that 

several of the SAMAs evaluated are potentially cost-beneficial (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 

2009b). 

The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of 

aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as 

part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. PSEG’s SAMA analysis and the staff’s 

review are discussed in more detail below. 

5.3.2 Estimate of Risk 

PSEG submitted an assessment of SAMAs for SGS and HCGS as part of the ERs (PSEG 

2009a, PSEG 2009b). For each, two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for 

the risk estimates used in the SAMA analysis: (1) the plant-specific Level-1 and Level-2 

probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) models, which are updated versions of the individual 

plant examinations (IPEs) (PSEG, 1993: PSEG, 1994; PSEG, 1995); and (2) a 

supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts (essentially a Level-3 

PSA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The most recent plant-specific 

Level-1 and Level 2 PSA models consisted of the following internal events PSAs: (1) for 

Salem, the Salem PRA, Revision 4.1, September 2008, model of record (MOR); and (2) for 

HCGS, the HC108B update. Neither of these analyses accounted for external events.The 

Salem core damage frequency (CDF) is approximately 4.8 × 10-5 per year for internal events 

as determined from quantification of the Level 1 PRA model at a truncation of 1 × 10-11 per 

year. When determined from the sum of the containment event tree (CET) sequences, or 

Level 2 PRA model, the release frequency (from all release categories, which consist of 

intact containment, late release, and early release) is approximately 5.0 × 10-5 per year, also 

at a truncation of 1 × 10-11 per year. 5.0 × 10-5 per year was used as the baseline CDF in 

the SAMA evaluations (PSEG 2009a). The CDF is based on the risk assessment for 

internally initiated events, which includes internal flooding. PSEG did not explicitly include 

the contribution from external events within the Salem risk estimates; however, it did 

account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external events by 

multiplying the estimated benefits for internal events by a factor of 2. The breakdown of 

CDF by initiating event provided in Table 5-3 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-6 

Table 5-3. Salem Nuclear Generating Station Core Damage Frequency for Internal 

Events 

Initiating Event CDF 

(per year) 

% Contribution to 

CDF 

Loss of Control Area Ventilation 1.8 x 10-5 37 

Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) 8.1 × 10–6 17 

Loss of Service Water 6.6 × 10–6 14 

Internal Floods 4.5 × 10–6 9 

Transients 4.0 × 10–6 8 

Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) 2.7 × 10–6 6 

Loss of Component Cooling Water (CCW) 1.0 × 10–6 2 

Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) 7.4 × 10–7 2 

Loss of 125 Volt DC Bus A 

Others (less than 1 percent)

6.9 × 10–7

1.8 × 10–6

1 

4 

Total CDF (Internal Events) 4.8 × 10–5 100 

As shown in Table 5-3, events initiated by losses of control area ventilation, offsite power, or 

service water are the dominant contributors to the CDF. PSEG identified that station 

blackout (SBO) contributes to 8 x 10-6 per year (PSEG, 2010a). 

PSEG estimated the dose to the population within 50 miles (mi) (80 kilometer [km]) of the 

SGS site to be approximately 0.78 person-sievert (person-Sv) (78 person-roentgen 

equivalent man [person-rem] per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by 

containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Containment bypass events (such 

as SGTR-initiated large early release frequency [LERF] accidents) and late containment 

failures without feedwater dominate the population dose risk at Salem. 

Table 5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode for Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1 Per Year) % Contribution2 

Containment Over-Pressure (Late) 

Steam Generator Ruptures 

42.9 

31.9 

55 

41 

Containment Isolation Failure 2.3 3 

Intact Containment 0.2 <1 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-7 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1 Per Year) % Contribution2 

Interface System Loss –Of- Coolant 

Accident (LOCA) 

Catastrophic Isolation Failure 

Basemat Melt-Through (Late) 

0.6 

0.4 

negligible 

<1 

<1 

negligible 

Total3 78.2 100 

1

One person-rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

2

Derived from Table E.3-7 of the ER 

3

Column totals may be different due to round off 

The HCGS CDF is approximately 5.1x10-6 per year as determined from quantification of the 

Level 1 PRA at a truncation of 1 x 10-12 per year. When determining from the sum of the 

CET sequences, or Level 2 PRA model, using a higher truncation of 5 x 10-11per a year used 

and the resulting release frequency (from all release categories, which consist of intact 

containment, late release, and early release) is approximately 4.4 x 10-6 per year. 4.4 x 10-6

per year was used as the baseline CDF in the SAMA evaluations (PSEG 2009b). Although 

this is about 16 percent less than the internal events CDF of 5.1 x 10-6 per year obtained 

from the Level-1 model, the staff considers that its use will have a negligible impact on the 

results of the SAMA evaluation because the external event multiplier and uncertainty 

multiplier used in the SAMA analysis have a much greater impact on the SAMA evaluation 

results than the small difference arising from the model quantification approach. PSEG did 

not explicitly include the contribution from external events within the HCGS risk estimates; 

however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external 

events by multiplying the estimated benefits for internal events by a factor of 6.3. The 

breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table 5-5. 

Table 5-5. Hope Creek Generating Station Core Damage Frequency for Internal 

Events 

Initiating Event CDF 

(per year) 

% Contribution to 

CDF 

Loss of Offsite Power 9.3 x 10-7 18 

Loss of Service Water (SW) 8.1 × 10–7 15 

Manual Shutdown 7.7 × 10–7 15 

Turbine Trip with Bypass 6.2 × 10–7 12 

Small LOCA-Water (Below Top of Active Fuel) 2.8 × 10–7 5 

Small LOCA-Steam (Above Top of Active Fuel) 2.3 × 10–7 4 

Loss of Condenser Vacuum 2.0 × 10–7 4 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-8 

Initiating Event CDF 

(per year) 

% Contribution to 

CDF 

Fire Protection System Rupture Outside Control Room 1.9 × 10–7 4 

Isolation LOCA in Emergency Core Cooling System 

(ECCS) Discharge Paths 1.1 × 10–7 2 

Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) Closure 1.1 × 10–7 2 

Internal Flood Outside Lower Relay Room 9.7 × 10–8 2 

Loss of Feedwater 8.8 × 10–8 2 

Loss of Safety Auxiliaries Cooling System 7.9. × 10–8 2 

Reactor Auxiliaries Cooling System (RACS) Common 

Header Unisolable Rupture 7.6 × 10–8 1 

Unisolable SW A Pipe Rupture in RACS Room 5.7 × 10–8 1 

Unisolable SWB Pipe Rupture in RACS Room 5.7 × 10–8 1 

Others (less than 1% each) 4.1 × 10–7 8 

Total CDF (Internal Events) 5.1 × 10–6 100 

As shown in Table 5-5, events initiated by loss of offsite power, loss of service water and 

other transients (manual shutdown and turbine trip with bypass) are the dominant 

contributors to the CDF. ATWS sequences account for 3 percent of the CDF, and SBO 

accounts for 12 percent of the CDF (PSEG, 2010b). 

PSEG estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi (80 km) of the HCGS site to be 

approximately 0.23 (person-Sv) (22.9 person-rem) per year. The breakdown of the total 

population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-6. Releases from 

the containment within the early time frame (0 to less than 4 hours [hrs] following event 

initiation) and intermediate time frame (4 to less than 24 hours following event initiation) 

dominate the population dose risk at HCGS. 

Table 5-6 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode for Hope 

Creek Generating Station 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1 Per Year) % Contribution2 

Early Releases (< 4hrs) 

Intermediate Releases(4 to< 24 hrs) 

11.9 

9.9 

52 

43 

Late Releases (≥ 24hrs) 1.1 5 

Intact Containment <0.1 negligible 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-9 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose 

(Person-Rem1 Per Year) % Contribution2 

Total 22.9 100 

1

One person-rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

2

Derived from Table E.3-7 of the ER 

The staff has reviewed PSEG’s data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality 

of the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for 

candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDFs 

and offsite doses reported by PSEG. 

5.3.3 Potential Plant Improvements 

Once the dominant contributors to plant risk were identified, PSEG searched for ways to 

reduce that risk. In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, PSEG considered insights 

from the plant-specific PRA, and SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that 

have submitted license renewal applications. PSEG identified 27 potential risk-reducing 

improvements (SAMAs) to plant components, systems, procedures, and training for Salem. 

PSEG identified 23 potential risk-reducing improvements (SAMAs) to plant components, 

systems, procedures and training for HCGS. 

PSEG removed two candidates SAMAS from further consideration for Salem because they 

are not applicable at Salem due to design differences, have already been implemented at 

Salem ,or were estimated to have implementation costs that would exceed the dollar value 

associated with completely eliminating all severe accident risk at Salem. A detail costbenefit analysis was performed for the SAMAs for Salem, as well as, four additional SAMAs 

that were analyzed for Salem in response to a staff request for additional information. 

PSEG removed two candidate SAMAs from further consideration for HCGS because they 

are not applicable at HCGS due to design differences, have already been implemented at 

HCGS, or were estimated to have implementation costs that would exceed the dollar value 

associated with completely eliminating all severe accident risks at HCGS. A detailed costbenefit analysis was performed for the 21 remaining SAMAs for HCGS. 

The staff concludes that PSEG used a systematic and comprehensive process for 

identifying potential plant improvements for Salem and HCGS, and that the set of potential 

plant improvements identified by PSEG is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, 

acceptable. 

5.3.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements 

PSEG evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the remaining 25 SAMAs for Salem, as well 

as four additional SAMAs that were added in response to a staff request for additional 

information. PSEG evaluated the risk-reduction potential for the remaining 21 SAMAs for 

HCGS. The majority of the SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-10 

the SAMA was assumed to completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed 

enhancement. 

PSEG estimated the costs for implementing the candidate SAMAs through the development 

of site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates conservatively did not include the cost of 

replacement power during extended outages required to implement the modifications, nor 

did they include contingency cost for unforeseen difficulties. 

The staff reviewed PSEG’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant 

improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk 

reduction are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is 

higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its estimates of 

averted risk for the various SAMAs on PSEG’s risk reduction estimates. 

The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates. For certain improvements, 

the staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar 

improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensee’s analyses of SAMAs 

for operating reactors. The staff found the cost estimates to be reasonable, and generally 

consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants’ analyses. 

The staff concludes that the risk reduction and the cost estimates provided by PSEG are 

sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation. 

5.3.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison 

The cost-benefit analysis performed by PSEG was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 

(NRC, 1997) and was executed consistent with this guidance. NUREG/BR-0058 has 

recently been revised to reflect the agency’s revised policy on discount rates. Revision 4 of 

NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed - one at 3 percent 

and the other at 7 percent (NRC, 2004). PSEG provided both sets of estimates for Salem 

and HCGS (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). 

For Salem, PSEG identified 11 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs in the baseline analysis 

contained in the ER. The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are: 

● SAMA 1 – Enhance procedures and provide additional equipment to 

respond to loss of control area ventilation. 

● SAMA 2 – Re-configure Salem 3 to provide a more expedient backup to 

AC power source for Salem 1 and 2. 

● SAMA 4 – Install fuel oil transfer pump on “C” emergency diesel 

generator (EDG) and provide procedural guidance for using “C” EDG to 

power selected “A” and “B” loads. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-11 

● SAMA 6 – Enhance flood detection for 84’ auxiliary building and 

enhance procedural guidance for responding to service water flooding 

● SAMA 9 – Connect Hope Creek cooling tower basin to Salem service 

water system as alternate service water supply. 

● SAMA 10 – Provide procedural guidance for faster cooldown on loss of 

reactor coolant pump (RCP) seal 

● SAMA 11 – Modify plant procedures to make use of other Unit’s PDP 

for RCP seal. 

● SAMA 12 – Improve flood barriers outside 220/440 Volt (V) AC 

switchgear rooms. 

● SAMA 14 – Expand anticipated transients without trip mitigation system 

actuation circuitry (AMSAC) function to include backup breaker trip on 

RPS failure. 

● SAMA 17 – Enhance procedures and provide additional equipment to 

respond to loss of EDG control room ventilation. 

● SAMA 24 – Provide procedural guidance to cross-tie Salem 1 and 2 

service water systems. 

PSEG performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and 

uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (PSEG, 2009a). If the benefits are 

increased by an additional factor of 2.5 to account for uncertainties, five additional SAMA 

candidates were determined to be potentially cost-beneficial. The ER also showed that the 

sensitivity case SAMA (SAMA 5A) was potentially cost-beneficial: 

● SAMA 3 – Install limited EDG cross-tie capability between Salem 1 and 

2. 

● SAMA 5 – Install portable diesel generators to charge station battery 

and circulating water batteries and replace PDP with air-cooled pump. 

● SAMA 5A – Install portable diesel generators to charge station battery 

and circulating water batteries. 

● SAMA 7 – Install “B” train auxiliary feedwater storage tank (AFWST) 

makeup including alternative water source. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-12 

● SAMA 8 – Install high pressure pump powered with portable diesel 

generator and long-term suction source to supply the auxiliary 

feedwater (AFW) header. 

● SAMA 27 – In addition to the equipment installed for SAMA 5, install 

permanently piped seismically qualified connections to alternative AFW 

water sources. 

PSEG indicated that all 17 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs will be considered for 

implementation through the established Salem Plant Health Committee process. 

For HCGS, PSEG identified nine potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs in the baseline analysis 

contained in the ER. The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs are: 

● SAMA 1 – Remove automatic depressurization system (ADS) inhibit 

from non-ATWS emergency operating procedures. 

● SAMA 3 – Install backup air compressor to supply air-operated valves. 

● SAMA 4 – Provide procedural guidance to cross-tie residual heat 

removal (RHR) trains. 

● SAMA 10 – Provide procedural guidance to use B.5.b low pressure 

pump for non-security events. 

● SAMA 17 – Replace a supply fan with a different design in service water 

pump room. 

● SAMA 18 – Replace a return fan with a different design in service water 

pump room. 

● SAMA 30 – Provide procedural guidance for partial transfer function of 

control functions from the control room to the remote shutdown panel. 

● SAMA 35 – Relocate, minimize, and/or eliminate electrical heaters in 

electrical access room. 

● SAMA 39 – Provide procedural guidance to bypass reactor core 

isolation cooling turbine exhaust pressure trip. 

PSEG performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and 

uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (PSEG, 2009b). If the benefits are 

increased by an additional factor of 2.84 to account for uncertainties, four additional SAMA 

candidates were determined to be potentially cost-beneficial: 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-13 

● SAMA 8 – Convert selected fire protection piping from wet to dry pipe 

system. 

● SAMA 32 – Install additional physical barriers to limit dispersion of fuel 

oil from diesel generator rooms. 

● SAMA 36 – Provide procedural guidance for loss of all 1E 120 V AC 

power. 

● SAMA 37 – Reinforce 1E 120 V AC distribution panels. 

PSEG indicated that all 13 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs will be considered for 

implementation through the established HCGS Plant Health Committee process. 

Based on its review, the staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially costbeneficial SAMAs discussed above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than 

the associated benefits. 

5.3.6 Conclusions 

The staff reviewed PSEG’s analysis and concluded that the methods used and the 

implementation of those methods was sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs 

support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by PSEG are 

reasonable and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. 

Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, the staff concurs with PSEG’s identification of 

areas in which risk can be further reduced at both Salem and HCGS in a cost-beneficial 

manner through the implementation of all, or a subset of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. 

Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the staff considers that further 

consideration of these SAMAs by PSEG is warranted. However, none of the potentially 

cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period 

of extended operation for Salem or HCGS. Therefore, they need not be implemented as 

part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. 

5.4 REFERENCES 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic 

Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “ Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-14 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

Criteria.” 

 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, 

Washington, D.C. Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML040690705 and ML040690838 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical 

Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR 0184, Washington, D.C. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Washington, D.C. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010a. Letter From Charles Eccleston , U.S. 

NRC, to Thomas Joyce, PSEG. Subject: “Revised Request for Additional Information 

Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 1 and 2.” April 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML100910252. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010b. Letter From Charles Eccleston , U.S. 

NRC, to Thomas Joyce, PSEG. Subject: “Revised Request for Additional Information 

Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Hope Creek Generating Station.” 

May 2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML101310058 

 PSE&G (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1993. “Generic Letter 88-20, Individual 

Plant Examination (IPE) Report, Salem Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 

50-272 and 50-311,” July 1993 ADAMS Accession No. ML080100047. 

PSE&G (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1994. “Hope Creek Generating 

Stations. Individual Plant Examination.” ADAMS Accession No. ML080160331. 

PSE&G (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1995 . “Generic Letter 88-20, 

Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities – 10 CFR 50.54(f), Request 

for Additional Informationl, Salem Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Facility Operating 

License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311,” August 1995 ADAMS 

Accession No. ML080100021. 

 PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generation Station—License 

Renewal Application, Appendix E: Applicant’s Environmental Report; Operating License 

Renewal Stage.” August 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092400532, ML092400531, and 

ML092430231.PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generation Station—

License Renewal Application, Appendix E: Applicant’s Environmental Report; Operating 

License Renewal Stage.” August 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092430389 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010a. Letter form Paul J. Davison, PSEG, to NRC 

Document Control Desk. Subject:” Responses to NRC request for additional information 

dated April 12, 2010, related to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) review 

of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.” May 2010. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML101520326. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-15 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010b. Letter form Paul J. Davison, PSEG, to NRC 

Document Control Desk. Subject:” Responses to NRC Request for additional information 

dated April 20, 2010, related to the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) review 

associated with the Hope Creek Generating Station License Renewal Application.” June 

2010. ADAMS Accession No. ML101550149. 

 6-1 

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE 

AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND GREENHOUSE 

GAS EMISSIONS 

6.1 THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE 

This section addresses issues related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management 

during the period of extended operation. The uranium cycle includes uranium mining and 

milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, 

reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of lowlevel wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities. NUREG 1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NRC, 1996; 1999)1

 details the potential generic impacts of the radiological and 

non-radiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear 

fuel and wastes, as listed in Table 6-1 below. The GEIS is based, in part, on the generic 

impacts provided in Table S-3, “Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,” in Title 10, 

Section 51.51(b), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51.51(b)), and in Table S-4, 

“Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor,” in 10 CFR 51.52(c). The GEIS also addresses the impacts 

from radon-222 and technetium-99. 

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) did not identify any new 

and significant information related to the uranium fuel cycle during the review of the PSEG 

Nuclear LLC (PSEG or the applicant) environmental reports (ERs) for Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) (PSEG, 

2009a; PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, and the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts 

related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these Category 1 issues, the 

GEIS concludes that the impacts are SMALL, except for the collective offsite radiological 

impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, which the 

Commission has concluded to be acceptable. 

Table 6-1. Issues Related to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management. 

Nine generic issues are related to the fuel cycle and solid waste management. There are no 

site-specific issues.

Issues GEIS Section Category

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects 

from other than the disposal of spent fuel and 

high-level waste) 

6.1, 6.2.1, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.3, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 1 

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 1 

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and 6.1, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 1 

 

1

 The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all 

references to the GEIS include the GEIS and Addendum 1. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-2 

Issues GEIS Section Category

high-level waste disposal) 

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel 

cycle 

6.1, 6.2.2.6, 6.2.2.7, 6.2.2.8, 6.2.2.9, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.6 1 

Low-level waste storage and disposal 

6.1, 6.2.2.2, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.3.1, 6.4.3.2, 6.4.3.3, 6.4.4, 

6.4.4.1, 6.4.4.2, 6.4.4.3, 6.4.4.4, 6.4.4.5, 6.4.4.5.1, 

6.4.4.5.2, 6.4.4.5.3, 6.4.4.5.4, 6.4.4.6, 6.6 

1 

Mixed waste storage and disposal 

6.4.5.1, 6.4.5.2, 6.4.5.3, 6.4.5.4, 6.4.5.5, 6.4.5.6, 

6.4.5.6.1, 6.4.5.6.2, 6.4.5.6.3, 6.4.5.6.4, 6.6 

1 

Onsite spent fuel 6.1, 6.4.6, 6.4.6.1, 6.4.6.2, 6.4.6.3, 6.4.6.4, 6.4.6.5, 

6.4.6.6, 6.4.6.7, 6.6 

1 

Nonradiological waste 6.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3, 6.6 1 

Transportation 6.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.6, Addendum 1 1 

6.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 

This section provides a discussion of potential impacts from greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted 

from the nuclear fuel cycle. The GEIS does not directly address these emissions, and its 

discussion is limited to an inference that substantial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions may occur 

if coal- or oil-fired alternatives to license renewal are implemented. 

6.2.1 Existing Studies 

Since the development of the GEIS, the relative volumes of GHGs emitted by nuclear and other 

electricity generating methods have been widely studied. However, estimates and projections 

of the carbon footprint of the nuclear fuel cycle vary depending on the type of study conducted. 

Additionally, considerable debate also exists among researchers regarding the relative impacts 

of nuclear and other forms of electricity generation on GHG emissions. Existing studies on 

GHG emissions from nuclear power plants generally take two different forms: 

(1) Qualitative discussions of the potential to use nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions 

and mitigate global warming. 

(2) Technical analyses and quantitative estimates of the actual amount of GHGs generated 

by the nuclear fuel cycle or entire nuclear power plant life cycle and comparisons to the 

operational or life cycle emissions from other energy generation alternatives. 

Some of these studies are summarized below to give the reader an overview of the current state 

of these assessments. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-3 

6.2.1.1 Qualitative Studies 

The qualitative studies consist primarily of broad, large-scale public policy or investment 

evaluations of whether an expansion of nuclear power is likely to be a technically, economically, 

and/or politically feasible means of achieving global GHG reductions. Examples of the studies 

include: 

● Evaluations to determine whether investments in nuclear power in developing 

countries should be accepted as a flexibility mechanism to assist industrialized 

nations in achieving their GHG reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocols 

(Schneider, 2000; IAEA, 2000; NEA and OECD, 2002; NIRS/WISE, 2005). 

Ultimately, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol did not approve nuclear power as a 

component under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) due to safety and 

waste disposal concerns (NEA and OECD, 2002). 

● Analyses developed to assist governments, including the United States, in making 

long-term investment and public policy decisions in nuclear power (Keepin, 1988; 

Hagen et al., 2001; MIT, 2003). 

Although the qualitative studies sometimes reference and critique the existing quantitative 

estimates of GHGs produced by the nuclear fuel cycle, their conclusions generally rely heavily 

on discussions of other aspects of nuclear policy decisions and investment such as safety, cost, 

waste generation, and political acceptability. Therefore, these studies are typically not directly 

applicable to an evaluation of GHG emissions associated with the proposed license renewal for 

a given nuclear power plant. 

6.2.1.2 Quantitative Studies 

A large number of technical studies, including calculations and estimates of the amount of 

GHGs emitted by nuclear and other power generation options, are available in the literature and 

were useful to the NRC staff’s efforts in addressing relative GHG emission levels. Examples of 

these studies include – but are not limited to – Mortimer (1990), Andseta et al. (1998), Spadaro 

et al. (2000), Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (2008), Fritsche (2006), Parliamentary Office of 

Science and Technology (POST) (2006), Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) (2006), Weisser 

(2006), Fthenakis and Kim (2007), and Dones (2007). 

Comparing these studies and others like them is difficult because the assumptions and 

components of the lifecycles the authors evaluate vary widely. Examples of areas in which 

differing assumptions make comparing the studies difficult include: 

• Energy sources that may be used to mine uranium deposits in the future; 

• Reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear fuel; 

• Current and potential future processes to enrich uranium and the energy sources 

that will power them; 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-4 

• Estimated grades and quantities of recoverable uranium resources; 

• Estimated grades and quantities of recoverable fossil fuel resources; 

• Estimated GHG emissions other than CO2, including the conversion to CO2

equivalents per unit of electric energy produced; 

• Performance of future fossil fuel power systems; 

• Projected capacity factors for alternatives means of generation; and 

• Current and potential future reactor technologies. 

In addition, studies may vary with respect to whether all or parts of a power plant’s fuel cycle are 

analyzed, i.e., a full lifecycle analysis will typically address plant construction, operations, 

resource extraction (for fuel and construction materials), and decommissioning, whereas, a 

partial lifecycle analysis primarily focuses on operational differences. 

In the case of license renewal, a GHG analysis for that portion of the plant’s lifecycle (operation 

for an additional 20 years) would not involve GHG emissions associated with construction 

because construction activities have already been completed at the time of relicensing. In 

addition, the proposed action of license renewal would also not involve additional GHG 

emissions associated with facility decommissioning, because that decommissioning must occur 

whether the facility is relicensed or not. However, in some of the aforementioned studies, the 

specific contribution of GHG emissions from construction, decommissioning, or other portions of 

a plant’s lifecycle cannot be clearly separated from one another. In such cases, an analysis of 

GHG emissions would overestimate the GHG emissions attributed to a specific portion of a 

plant’s lifecycle. Nonetheless, these studies provide some meaningful information with respect 

to the potential GHG cumulative impacts associated with license renewal as well as the relative 

magnitude of the emissions among nuclear power plants and other forms of electric generation, 

as discussed in the following sections. 

In Tables 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4, the NRC staff presents the results of the aforementioned 

quantitative studies to provide an evaluation of the relative GHG emissions that may result from 

the proposed license renewal as compared to the potential alternative use of coal-fired, natural 

gas-fired, and renewable generation. Most studies from Mortimer (1990) onward suggest that 

uranium ore grades and uranium enrichment processes are leading determinants in the ultimate 

GHG emissions attributable to nuclear power generation. These studies indicate that the 

relatively lower order of magnitude of GHG emissions from nuclear power when compared to 

fossil-fueled alternatives (especially natural gas) could potentially disappear if available uranium 

ore grades drop sufficiently while enrichment processes continued to rely on the same 

technologies. 

Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal 

Considering that coal fuels the largest share of electricity generation in the United States and 

that its burning results in the largest GHG emissions for any of the likely alternatives to nuclear 

power generation, including Salem and HCGS, most of the available quantitative studies 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-5 

focused on comparisons of the relative GHG emissions of nuclear to coal-fired generation. The 

quantitative estimates of the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle (and, in 

some cases, the nuclear lifecycle), as compared to an equivalent coal-fired plant, are presented 

in Table 6-2. The following chart does not include all existing studies, but provides an 

illustrative range of estimates developed by various sources. 

Table 6-2. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Nuclear—230,000 tons CO2 

Coal—5,912,000 tons CO2

Note: Future GHG emissions from nuclear to increase because of declining ore 

grade. 

Andseta et al. (1998) Nuclear energy produces 1.4 percent of the GHG emissions compared to coal. 

Note: Future reprocessing and use of nuclear-generated electrical power in the 

mining and enrichment steps are likely to change the projections of earlier 

authors, such as Mortimer (1990). 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—264 to 357 g Ceq/kWh 

Storm van Leeuwen 

and Smith (2008) 

Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus coal. 

Fritsche (2006) (Values 

estimated from graph 

in Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—950 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (Nuclear 

calculations from AEA, 

2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—>1000 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03 percent would raise nuclear to 6.8 g 

Ceq /kWh. Future improved technology and carbon capture and storage could 

reduce coal-fired GHG emissions by 90 percent. 

Weisser (2006) 

(Compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—950 to 1250 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim 

(2007) 

Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus coal. 

Dones (2007) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus coal. 

Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas 

The quantitative estimates of the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle (and, in 

some cases, the nuclear lifecycle), as compared to an equivalent natural gas-fired plant, are 

presented in Table 6-3. The following chart does not include all existing studies, but provides 

an illustrative range of estimates developed by various sources. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-6 

Table 6-3. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus natural gas. 

Andseta (1998) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus natural gas. 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—120 to 188 g Ceq/kWh 

Storm van Leeuwen 

and Smith (2008) 

Nuclear fuel cycle produces 20 to 33 percent of the GHG emissions compared to 

natural gas (at high ore grades). 

Note: Future nuclear GHG emissions to increase because of declining ore grade. 

Fritsche (2006) 

(Values estimated 

from graph in Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Cogeneration Combined Cycle Natural Gas—150 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (Nuclear 

calculations from AEA, 

2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—500 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03 percent would raise nuclear to 

6.8 g Ceq/kWh. Future improved technology and carbon capture and storage could 

reduce natural gas GHG emissions by 90 percent. 

Weisser (2006) 

(Compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—440 to 780 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim 

(2007) 

Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus natural gas. 

Dones (2007) Author critiqued methods and assumptions of Storm van Leeuwen and Smith 

(2008), and concluded that the nuclear fuel cycle produces 15 to 27 percent of the 

GHG emissions of natural gas. 

Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources 

The quantitative estimates of the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, as 

compared to equivalent renewable energy sources, are presented in Table 6-4. Calculation of 

GHG emissions associated with these sources is more difficult than the calculations for nuclear 

energy and fossil fuels because of the large variation in efficiencies due to their different 

sources and locations. For example, the efficiency of solar and wind energy is highly dependent 

on the location in which the power generation facility is installed. Similarly, the range of GHG 

emissions estimates for hydropower varies greatly depending on the type of dam or reservoir 

involved (if used at all). Therefore, the GHG emissions estimates for these energy sources 

have a greater range of variability than the estimates for nuclear and fossil fuel sources. The 

following chart does not include all existing studies, but provides an illustrative range of 

estimates developed by various sources. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-7 

Table 6-4. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy Sources 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Nuclear—230,000 tons CO2 

Hydropower—78,000 tons CO2

Wind power—54,000 tons CO2

Tidal power—52,500 tons CO2

Note: Future GHG emissions from nuclear to increase because of declining ore 

grade. 

Andseta (1998) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus renewable energy sources. 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—27.3 to 76.4 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—1.1 to 64.6 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—8.4 to 16.6 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—2.5 to 13.1 g Ceq/kWh 

Storm van Leeuwen 

and Smith (2008) 

Author did not evaluate nuclear versus renewable energy sources. 

Fritsche (2006) (Values 

estimated from graph 

in Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—125 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—50 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—20 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (Nuclear 

calculations from AEA, 

2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—25 to 93 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—35 to 58 g Ceq/kWh 

Wave/Tidal—25 to 50 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—5 to 30 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—4.64 to 5.25 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03 percent would raise nuclear to 

6.8 g Ceq/kWh. 

Weisser (2006) 

(Compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—43 to 73 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—1 to 34 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—35 to 99 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—8 to 30 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim 

(2007) 

Nuclear—16 to 55 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—17 to 49 g Ceq/kWh 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-8 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Dones (2007) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus renewable energy sources. 

6.2.2 Conclusions: Relative Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The sampling of data presented in Tables 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 above demonstrates the challenges 

of any attempt to determine the specific amount of GHG emission attributable to nuclear energy 

production sources, as different assumptions and calculation methodology will yield differing 

results. The differences and complexities in these assumptions and analyses will further 

increase when they’re used to project future GHG emissions. Nevertheless, several 

conclusions can be drawn from the information presented. 

First, the various studies indicate a general consensus that nuclear power currently produces 

fewer GHG emissions than fossil-fuel-based electrical generation, e.g., the GHG emissions from 

a complete nuclear fuel cycle currently range from 2.5 to 55 g Ceq/kWh, as compared to the use 

of coal plants (264 to 1250 g Ceq/kWh) and natural gas plants (120 to 780 g Ceq/kWh). The 

studies also provide estimates of GHG emissions from five renewable energy sources based on 

current technology. These estimates included solar-photovoltaic (17 to 125 g Ceq/kWh), 

hydroelectric (1 to 64.6 g Ceq/kWh), biomass (8.4 to 99 g Ceq/kWh), wind (2.5 to 30 g Ceq/kWh), 

and tidal (25 to 50 g Ceq/kWh). The range of these estimates is wide, but the general conclusion 

is that current GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are of the same order of magnitude as 

from these renewable energy sources. 

Second, the studies indicate no consensus on future relative GHG emissions from nuclear 

power and other sources of electricity. There is substantial disagreement among the various 

authors regarding the GHG emissions associated with declining uranium ore concentrations, 

future uranium enrichment methods, and other factors, including changes in technology. Similar 

disagreement exists regarding future GHG emissions associated with coal and natural gas for 

electricity generation. Even the most conservative studies conclude that the nuclear fuel cycle 

currently produces fewer GHG emissions than fossil-fuel-based sources, and is expected to 

continue to do so in the near future. The primary difference between the authors is the 

projected cross-over date (the time at which GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle exceed 

those of fossil-fuel-based sources) or whether cross-over will actually occur. 

Considering the current estimates and future uncertainties, it appears that GHG emissions 

associated with the proposed Salem and HCGS relicensing action are likely to be lower than 

those associated with fossil-fuel-based energy sources. The NRC staff bases this conclusion 

on the following rationale: 

1. As shown in Tables 6-2 and 6-3, the current estimates of GHG emissions from the 

nuclear fuel cycle are far below those for fossil-fuel-based energy sources; 

2. Salem and HCGS license renewal will involve continued GHG emissions due to uranium 

mining, processing, and enrichment, but will not result in increased GHG emissions 

associated with plant construction or decommissioning (as the plant will have to be 

decommissioned at some point whether or not the license is renewed); and 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-9 

3. Few studies predict that nuclear fuel cycle emissions will exceed those of fossil fuels 

within a timeframe that includes the Salem and HCGS period of extended operation. 

Several studies suggest that future extraction and enrichment methods, the potential for 

higher grade resource discovery, and technology improvements could extend this 

timeframe. 

With respect to a comparison of GHG emissions among the proposed Salem and HCGS license 

renewal action and renewable energy sources, it appears likely that there will be future 

technology improvements and changes in the type of energy used for mining, processing, and 

constructing facilities of all types. Currently, the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear 

fuel cycle and renewable energy sources are comparable i.e., within the same order of 

magnitude. Because nuclear fuel production is the most significant contributor to possible future 

increases in GHG emissions from nuclear power, and because most renewable energy sources 

lack a fuel component, it is likely that GHG emissions from renewable energy sources would be 

lower than those associated with Salem and HCGS at some point during the period of extended 

operation. 

The NRC staff also provides an additional discussion about the contribution of GHG to 

cumulative air quality impacts in Section 4.11.2 of this SEIS. 

6.3 REFERENCES 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of High-Level 

Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste.” 

AEA (AEA Technology). 2006. “Carbon Footprint of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Briefing Note.” 

Prepared for British Energy. March 2006. Available URL: http://www.british-energy.com/

documents/carbon_footprint.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

Andseta, S., M.J. Thompson, J.P. Jarrell, and D.R. Pendergast. 1998. “CANDU Reactors and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Canadian Nuclear Association, 11th Pacific Basin Nuclear 

Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada. May 1998. Available URL: http://www.computare.org/

Support%20documents/Publications/Life%20Cycle.htm (accessed September 2, 2010). 

Dones, R. 2007. “Critical Note on the Estimation by Storm Van Leeuwen J.W., and Smith P. of 

the Energy Uses and Corresponding CO2 Emissions for the Complete Nuclear Energy Chain.” 

Paul Sherer Institute. April 2007. Available URL: http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Critical%20

note%20GHG%20PSI.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-10 

Fritsche, U.R. 2006. “Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of 

Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective.” Oko-Institut, Darmstadt 

Office. January 2006. Available URL: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/315/2006-017-en.pdf

(accessed September 2, 2010). 

Fthenakis, V.M. and H.C. Kim. 2007. Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar-electric and nuclear 

power: A life cycle study. Energy Policy, Volume 35, Number 4. 

IAEA (nternational Atomic Energy Agency). 2000. “Nuclear Power for Greenhouse Gas 

Mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol: The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).” November 

2000. Available URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/GreenhouseGas/

greenhousegas.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

Mortimer, N. 1990. “World Warms to Nuclear Power.” SCRAM Safe Energy Journal. December 

1989 and January 1990. Available URL: http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/

mortimer_se74.php (accessed February 29, 2007). 

NEA and OECD (Nuclear Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development). 2002. Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Available URL: 

http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2002/nea3808-kyoto.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

May 1996. Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. 

ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML04069720. 

POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology). 2006. “Carbon Footprint of Electricity 

Generation.” Postnote, Number 268. October 2006. Available ULR: http://www.parliament.uk/

documents/post/postpn268.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station , Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML092400532, ML092400531, and ML092430231. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML092430389. 

Schneider, M. 2000. Climate Change and Nuclear Power. World Wildlife Fund for Nature. April 

2000. Available URL: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fullnuclearreprotwwf.pdf (accessed 

September 2, 2010). 

Spadaro, J.V., L. Langlois and B. Hamilton. 2000. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity 

Generation Chains: Assessing the Difference.” IAEA Bulletin 42/2/2000, Vienna, Austria. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management 

 6-11 

Available URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

(accessed September 2, 2010). 

Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and P. Smith. 2008. Nuclear Power—The Energy Balance. February 

2008. Available URL: http://www.stormsmith.nl/ (accessed September 2, 2010). 

Weisser, D. 2006. “A Guide to Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Electric 

Supply Technologies.” Available URL: 

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_preprint_versionDanielWeisser.pdf (accessed May 19, 2009) 

7-1

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DECOMMISSIONING

Decommissioning is defined as the safe removal of a nuclear facility from service and the 

reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted 

use and termination of the license. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a 

generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) for decommissioning (NRC, 2002) that 

evaluated the environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of 

any reactor before or at the end of an initial or renewed license.

The NRC staff has not identified any new and significant information during the review of the 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) environmental reports (ERs) for Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) (PSEG, 2009a;

PSEG, 2009b), the site audit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts related 

to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999). For the issues 

listed in Table 7-1 below, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are SMALL.

Table 7-1. Issues Related to Decommissioning. Decommissioning would occur 

regardless of whether the Salem and HCGS units were shut down at the 

end of their currect operating licenses or at the end of the extended 

operation periods. There are no site-specific issues related to 

decommissioning.

Issues GEIS Section Category

Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4 1

Waste management 7.3.2; 7.4 1

Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4 1

Water quality 7.3.4; 7.4 1

Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4 1

Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4 1

7.1 References

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. May 

1996. Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. 

ML040690705 and ML040690738.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3, Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS

Accession No. ML04069720.
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

7-2

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 

November 2002. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023500395, ML023500322, ML023500310, and 

ML023500295.

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station , Units 1 and 2, 

License Renewal Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

License Renewal Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML092400531, ML092400532, and ML092430231.

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage. Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey. August, 2009. ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML092430389.
 8-1 

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that each environmental impact 

statement (EIS) consider alternatives to any proposed major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

regulations implementing NEPA for license renewal require that a supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS) consider and weigh “the environmental effects of the proposed action 

(license renewal); the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and 

alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental impacts” (Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51.71(d)). 

This SEIS considers the proposed Federal action of issuing a renewed license for the Salem 

Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station 

(HCGS), which would allow the plants to operate for 20 years beyond the current license 

expiration dates. In this chapter, the NRC staff (staff) examines the potential environmental 

impacts of alternatives to issuing a renewed operating license for Salem and HCGS, as well as 

alternatives that may reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts from license renewal, 

when and where these alternatives are applicable. 

While the NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1999), reached generic conclusions regarding many 

environmental issues associated with license renewal, it did not determine which alternatives 

are reasonable or reach conclusions about site-specific environmental impact levels. As such, 

the staff must evaluate environmental impacts of alternatives on a site-specific basis. 

Alternatives to the proposed action of issuing renewed Salem and HCGS operating licenses 

must meet the purpose and need for issuing a renewed license. They must: 

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of 

a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating 

needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 

authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers. (NRC, 1996) 

The staff ultimately makes no decision as to which alternative (or proposed action) to 

implement, since that decision falls to energy-planning decision-makers. If the NRC decides not 

to renew the licenses (or takes no action at all), then energy-planning decision-makers may no 

longer elect to continue operating Salem and HCGS and will have to resort to another 

alternative—which may or may not be one of the alternatives considered in this section—to 

meet their energy needs. 

In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, the staff first selects energy technologies or 

options currently in commercial operation, as well as some technologies not currently in 

commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current Salem and 

HCGS operating licenses expire. The current Salem operating licenses will expire on August 

13, 2016, for Unit 1 and April 18, 2020, for Unit 2. The current HCGS operating license will 

expire on April 11, 2026. An alternative must be available (constructed, permitted, and 

connected to the grid) by the time the current Salem and HCGS licenses expire. 

Second, the staff screens the alternatives to remove those that cannot meet future system 

needs, and then screens the remaining options to remove those with costs or benefits that do 

not justify their inclusion in the range of reasonable alternatives. Any alternatives remaining, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-2 

then, constitute alternatives to the proposed action that the staff evaluates in detail throughout 

this section. In Section 8.2, the SEIS briefly addresses each alternative that the staff removed 

during screening and explains why each alternative 

was removed. 

The staff initially considered 17 discrete alternatives 

to the proposed action, and then narrowed the list to 

two discrete alternatives and a combination of 

alternatives considered in Section 8.1. 

Once it identifies alternatives for in-depth review, the 

staff refers to generic environmental impact 

evaluations in the GEIS. The GEIS provides 

overviews of some energy technologies available at 

the time of its publishing in 1996, though it does not 

reach any conclusions regarding which alternatives 

are most appropriate, nor does it categorize impacts 

for each site. In addition, since 1996, many energy 

technologies have evolved significantly in capability 

and cost, while regulatory structures have changed to 

either promote or impede development of particular 

alternatives. 

As a result, the staff’s analysis starts with the GEIS 

and then includes updated information from sources 

like the Energy Information Administration (EIA), other 

organizations within the Department of Energy (DOE), 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), industry 

sources and publications, and information submitted 

in the PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG, or the applicant) 

environmental report (ER). 

For each in-depth analysis, the staff analyzes 

environmental impacts across seven impact 

categories: (1) air quality, (2) groundwater use and 

quality, (3) surface water use and quality, (4) aquatic 

and terrestrial ecology, (5) human health, (6) 

socioeconomics, and (7) waste management. As in 

earlier chapters of this SEIS, the staff uses the NRC’s 

three-level standard of significance—SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE—to indicate the degree of the environmental effect on each of the 

seven aforementioned categories that have been evaluated. 

In-Depth 

Alternatives: 

• Supercritical 

coal-fired 

• Natural gas-fired 

combined-cycle 

• Combination 

Other Alternatives 

Considered: 

• Offsite Coal-Fired and 

Natural Gas-Fired 

• New nuclear 

• Conservation/ 

Efficiency 

• Purchased power 

• Solar power 

• Wood-fired 

• Wind 

(onshore/offshore) 

• Hydroelectric power 

• Wave and ocean 

energy 

• Geothermal power 

• Municipal solid waste 

• Biofuels 

• Oil-fired power 

• Fuel cells 

• Delayed retirement 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-3 

Energy Outlook: Each year the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA), part of the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), issues 

its updated Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). 

AEO 2009 indicates that natural gas, coal, 

and renewable are likely to fuel most new 

electrical capacity through 2030, with some 

growth in nuclear capacity (EIA, 2009a), 

though all projections are subject to future 

developments in fuel price or electricity 

demand: 

“Natural-gas-fired plants account for 53 

percent of capacity additions in the 

reference case, as compared with 22 

percent for renewable, 18 percent for 

coal-fired plants, and 5 percent for nuclear.

Capacity expansion decisions consider 

capital, operating, and transmission costs. 

Typically, coal-fired, nuclear, and renewable 

plants are capital-intensive, whereas 

operating (fuel) expenditures account for 

most of the costs associated with naturalgas-fired capacity.” 

The in-depth alternatives that the staff 

considered include; (1) a supercritical 

coal-fired plant in Section 8.1.1; (2) a 

natural gas-fired combined-cycle power 

plant in Section 8.1.2; and (3) a 

combination of alternatives in Section 

8.1.3 that includes natural gas-fired 

combined-cycle generation, energy 

conservation, and a wind power 

component. In Section 8.2, the staff 

explains why it dismissed many other 

alternatives from in-depth consideration. 

In Section 8.3, the staff considers the 

environmental effects that may occur if 

the NRC takes no action and does not 

issue renewed licenses for Salem and 

HCGS. Finally, in Section 8.4, the 

impacts of all alternatives are 

summarized. 

In addition, for each of the alternatives 

mentioned above, the staff took the 

general approach of evaluating each as 

a potential alternative to completely 

replace the power production capacity of 

all three units currently at Salem and 

HCGS. However, during the preparation 

of this SEIS, the staff also considered the possible scenarios of license renewal for Salem but 

not HCGS and vice versa, as the application for each plant was submitted separately. The staff 

has determined that such scenarios would present various combinations of alternatives that 

would essentially equate to different variations of alternatives (1), (2), and (3) above (e.g., a 

supercritical coal-fired plant that replaces Salem alongside a renewed HCGS, or a natural gasfired combined-cycle plant that replaces HCGS alongside a renewed Salem). Given the large 

number of combinations that this would create, the staff evaluated the alternatives using a 

bounding approach, as provided in Section 8.1 below, which can be scaled down for a 

qualitative representation of what the impacts would be for combinations such as a supercritical 

coal-fired plant replacing Salem alongside a renewed HCGS. For example, the staff estimates 

that the resource impacts for that combination would fall between those of the continued 

operation at Salem and HCGS and those of the impacts from a supercritical coal-fired plant as 

described in Section 8.1.1, where impacts for air quality, human health, socioeconomics, and 

waste management would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-4 

8.1 Alternative Energy Sources 

8.1.1 Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation 

The GEIS indicates that a 3,656 megawatt-electric (MW[e]) supercritical coal-fired power plant 

(a plant equivalent in capacity to each individual Salem Unit 1, Salem Unit 2, and HCGS plants) 

could require 6,200 ac (2,600 ha) of available land area, and thus would not fit on the existing 

700 acres (ac) (300 hectares [ha]) owned by PSEG at the Salem and HCGS sites; however, the 

staff notes that many coal-fired power plants with larger capacities have been located on 

smaller sites. In the ERs, PSEG assumed that a coal-fired alternative would be developed on 

the existing Salem and HCGS sites. The staff believes this to be reasonable and, as such, will 

consider a coal-fired alternative located on the current Salem and HCGS sites. 

Coal-fired generation accounts for 48.2 percent of U.S. electrical power generation, a greater 

share than any other fuel (EIA, 2010a). Furthermore, the EIA projects that coal-fired power 

plants will account for the greatest share of added capacity through 2030—more than natural 

gas, nuclear or renewable generation options (EIA, 2009a). While coal-fired power plants are 

widely used and likely to remain widely used, the staff notes that future coal capacity additions 

may be affected by perceived or actual efforts to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For 

now, the staff considers a coal-fired alternative to be a feasible, commercially available option 

that could provide electrical generating capacity after the Salem and HCGS current licenses 

expire. 

Supercritical technologies are increasingly common in new coal-fired plants. Supercritical 

plants operate at higher temperatures and pressures than most existing coal-fired plants 

(beyond water’s “critical point,” where boiling no longer occurs and no clear phase change 

occurs between steam and liquid water). Operating at higher temperatures and pressures 

allows this coal-fired alternative to function at a higher thermal efficiency than many existing 

coal-fired power plants do. While supercritical facilities are more expensive to construct, they 

consume less fuel for a given output, reducing environmental impacts. Based on technology 

forecasts from the EIA, the staff expects that a new, supercritical coal-fired plant beginning 

operation in 2014 would operate at a heat rate of 9069 British thermal units per kilowatt hour 

(Btu/kWh), or approximately 38 percent thermal efficiency (EIA, 2009a). 

In a supercritical coal-fired power plant, burning coal heats pressurized water. As the 

supercritical steam/water mixture moves through plant pipes to a turbine generator, the 

pressure drops and the mixture flashes to steam. The heated steam expands across the 

turbine stages, which then spin and turn the generator to produce electricity. After passing 

through the turbine, any remaining steam is condensed back to water in the plant’s condenser. 

In most modern U.S. facilities, condenser cooling water circulates through cooling towers or a 

cooling pond system (either of which are closed-cycle cooling systems). Older plants often 

withdraw cooling water directly from existing rivers or lakes and discharge heated water directly 

to the same body of water (called open-cycle cooling). Salem operates open-cycle cooling 

water using once-through cooling at both of their units, while HCGS operates a closed-cycle 

cooling system with a natural draft cooling tower. Although nuclear plants require more cooling 

capacity than an equivalently sized coal-fired plant, the existing cooling tower at HCGS, by 

itself, is not expected to be adequate to support a coal-fired alternative that would have the 

capacity to replace both Salem and HCGS. Therefore, implementation of a coal-fired alternative 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-5 

would require the construction of additional cooling towers to provide the necessary cooling 

capacity to support the replacement of both Salem and HCGS. Under the coal-fired alternative, 

the facility would withdraw makeup water from and discharge blowdown (water containing 

concentrated dissolved solids and biocides) from cooling towers back to the Delaware River, 

similar to the manner in which the current HCGS cooling tower operates. However, additional 

cooling towers would be required, so the volume of water managed in cooling towers would 

increase. At the same time, the once-through cooling system associated with the Salem Units 1 

and 2 would cease operation. 

In order to replace the 3,656 net MW(e) that Salem and HCGS currently supply, the coal-fired 

alternative would need to produce roughly 3889 gross MW(e), using about 6 percent of power 

output for onsite power usage (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Onsite electricity demands 

include scrubbers, cooling towers, coal-handling equipment, lights, communication, and other 

onsite needs. A supercritical coal-fired plant equivalent in capacity to Salem and HCGS would 

require less cooling water than Salem and HCGS because the alternative operates at a higher 

thermal efficiency. The 3,889 gross MW(e) would be achieved using standard-sized units, 

which are assumed to be approximately equivalent to six units of 630 MW(e) each. 

The 3,656 net MW(e) power plants would consume approximately 12.2 million tons (11.1 million 

metric tons [MT]) of coal annually (EPA, 2006). The EIA reports that most coal consumed in 

New Jersey originates in West Virginia or Pennsylvania (EIA, 2010b). Given current coal mining 

operations in this area, the coal used in this alternative would likely be mined by a combination 

of strip (mountaintop-removal) mining and underground mining. The coal would be 

mechanically processed and washed, and transported by barge to the Salem and HCGS facility. 

Limestone for scrubbers would also likely be delivered by barge. This coal-fired alternative 

would produce roughly 753,960 tons (684,440 MT) of ash annually (EIA, 2010b), and roughly 

245,300 tons (222,700 MT) of scrubber sludge annually (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Much 

of the coal ash and scrubbed sludge could be reused depending on local recycling and reuse 

markets. 

The coal-fired alternative would also include construction impacts such as clearing the plant site 

of vegetation, excavation, and preparing the site surface before other crews begin actual 

construction of the plant and any associated infrastructure. Because this alternative would be 

constructed at the Salem and HCGS site, it is unlikely that new transmission lines would be 

necessary. Because coal would be supplied by barge, no construction of a new rail line would 

be necessary. 

8.1.1.1 Air Quality 

Air quality impacts from coal-fired generation can increase substantially as compared to license 

renewal because these power plants emit significant quantities of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), particulates, carbon monoxide (CO), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as 

mercury. However, many of these pollutants can be reduced using various pollution control 

technologies. 

As previously discussed in Section 4.1.1.5, Salem and HCGS are located in Salem County, 

New Jersey. Salem County is designated as an attainment/unclassified area with respect to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-6 

diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOx, CO, and lead. The county, along with all of 

southern New Jersey, is a nonattainment area with respect to the 1-hour primary ozone 

standard and the 8-hour ozone standard. For the 1-hour ozone standard, Salem County is 

located within the multi-state Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment area, and for the 

8-hour ozone standard, it is located in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-DE-MD) 

non- attainment area. 

A new coal-fired generating plant would qualify as a new major-emitting industrial facility and 

would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review under the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), adopted by the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Bureau of Air Quality Permitting. A new coal-fired 

generating plant would need to comply with the new source performance standards for coalfired plants set forth in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart D. The standards establish limits for particulate 

matter and opacity (40 CFR 60.42(a)), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44(a)). 

Regulations issued by the NJDEP adopt the EPA's CAA rules (with modifications) to limit power 

plant emissions of SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and HAPs. The new coal-fired generating plant 

would qualify as a major facility as defined in Section 7:27-22.1 of the New Jersey 

Administrative Code, and would be required to obtain a major source permit from the NJDEP. 

Section 169A of the CAA (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7401) establishes a national goal of 

preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional 

haze rule in 1999 (64 Federal Register (FR) 35714). The rule specifies that for each mandatory 

Class I Federal area located within a state, the State must establish goals that provide for 

reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions through developing and 

implementing air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility 

impairment. The reasonable progress goals must provide an improvement in visibility for the 

most-impaired days over the period of implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) collaborate on the visibility impairment issue, developing the 

technical basis for these plans. The State of New Jersey is among eleven member states 

(Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE-VU), along with tribes, Federal agencies, and other interested parties that 

identifies regional haze and visibility issues and develops strategies to address them (NJDEP, 

2009a). The visibility protection regulatory requirements, contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

P, include the review of the new sources that would be constructed in the attainment or 

unclassified areas and may affect visibility in any Federal Class I area (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

P, §51.307). If a coal-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air 

pollution control requirements would be imposed. There is one mandatory Class I Federal area 

in the State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (40 CFR 81.420), 

located approximately 58 miles (mi; 93 kilometers [km]) southeast of the Salem and HCGS 

facilities. There are no Class I Federal areas in Delaware, and no other areas located within 

100 mi (161 km) of the facilities (40 CFR 81.400). New Jersey is also subject to the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has outlined emissions reduction goals for both SO2 and NOx for 

the year 2015. The CAIR will aid New Jersey sources in reducing SO2 emissions by 25,000 

tons (23,000 MT, or 49 percent), and NOx emissions by 11,000 tons (10,000 MT or 48 percent; 

EPA, 2010). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-7 

The staff projects that the coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would have the 

following emissions for criteria and other significant emissions based on published EIA data, 

EPA emission factors and on performance characteristics for this alternative and likely emission 

controls: 

• Sulfur oxides (SOx) – 12,566 tons (11,407 MT) per year 

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 3,050 tons (769 MT) per year 

• Particulate matter (PM) PM10 – 85.4 tons (77.5 MT) per year 

• Particulate matter (PM) PM2.5 – 22.6 tons (20.5 MT) per year 

• Carbon monoxide (CO) – 3,050 tons (2,769 MT) per year 

Sulfur Oxides 

The coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would likely use wet, limestone-based 

scrubbers to remove SOx. The EPA indicates that this technology can remove more than 95 

percent of SOx from flue gases. The staff projects total SOx emissions after scrubbing would be 

12,566 tons (11,407 MT) per year. SOx emissions from a new coal-fired power plant would be 

subject to the requirements of Title IV of the CAA. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of 

SO2 and NOx, the two principal precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these 

pollutants from power plants. Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 emissions and 

imposes controls on SO2 emissions through a system of marketable allowances. The EPA 

issues one allowance for each ton of SO2 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not 

receive allowances, but are required to have allowances to cover their SO2 emissions. Owners 

of new units must therefore purchase allowances from owners of other power plants or reduce 

SO2 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future 

years. Thus, provided a new coal-fired power plant is able to purchase sufficient allowances to 

operate, it would not add to net regional SO2 emissions, although it might do so locally. 

Nitrogen Oxides 

A coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would most likely employ various available 

NOx-control technologies, which can be grouped into two main categories: combustion 

modifications and post-combustion processes. Combustion modifications include low-NOx

burners, over fire air, and operational modifications. Post-combustion processes include 

selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic reduction. An effective combination of 

the combustion modifications and post-combustion processes allow the reduction of NOx

emissions by up to 95 percent (EPA, 1998). PSEG indicated in its ER that the technology would 

use low NOx burners, overfire air, and selective catalytic reduction to reduce NOx emissions by 

approximately 95 percent from uncontrolled emissions. As a result, the NOx emissions 

associated with a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would be approximately 

3,050 tons (2,769 MT) per year. 

Section 407 of the CAA establishes technology-based emission limitations for NOx emissions. 

A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance standards for 

such plants as indicated in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on September 16, 

1998 (63 FR 49442), limits the discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (NO2) to 1.6 

pounds per megawatt hour (lb/MWh) of NOx per joule (J) of gross energy output (equivalent to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-8 

200 nanograms [ng]), based on a 30-day rolling average. Based on the projected emissions, 

the proposed alternative would easily meet this regulation. 

Particulates 

The new coal-fired power plant would use baghouse-based fabric filters to remove particulates 

from flue gases. PSEG indicated that this technology would remove 99.9 percent of particulate 

matter. The EPA notes that filters are capable of removing in excess of 99 percent of 

particulate matter, and that SO2 scrubbers further reduce particulate matter emissions (EPA, 

2008a). Based on EPA emission factors, the new supercritical coal-fired plant would emit 85.4 

tons (77.5 MT) per year of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 10 microns (PM10) annually (EPA, 1998; EIA, 2010b). In addition, coal burning would also 

result in approximately 22.6 tons (20.5 MT) per year of PM2.5. Coal-handling equipment would 

introduce fugitive dust emissions when fuel is being transferred to onsite storage and then 

reclaimed from storage for use in the plant. During the construction of a coal-fired plant, onsite 

activities would also generate fugitive dust. Vehicles and motorized equipment would create 

exhaust emissions during the construction process. These impacts would be intermittent and 

short-lived, however, and to minimize dust generation construction crews would use applicable 

dust-control measures. 

Carbon Monoxide 

Based on EPA emission factors and assumed plant characteristics, the staff computed that the 

total CO emissions would be approximately 3,050 tons (2,769 MT) per year (EPA, 1998). 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court’s February 8, 2008 ruling that vacated its Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR), the EPA has developed new mercury emissions standards for power 

plants under the CAA (Section 112) (EPA, 2009a). EPA issued a proposed rule to control 

mercury and other toxic air emissions from power plants on March, 16, 2011. The proposed rule 

replaces the court-vacated Clean Air Mercury Rule (EPA, 2011). Before the CAMR, the EPA 

determined that coal-and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of 

HAPs (65 FR 79825). The EPA determined that coal plants emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (65 FR 

79825). The EPA concluded that mercury is the HAP of greatest concern; it further concluded 

that: 

(1) a link exists between coal combustion and mercury emissions 

(2) electric utility steam-generating units are the largest domestic source of mercury 

emissions 

(3) certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fisheating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects resulting 

from mercury exposures caused by the consumption of contaminated fish (65 FR 79825) 

On February 6, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the EPA’s request to review the 2008 

Circuit Court’s decision, and also denied a similar request by the Utility Air Regulatory Group 

later that month (EPA, 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-9 

Carbon Dioxide 

A coal-fired plant would also have regulated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during operations 

as well as during mining, processing, and transportation, which the GEIS indicates could 

contribute to global warming. The coal-fired plant would emit approximately 33,611,000 tons 

(30,512,000 MT) per year of CO2. 

Construction Impacts 

Activities associated with the construction of a new coal-fired plant at the Salem and HCGS site 

would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and fugitive dust 

from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Workers’ vehicles and 

motorized construction equipment would generate temporary exhaust emissions. The 

construction crews would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce fugitive 

dust, which would be temporary in nature. The staff concludes that the impact of vehicle 

exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material handling 

equipment would be SMALL. 

Summary of Air Quality 

While the GElS analysis mentions global warming from unregulated CO2 emissions and acid 

rain from SOx and NOx emissions as potential impacts, it does not quantify emissions from coalfired power plants. However, the GElS analysis does imply that air impacts would be 

substantial (NRC, 1996). The above analysis shows that emissions of air pollutants, including 

SOx, NOx, CO, and particulates, exceed those produced by the existing nuclear power plant, as 

well as those of the other alternatives considered in this section. Operational emissions of CO2

are also much greater under the coal-fired alternative, as reviewed by the staff in Section 6.2 

and in the previous sections. Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema 

have also been associated with air emissions from coal combustion, and are discussed further 

in Section 8.1.1.5. 

The NRC analysis for a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site indicates that impacts 

from the coal-fired alternative would have clearly noticeable effects, but given existing regulatory 

regimes, permit requirements, and emissions controls, the coal-fired alternative would not 

destabilize air quality. Therefore, the appropriate characterization of air quality impacts from 

operation of a coal-fired plant located at the Salem and HCGS site would be MODERATE. 

Existing air quality would result in varying needs for pollution control equipment to meet 

applicable local requirements, or varying degrees of participation in emissions trading schemes. 

8.1.1.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

If the onsite coal-fired alternative continued to use groundwater for drinking water and service 

water, the need for groundwater at the plant would be minor. Total usage would likely be less 

than Salem and HCGS because fewer workers would be onsite, and the coal-fired unit would 

have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. No effect on groundwater quality would 

be apparent. 

Construction of a coal-fired plant could have a localized effect on groundwater due to temporary 

dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of construction and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-10 

the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of the coal-fired 

alternative would be SMALL. 

8.1.1.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

The alternative would require a consumptive use of water from the Delaware River for cooling 

purposes. Because this consumptive loss would be from an estuary, the staff concludes the 

impact of surface water use would be SMALL. A new coal-fired plant would be required to 

obtain a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the NJDEP 

for regulation of industrial wastewater, storm water, and other discharges. Assuming the plant 

operates within the limits of this permit, the impact from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, 

and other effluent discharges on surface water quality would be SMALL. 

8.1.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

Aquatic Ecology 

Impacts to aquatic ecology resources from a coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site 

could result from effects on water bodies both adjacent to and distant from the site. Temporary 

effects on some aquatic organisms would likely result from construction that could occur in the 

water near the shoreline at the facility. Longer-term, more extensive effects on aquatic 

organisms would likely occur during the period of operation of the facility due to the intake of 

cooling water and discharge of effluents to the estuary. The numbers of fish and other aquatic 

organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would be substantially 

smaller than those associated with license renewal. Water consumption from and discharge of 

blowdown to the Delaware Estuary would be lower due to the higher thermal efficiency of the 

coal-fired facility and its use of only closed-cycle cooling. In addition, the intake and discharge 

would be monitored and regulated by the NJDEP under the facility’s NPDES permit, including 

requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a) and 316(b) for thermal 

discharges and cooling water intakes, respectively. Assuming the use of closed-cycle cooling 

and adherence to regulatory requirements, the impact on ecological resources of the Delaware 

Estuary from operation of the intake and discharge facilities would be minimal for this 

alternative. 

Thus, impacts to aquatic ecology as a result of the effects of facility operations may occur on the 

adjacent Delaware Estuary. The coal-fired alternative potentially would have noticeable effects 

on aquatic resources in multiple areas. Given existing regulatory regimes, permit requirements, 

and emissions controls, these effects would be limited and unlikely to destabilize aquatic 

communities. Therefore, the impacts to aquatic resources from a coal-fired plant located at the 

Salem and HCGS site would be SMALL for the Delaware Estuary. 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Constructing the coal-fired alternative onsite would require approximately 505 ac (204 ha) of 

land for construction of the power block with an additional 193–386 ac (56–78 ha) for waste 

disposal, which PSEG indicated could be accommodated on the existing site (see Section 

8.1.1.6) (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology may occur if 

additional land requirements result in the encroachment into or filling of the adjacent tidal marsh. 

In addition, if additional roads would need to be constructed through less disturbed areas, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-11 

impacts could occur as these construction activities may fragment or destroy local ecological 

communities. Land disturbances could affect habitats of native wildlife; however, these impacts 

are not expected to be extensive. Cooling tower operation would produce drift that could result 

in some deposition of dissolved solids on surrounding vegetation and soils onsite and offsite. 

Onsite or offsite waste disposal by landfilling would also affect terrestrial ecology at least until 

the time when the disposal area is reclaimed. Deposition of acid rain resulting from NOx and 

SOx emissions, as well as the deposition of other pollutants, could also affect terrestrial ecology. 

Air deposition impacts may be noticeable but, given the emission controls discussed in Section 

8.1.1.1, are unlikely to be destabilizing. Thus, the impacts to terrestrial resources from a coalfired plant located at the Salem and HCGS site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

8.1.1.5 Human Health 

Coal-fired power plants introduce worker risks from new plant construction, coal and limestone 

mining, coal and limestone transportation, and from disposal of coal combustion and scrubber 

wastes. In addition, there are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions (as addressed in 

Section 8.1.1.1) and the secondary effects of eating foods grown in areas subject to deposition 

from plant stacks. 

Human health risks of coal-fired power plants are described, in general, in Table 8-2 of the 

GEIS (NRC, 1996). Cancer and emphysema as a result of the inhalation of toxins and 

particulates are identified as potential health risks to occupational workers and members of the 

public (NRC, 1996). The human health risks of coal-fired power plants, both to occupational 

workers and to members of the public, are greater than those of the current Salem and HCGS 

facilities due to exposures to chemicals such as mercury; SOx; NOx; radioactive elements such 

as uranium and thorium contained in coal and coal ash; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

(PAH) compounds, including benzo(a)pyrene. 

During construction activities there would also be risk to workers from typical industrial incidents 

and accidents. Accidental injuries are not uncommon in the construction industry and accidents 

resulting in fatalities do occur. However, the occurrence of such events is mitigated by the use 

of proper industrial hygiene practices, worker safety requirements, and training. Occupational 

and public health impacts during construction are expected to be controlled by continued 

application of accepted industrial hygiene and occupational health and safety practices. 

Regulations restricting emissions—enforced by the EPA or State agencies—have acted to 

significantly reduce potential health effects but have not entirely eliminated them. These 

agencies also impose site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Even if 

the coal-fired alternative were located in a nonattainment area, emission controls and trading or 

offset mechanisms could prevent further regional degradation; however, local effects could be 

visible. Many of the byproducts of coal combustion responsible for health effects are largely 

controlled, captured, or converted in modern power plants (as described in Section 8.1.1.1), 

although some level of health effects may remain. 

Aside from emission impacts, the coal-fired alternative introduces the risk of coal pile fires and, 

for those plants that use coal combustion liquid and sludge waste impoundments, the release of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-12 

the waste due to a failure of the impoundment. Although there have been several instances of 

this occurring in recent years, these types of events are still relatively rare. 

Based on the cumulative potential impacts of construction activities, emissions, and materials 

management on human health, the staff considers the overall impact of constructing and 

operating a new coal-fired facility to be MODERATE. 

8.1.1.6 Socioeconomics 

Land Use 

The GEIS generically evaluates the impacts of nuclear power plant operations on land use both 

on and off each power plant site. The analysis of land use impacts focuses on the amount of 

land area that would be affected by the construction and operation of a new supercritical coalfired power plant on the Salem and HCGS site. 

The GEIS indicates that an estimated 1,700 ac (700 ha) would be required for constructing a 

1,000-MW(e) coal plant. Scaling from the GEIS estimate, approximately 6,200 ac (2,500 ha) 

would be required to replace the 3,656 MW(e) provided by Salem and HCGS. PSEG indicated 

that approximately 505 ac (204 ha) of land would be needed to support a coal-fired alternative 

capable of replacing the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). This 

amount of land use includes power plant structures and associated coal delivery and waste 

disposal infrastructure. However, many coal-fired power plants with larger capacities have been 

located on smaller sites, and the PSEG estimate is considered reasonable. PSEG indicated 

that an additional 193 ac (78 ha) of land area may be needed for waste disposal over the 20-

year license renewal term, or 386 ac (156 ha) over the 40-year operational life of a coal-fired 

alternative, which PSEG indicated could be accommodated onsite (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 

2009b). 

Offsite land use impacts would occur from coal mining, in addition to land use impacts from the 

construction and operation of the new power plant. According to the GEIS, supplying coal to a 

1,000-MW(e) plant would disturb approximately 22,000 ac (8,900 ha) of land for the mining of 

coal and disposing of wastes during the 40-year operational life. Scaling from GEIS estimates, 

approximately 80,500 ac (32,580 ha) of land would be required for a coal-fired alternative to 

replace Salem and HCGS. However, most of the land in existing coal-mining areas has already 

experienced some level of disturbance. The elimination of the need for uranium mining to 

supply fuel for the Salem and HCGS facilities would partially offset this offsite land use impact. 

Scaling from GEIS estimates, approximately 3,660 ac (1,480 ha) of land used for uranium 

mining and processing would no longer be needed. 

Based on this information and the need for additional land at Salem and HCGS, land use 

impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-13 

Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 

the construction and operation of a new coal-fired power plant could affect regional 

employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation result from this alternative: 

(1) construction-related jobs, and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 

which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. The staff 

estimated workforce requirements during power plant construction and operation for the coalfired alternative in order to measure their possible effect on current socioeconomic conditions. 

According to the GEIS, a peak construction workforce of 1,200 to 2,500 would be required for a 

1,000 MW(e) plant. Scaling from GEIS estimates, this would require a lower-end workforce of 

approximately 4,400 for a 3,660-MW(e) plant). PSEG projected a peak workforce of about 

5,660 would be required to construct the coal-fired alternative at the Salem and HCGS site 

(PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). During the construction period, the communities surrounding 

the plant site would experience increased demand for rental housing and public services. The 

relative economic contributions of these workers to local business and tax revenues would vary. 

After construction, local communities could be temporarily affected by the loss of construction 

jobs and associated loss in demand for business services. In addition, the rental housing 

market could experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. As noted in the GEIS, the 

socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 

because the workforce would need to relocate closer to the construction site. Although the ER 

indicates that the Salem and HCGS site is a rural site (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), it is 

located near the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas. Therefore, these effects may 

be somewhat lessened because workers are likely to commute to the site from these areas 

instead of relocating closer to the construction site. Based on the site’s proximity to these 

metropolitan areas, construction impacts would be SMALL. 

PSEG estimated an operational workforce of approximately 500 workers for the 3,660 MW(e) 

supercritical coal-fired power plant alternative (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). This would result 

in a loss of approximately 1,100 relatively high-paying jobs (based on a current Salem and 

HCGS workforce of 1,614), with a corresponding reduction in purchasing activity and tax 

contributions to the regional economy. The impact of the job loss, however, may not be 

noticeable given the amount of time that would be required for the construction of a new power 

plant and the decommissioning of the existing facilities and the relatively large region from 

which Salem and HCGS personnel are currently drawn. The size of property tax payments 

under the coal-fired alternative may increase if additional land is required at Salem and HCGS 

to support this alternative. Operational impacts would therefore range from SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

Transportation 

During periods of peak construction activity, up to 5,660 workers could be commuting daily to 

the site, as well as the current 1,614 workers already at Salem and HCGS. In addition to 

commuting workers, trucks would be transporting construction materials and equipment to the 

worksite, thereby increasing the amount of traffic on local roads. The increase in vehicular 

traffic on roads would peak during shift changes resulting in temporary level of service impacts 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-14 

and delays at intersections. Barges would likely be used to deliver large components to the 

Salem and HCGS site. Transportation impacts would likely be MODERATE during construction. 

Transportation traffic-related impacts would be greatly reduced after construction, but would not 

disappear during plant operations. The maximum number of plant operating personnel 

commuting to the Salem and HCGS site would be approximately 500 workers. This is much 

smaller than the number of operations workers commuting to Salem and HCGS today. 

Deliveries of coal and limestone would be by barge. The coal-fired alternative transportation 

impacts would likely be SMALL during plant operations. 

Aesthetics 

The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the coal-fired 

alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the coal plant. 

The coal-fired power plant would be up to 200 feet (ft)(61 meters [m]) tall with exhaust stacks up 

to 500 ft (152 m). The facility would be visible offsite during daylight hours. The supercritical 

coal-fired power plant would be similar in height to the current Salem and HCGS reactor 

containment buildings (190 to 200 feet, or 58 to 61 m, tall) and the HCGS cooling tower, which 

stands at 514 feet (157 m). The coal-fired alternative would require more than one cooling 

tower, thus increasing the size of the plume. Lighting on plant structures would be visible offsite 

at night. Overall, aesthetic impacts associated with the supercritical coal-fired alternative would 

range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Coal-fired generation would introduce new sources of noise that would be audible offsite. 

Sources contributing to noise produced by coal-fired power plant operations would be classified 

as continuous or intermittent. Continuous noise sources include the mechanical equipment 

associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent noise sources include the equipment 

related to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting 

of plant employees. The impact of plant noise emissions are expected to be SMALL due to the 

distance from the Salem and HCGS site to the nearest receptors. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 

and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 

are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 

artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 

consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 

they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 

dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 

but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 

structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic Power 

Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 

important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 

geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features. 

The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 

potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-15 

The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 

location of the proposed site. To consider a project's effects on historic and archaeological 

resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 

archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 

develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 

activities. 

Before construction at the Salem and HCGS site studies would likely be needed to identify, 

evaluate, and address mitigation of potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural 

resources. Studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant 

site and along associated corridors where construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission 

corridors, rail lines, or other Right-of-Ways [ROWs]). Areas with the greatest sensitivity should 

be avoided. 

As noted in Section 4.9.6, there is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be 

present on most of the Salem and HCGS site; therefore, the impact for a coal-fired alternative at 

the Salem and HCGS site would likely be SMALL. 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the construction and operation of a new supercritical coal-fired power plant. 

Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 

impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 

when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 

impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 

community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger 

community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of 

these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For 

example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction could 

disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are 

subsets of the general public residing around Salem and HCGS, and all are exposed to the 

same hazards generated from constructing and operating a new coal-fired power plant. For 

socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice issues, the reader is 

referred to Section 4.9.7, Environmental Justice. 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 

a new supercritical coal-fired power plant at Salem and HCGS would mostly consist of 

environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to 

onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would 

also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic. 

However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 

high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-16 

during construction could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the 

Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas, most construction workers would likely 

commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential demand for rental housing. 

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a new supercritical coal-fired power 

plant would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS. 

8.1.1.7 Waste Management 

Coal combustion generates several waste streams including ash (a dry solid) and sludge (a 

semi-solid byproduct of emission control system operation). The staff estimates that an 

approximately 3,656 MW(e) power plant comprised of six units of approximately 630 MW(e) 

each would generate annually a total of approximately 684,440 MT (753,960 tons) of ash (EIA, 

2010b), and 245,300 tons (222,700 MT) of scrubber sludge (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) 

About 340,000 tons (309,000 MT) or 45 percent of the ash waste and 193,800 tons (176,000 

MT) or 79 percent of scrubber sludge would be recycled, based on industry-average recycling 

rates (ACAA, 2007). Therefore, approximately 414,000 tons (375,000 MT) of ash and 51,500 

tons (46,700 MT) of scrubber sludge would remain annually for disposal. Disposal of the 

remaining waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but would require 

proper citing in accordance with the described local ordinance and the implementation of the 

required monitoring and management practices in order to minimize these impacts (state 

reference). After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for 

other uses. 

In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (65 FR 32214) stating that it would issue regulations for disposal of 

coal combustion waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 

EPA has not yet issued these regulations. 

The impacts from waste generated during operation of this coal-fired alternative would be 

clearly visible, but would not destabilize any important resource. 

The amount of the construction waste would be small compared to the amount of waste 

generated during the operational stage and much of it could be recycled. Overall, the impacts 

from waste generated during the construction stage would be minor. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and operation of this 

alternative would be MODERATE.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-17 

Table 8-1. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Supercritical 

Coal-Fired Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS

Supercritical Coal-Fired 

Generation 

Continued Salem and HCGS 

Operation 

Air Quality MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health MODERATE SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Waste Management MODERATE SMALL 

8.1.2 Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Generation 

In this section, the staff evaluates the environmental impacts of a natural gas-fired combinedcycle generation plant at the Salem and HCGS site.

Natural gas fueled 21.4 percent of electric generation in the US in 2008 (the most recent year 

for which data are available); this accounted for the second greatest share of electrical power 

after coal (EIA, 2010a). Like coal-fired power plants, natural gas-fired plants may be affected by 

perceived or actual actions to limit GHG emissions; they produce markedly lower GHG 

emissions per unit of electrical output than coal-fired plants. Natural gas-fired power plants are 

feasible and provide commercially available options for providing electrical generating capacity 

beyond Salem and HCGS’s current license expiration dates. 

Combined-cycle power plants differ significantly from coal-fired and existing nuclear power 

plants. They derive the majority of their electrical output from a gas-turbine cycle, and then 

generate additional power—without burning any additional fuel—through a second, steamturbine cycle. The first, gas turbine stage (similar to a large jet engine) burns natural gas that 

turns a driveshaft that powers an electric generator. The exhaust gas from the gas turbine is 

still hot enough, however, to boil water into steam. Ducts carry the hot exhaust to a heat 

recovery steam generator, which produces steam to drive a steam turbine and produce 

additional electrical power. The combined-cycle approach is significantly more efficient than 

any one cycle on its own; thermal efficiency can exceed 60 percent. Since the natural gas-fired 

alternative derives much of its power from a gas turbine cycle, and because it wastes less heat 

than either the coal-fired alternative or the existing Salem and HCGS, it requires significantly 

less cooling. 

In order to replace the 3,656 MW(e) that Salem and HCGS currently supply, the staff selected a 

gas-fired alternative that uses nine GE STAG 107H combined-cycle generating units. While any 

number of commercially available combined-cycle units could be installed in a variety of 

combinations to replace the power currently produced by Salem and HCGS, the STAG 107H is 

a highly efficient model that would help minimize environmental impacts (GE, 2001). Other 

manufacturers, like Siemens, offer similarly high efficiency models. This gas-fired alternative 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-18 

produces a net 400 MW(e) per unit. Nine units would produce a total of 3,600 MW(e), or nearly 

the same output as the existing Salem and HCGS plants. 

The combined-cycle alternative operates at a heat rate of 5,687 Btu/kWh, or about 60 percent 

thermal efficiency (GE, 2001). Allowing for onsite power usage, including cooling towers and 

site lighting, the gross output of these units would be roughly 3,744 MW(e). As noted above, 

this gas-fired alternative would require much less cooling water than Salem and HCGS because 

it operates at a higher thermal efficiency and requires much less water for steam cycle 

condenser cooling. This alternative would likely make use of the site’s existing natural draft 

cooling tower, but may require the construction of an additional tower. 

In addition to the already existing natural draft cooling tower, other visible structures onsite 

would include the turbine buildings, two exhaust stacks, an electrical switchyard, and, possibly, 

equipment associated with a natural gas pipeline, like a compressor station. The GEIS 

estimates indicate that this 3,600 MW(e) plant would require 400 ac (165 ha), which would be 

feasible on the 700 ac (300 ha) PSEG site. 

This 3600 MW(e) power plant would consume 161.65 billion cubic feet (ft3

; 4,578 million cubic 

meters [m3

]) of natural gas annually assuming an average heat content of 1,029 Btu/ft3 (EIA, 

2009b). Natural gas would be extracted from the ground through wells, then treated to remove 

impurities (like hydrogen sulfide), and blended to meet pipeline gas standards, before being 

piped through the interstate pipeline system to the power plant site. This gas-fired alternative 

would produce relatively little waste, primarily in the form of spent catalysts used for emissions 

controls. 

Environmental impacts from the gas-fired alternative would be greatest during construction. 

The closest natural gas pipeline that could serve as a source of natural gas for the plant is 

located in Logan Township, approximately 25 mi (40 km) from the Salem and HCGS facilities 

(PSEG, 2010). Site crews would clear vegetation from the site, prepare the site surface, and 

begin excavation before other crews begin actual construction on the plant and any associated 

infrastructure, including the 25-mi (40 km) pipeline spur to serve the plant and electricity 

transmission infrastructure connecting the plant to existing transmission lines. Constructing the 

gas-fired alternative on the Salem and HCGS site would allow the gas-fired alternative to make 

use of the existing electric transmission system. 

8.1.2.1 Air Quality 

Salem and HCGS are located in Salem County, New Jersey. The general air quality regulatory 

status of the Salem County region is as described in Section 8.1.1.1 for the coal-fired generation 

alternative. A new gas-fired generating plant would qualify as a new major-emitting industrial 

facility and would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review 

under requirements of the CAA, adopted by the NJDEP Bureau of Air Quality Permitting. The 

natural gas-fired plant would need to comply with the standards of performance for stationary 

gas turbines set forth in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart GG. Regulations issued by the NJDEP adopt 

the EPA's CAA rules (with modifications) to limit power plant emissions of SOx, NOx, particulate 

matter, and HAPs. The new gas-fired generating plant would qualify as a major facility as 

defined in Section 7:27-22.1 of the New Jersey Administrative Code, and would be required to 

obtain a major source permit from the NJDEP. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-19 

As previously discussed in Section 8.1.1.1, Section 169A of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401) 

establishes a national goal of preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment results from man-made air pollution. If a 

gas-fired plant were located close to a mandatory Class I Federal area, additional air pollution 

control requirements would be imposed. There is one mandatory Class I Federal area in the 

State of New Jersey, which is the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge (40 CFR 81.420), located 

approximately 58 mi (93 km) southeast of the Salem and HCGS facilities. There are no Class I 

Federal areas in Delaware, and no other area located within 100 mi (161 km) of the facilities (40 

CFR 81.400). New Jersey is also subject to the CAIR, which has outlined emissions reduction 

goals for both SO2 and NOx for the year 2015 (See Section 8.1.1.1). The staff projects the 

following emissions for a gas-fired alternative based on data published by the EIA, the EPA, and 

on performance characteristics for this alternative and its emissions controls: 

● Sulfur oxides (SOx) – 53 tons (48 MT) per year 

● Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 932 tons (846 MT) per year 

● Carbon monoxide (CO) – 193 tons (175 MT) per year 

● Total suspended particles (TSP) – 162 tons (147 MT) per year 

● Particulate matter (PM) PM10 – 162 tons (147 MT) per year 

● Carbon dioxide (CO2) – 9,400,000 tons (8,500,000 MT) per year 

Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides 

As stated above, the new natural gas-fired alternative would produce 53 tons (48 MT) per year 

of SOx (assumed to be all SO2) (EPA, 2000; INGAA, 2000) and 932 tons (846 MT) per year of 

NOx based on the use of the dry low NOx combustion technology and use of the selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) in order to significantly reduce NOx emissions (INGAA, 2000). The 

new plant would be subjected to the continuous monitoring requirements for SO2, NOx and CO2

as specified in 40 CFR Part 75. A new natural gas-fired plant would have to comply with Title IV 

of the CAA reduction requirements for SO2 and NOx, which are the main precursors of acid rain 

and the major cause of reduced visibility. Title IV establishes maximum SO2 and NOx emission 

rate from the existing plants and a system of the SO2 emission allowances that can be used, 

sold or saved for future use by new plants. 

Particulates 

Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 2000), the new natural gas-fired alternative would 

produce 162 tons (147 MT) per year of TSP, all of which would be emitted as PM10. 

Carbon Monoxide 

Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 2000), the staff estimates that the total CO emissions 

would be approximately 193 tons (175 MT) per year. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The EPA issued in December 2000 regulatory findings (65 FR 79825) on emissions of HAPs 

from electric utility steam-generating units, which identified that natural gas-fired plants emit 

HAPs such as arsenic, formaldehyde and nickel and stated that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-20 

. . . the impacts due to HAP emissions from natural gas-fired electric utility steam 

generating units were negligible based on the results of the study. The 

Administrator finds that regulation of HAP emissions from natural gas-fired 

electric utility steam generating units is not appropriate or necessary. 

Carbon Dioxide 

The new plant would be subjected to the continuous monitoring requirements for SO2, NOx and 

CO2 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. The staff computed that the natural gas-fired plant would emit 

approximately 9.4 million tons (8.5 million MT) per year of unregulated CO2 emissions. In 

response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, the EPA has proposed a rule that 

requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources that would allow collection 

of accurate and comprehensive emissions data to inform future policy decisions (EPA, 2009b). 

The EPA proposes that suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles 

and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more per year of GHG emissions submit 

annual reports to the EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are CO2, methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated 

ethers (HFE). 

Construction Impacts 

Activities associated with the construction of the new natural gas-fired plant at the Salem and 

HCGS site would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and 

fugitive dust from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Workers’ 

vehicles and motorized construction equipment would generate temporary exhaust emissions. 

The construction crews would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce 

fugitive dust, which would be temporary in nature. The staff concludes that the impact of vehicle 

exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material handling 

equipment would be SMALL. 

The overall air quality impacts from a new natural gas-fired plant located at the Salem and 

HCGS site would be SMALL to MODERATE, primarily due to air pollutant emissions from plant 

operation. 

8.1.2.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

The use of groundwater for a natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would likely be limited to 

supply wells for drinking water and possibly filtered service water for system cleaning purposes. 

Total usage would likely be much less than Salem and HCGS because fewer workers would be 

onsite and the gas-fired alternative would have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. 

No effects on groundwater quality would be apparent except during the construction phase due 

to temporary dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of 

construction and the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of 

the natural gas-fired alternative would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-21 

8.1.2.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

The alternative would require a consumptive use of water from the Delaware River for cooling 

purposes. Because this consumptive loss would be from an estuary, the staff concludes the 

impact of surface water use would be SMALL. A new natural gas-fired plant would be required 

to obtain an NPDES permit from the NJDEP for regulation of industrial wastewater, storm water, 

and other discharges. Assuming the plant operates within the limits of this permit, the impact 

from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, and other effluent discharges on surface water 

quality would be SMALL. 

8.1.2.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

Aquatic Ecology 

Compared to the existing Salem and HCGS facilities, impacts on aquatic ecology from the 

onsite, gas-fired alternative would be substantially smaller because the combined-cycle plant 

would inject significantly less heat to the environment and require less water. Also, any new 

plants (including coal) would fall under the EPA’s Phase I rules for new plants and would have 

closed cycle cooling. Adverse effects (impingement and entrainment and thermal effects) would 

be substantially less than those of the existing Salem and HCGS facilities. The numbers of fish 

and other aquatic organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would 

be smaller than those associated with license renewal because water consumption and 

blowdown discharged to the Delaware Estuary would be substantially lower. Some temporary 

impacts on aquatic organisms may occur due to construction. Longer-term effects could result 

from effluents discharged to the river. However, the staff assumes that the appropriate 

agencies would monitor and regulate such activities. The number of organisms affected by 

impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects of this alternative would be substantially less 

than for license renewal, so the staff expects that the levels of impact for the natural gas 

alternative would be SMALL. 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Constructing the natural gas alternative would require approximately 128 ac (52 ha) of land 

according to PSEG estimates (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from the GEIS estimate, 

approximately 400 ac (165 ha) would be required to replace the 3,600 MW(e) provided by 

Salem and HCGS. These land disturbances are the principal means by which this alternative 

would affect terrestrial ecology. 

Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology may occur if additional land requirements result in the 

encroachment into or filling of the adjacent tidal marsh. However, based on the anticipated land 

requirements, the encroachment should be minimal. In addition, if additional roads would need 

to be constructed through less disturbed areas, impacts could occur as these construction 

activities may fragment or destroy local ecological communities. Land disturbances could affect 

habitats of native wildlife; however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. Gas 

extraction and collection would also affect terrestrial ecology in offsite gas fields, although much 

of this land is likely already disturbed by gas extraction, and the incremental effects of this 

alternative on gas field terrestrial ecology are difficult to gauge. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-22 

Construction of the nine natural-gas-fired units could entail some loss of native wildlife habitats; 

however, these impacts are not expected to be extensive. If new roads and a new cooling 

tower were required to be constructed through less disturbed areas, these activities could 

fragment or destroy local ecological communities, thereby increasing impacts. Operation of the 

cooling tower would cause some deposition of particulates on surrounding vegetation (including 

wetlands) and soils from cooling tower drift. Overall, impacts to terrestrial resources at the site 

would be minimal and limited mostly to the construction period. Construction of a 150-ft (46-m), 

wide 25-mi (40-km) long gas pipeline (to the nearest assumed tie-in) could lead to further 

disturbance to undeveloped areas. However, PSEG indicated that the pipeline would be routed 

along existing, previously disturbed ROW and would expect to only temporarily impact terrestrial 

species. Because of the relatively small potential for undisturbed land to be affected, impacts 

from construction of the pipeline are expected to be minimal. 

Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources from the onsite, gas-fired alternative 

would be SMALL. 

8.1.2.5 Human Health 

Like the coal-fired alternative discussed above, a gas-fired plant would emit criteria air 

pollutants, but in smaller quantities (except NOx, which requires additional controls to reduce 

emissions). Human health effects of gas-fired generation are generally low, although in Table 

8-2 of the GEIS (NRC, 1996), the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health 

risks from gas-fired plants. NOx emissions contribute to ozone formation, which in turn 

contributes to human health risks. Emission controls on this gas-fired alternative maintain NOx

emissions well below air quality standards established for the purposes of protecting human 

health, and emissions trading or offset requirements mean that overall NOx in the region would 

not increase. Health risks to workers may also result from handling spent catalysts from NOx

emission control equipment that may contain heavy metals. 

During construction activities there would be a risk to workers from typical industrial incidents 

and accidents. Accidental injuries are not uncommon in the construction industry, and 

accidents resulting in fatalities do occur. However, the occurrence of such events is mitigated 

by the use of proper industrial hygiene practices, worker safety requirements, and training. 

Occupational and public health impacts during construction are expected to be controlled by 

continued application of accepted industrial hygiene and occupational health and safety 

practices. Fewer workers would be on site for a shorter period of time to construct a gas-fired 

plant than for other new power generation alternatives, and so exposure to occupational risks 

tends to be lower than other alternatives. 

Overall, human health risks to occupational workers and to members of the public from gas-fired 

power plant emissions sited at the Salem and HCGS site would be less than the risks described 

for coal-fired alternative and therefore, would likely be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-23 

8.1.2.6 Socioeconomics 

Land Use 

The analysis of land use impacts focuses on the amount of land area that would be affected by 

the construction and operation of a nine-unit natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at the 

Salem and HCGS site. 

PSEG indicated that approximately 128 ac (52 ha) of land would be needed to support a natural 

gas-fired alternative to replace Salem and HCGS (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from 

the GEIS estimate, approximately 400 ac (165 ha) would be required to replace the 3,600 

MW(e) provided by Salem and HCGS. This amount of onsite land use would include other plant 

structures and associated infrastructure. Onsite land use impacts from construction would be 

SMALL. 

In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required offsite for natural gas wells and 

collection stations. Scaling from GEIS estimates, approximately 12,960 ac (5,200 ha) would be 

required for wells, collection stations, and a 25-mi (40 km) pipeline spur to bring the gas to the 

plant. Most of this land requirement would occur on land where gas extraction already occurs. 

In addition, some natural gas could come from outside of the United States and be delivered as 

liquefied gas. 

The elimination of uranium fuel for the Salem and HCGS facilities could partially offset offsite 

land requirements. Scaling from GEIS estimates, approximately 3,660 ac (1,480 ha) would not 

be needed for mining and processing uranium during the 40-year operating life of the plant. 

Based on this information and the need for additional land at Salem and HCGS, overall land use 

impacts from a gas-fired power plant would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 

the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant could affect regional 

employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation would result: (1) 

construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in duration, and less likely to have a longterm socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 

which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. Workforce 

requirements for the construction and operation of the natural gas-fired power plant alternative 

were evaluated in order to measure their possible effect on current socioeconomic conditions. 

While the GEIS estimates a peak construction workforce of 4,320, PSEG projected a maximum 

construction workforce of 2,920 (PSEG 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). During construction, the 

communities surrounding the power plant site would experience increased demand for rental 

housing and public services. The relative economic effect of construction workers on local 

economy and tax revenue would vary. 

After construction, local communities could be temporarily affected by the loss of construction 

jobs and associated loss in demand for business services, and the rental housing market could 

experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. As noted in the GEIS, the 

socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-24 

because the workforce would have to move to be closer to the construction site. Although the 

ER identifies the Salem and HCGS site as a primarily rural site (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b), it 

is located near the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas. Therefore, these effects 

would likely be lessened because workers are likely to commute to the site from these areas 

instead of relocating closer to the construction site. Because of the site’s proximity to these 

larger population centers, the impact of construction on socioeconomic conditions would be 

SMALL. 

PSEG estimated a power plant operations workforce of approximately 132 (PSEG, 2009a), 

(PSEG, 2009b). Scaling from GEIS estimates of an operational workforce of 150 employees for 

a 1,000-MW(e) gas-fired plant, 540 workers would be required to replace the 3600 MW(e) 

provided by Salem and HCGS. The PSEG estimate appears reasonable and is consistent with 

trends toward lowering labor costs by reducing the size of power plant operations workforces. 

This would result in a loss of approximately 1,070 to 1,480 relatively high-paying jobs (based on 

a current Salem and HCGS workforce of 1,614), with a corresponding reduction in purchasing 

activity and tax contributions to the regional economy. The impact of the job loss, however, may 

not be noticeable given the amount of time required for the construction of a new power plant 

and the decommissioning of the existing facilities and the relatively large region from which 

Salem and HCGS personnel are currently drawn. The size of property tax payments under the 

gas-fired alternative may increase if additional land is required at Salem and HCGS to support 

this alternative. Operational impacts would therefore range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Transportation 

Transportation impacts associated with construction and operation of a nine-unit gas-fired 

power plant would consist of commuting workers and truck deliveries of construction materials 

to the Salem and HCGS site. During periods of peak construction activity, between 2,900 and 

4,300 workers could be commuting daily to the site, as well as the current 1,614 workers 

already at Salem and HCGS. In addition to commuting workers, trucks would be transporting 

construction materials and equipment to the worksite thereby increasing the amount of traffic on 

local roads. The increase in vehicular traffic would peak during shift changes resulting in 

temporary level of service impacts and delays at intersections. Some large plant components 

would likely be delivered by barge. Pipeline construction and modification to existing natural 

gas pipeline systems could also have an impact on local traffic. Traffic-related transportation 

impacts during construction would likely be MODERATE. 

During plant operations, traffic-related transportation impacts would be greatly reduced. 

According to PSEG, approximately 132 workers would be needed to operate the gas-fired 

power plant. Fuel for the plant would be transported by pipeline. The transportation 

infrastructure would experience little to no increased traffic from plant operations. Overall, the 

gas-fired alternative transportation impacts would be SMALL during plant operations. 

Aesthetics 

The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the natural gas-fired 

alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the gas-fired plant. 

The nine gas-fired units would be approximately 100 ft (30 m) tall, with an exhaust stack up to 

200 ft (61 m). The facility would be visible offsite during daylight hours. However, the gas-fired 

power plant would be shorter than the existing HCGS cooling tower, which stands at 514 ft (157 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-25 

m). This alternative would likely make use of the site’s existing natural draft cooling tower. The 

condensate plume that would be generated would be no more noticeable than the existing 

plume from HCGS. Noise from plant operations, as well as lighting on plant structures, would 

be detectable offsite. Pipelines delivering natural gas fuel could be audible offsite near gas 

compressors. 

In general, aesthetic changes would be limited to the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS 

and would be SMALL. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 

and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 

are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 

artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 

consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 

they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 

dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 

but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 

structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic Power 

Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 

important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 

geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features. 

The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 

potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants. 

The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 

location of the proposed site. To consider a project's effects on historic and archaeological 

resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 

archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 

develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 

activities. 

Before construction at the Salem and HCGS site, studies would likely be needed to identify, 

evaluate, and address mitigation of potential impacts of new plant construction on cultural 

resources. Studies would be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant 

site and along associated corridors where construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission 

corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs). Areas with the greatest sensitivity should be avoided. 

As noted in Section 4.9.6, there is little potential for historic and archaeological resources to be 

present on most of the Salem and HCGS site; therefore, the impact for a natural gas-fired 

alternative at the Salem and HCGS site would likely be SMALL. 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle 

power plant. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or 

nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-26 

effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or lowincome population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population 

or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects 

refer to impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or lowincome community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the 

larger community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. 

Some of these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. 

For example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction could 

disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are 

subsets of the general public residing around Salem and HCGS, and all are exposed to the 

same hazards generated from constructing and operating a new natural gas-fired combinedcycle power plant. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice 

issues, the reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, Environmental Justice. 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 

a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at Salem and HCGS would mostly consist 

of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to 

onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would 

also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic. 

However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 

high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 

during construction could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the 

Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas, most construction workers would likely 

commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential demand for rental housing. 

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired combinedcycle power plant would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of Salem 

and HCGS. 

8.1.2.7 Waste Management 

During the construction phase of this alternative, land clearing and other construction activities 

would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed onsite or shipped to an offsite waste 

disposal facility. Because the alternative would be constructed on the previously disturbed 

Salem and HCGS site, the amounts of wastes produced during land clearing would be reduced. 

During the operational stage, spent SCR catalysts used to control NOx emissions from the 

natural gas-fired plants would make up the majority of the waste generated by this alternative. 

This waste would be disposed of according to applicable Federal and State regulations. 

The staff concluded in the GEIS (NRC, 1996), that a natural gas-fired plant would generate 

minimal waste and the waste impacts would be SMALL for a natural gas-fired alternative 

located at the Salem and HCGS site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-27 

Table 8-2. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas 

Combined-Cycle Generation Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of 

Salem and HCGS

Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

Generation 

Continued Salem and HCGS 

Operation 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Waste Management SMALL SMALL 

8.1.3 Combination Alternative 

Even though individual alternatives to license renewal might not be sufficient on their own to 

replace the 3,656 MW(e) total capacity of Salem and HCGS because of the lack of resource 

availability, technical maturity, or regulatory barriers, it is conceivable that a combination of 

alternatives might be sufficient, when considering that HCGS License would not expire until 

2026. 

There are many possible combinations of alternatives that could be considered to replace the 

power generated by Salem and HCGS. In the GEIS, staff indicated that consideration of 

alternatives would be limited to single, discrete generating options, given the virtually unlimited 

number of combinations available. In this section, the staff examines a possible combination of 

alternatives. Under this alternative, Salem and HCGS would be retired and a combination of 

other alternatives would be considered, as follows: 

• denying the re-license application for Salem and HCGS; 

• constructing five 400 MW(e) natural gas-fired combined-cycle plants at Salem; 

• obtaining 878 MW(e) from renewable energy sources (primarily offshore wind); and 

• implementing 731 MW(e) of efficiency and conservation programs, from among the 

3,300 MW of energy efficiency and conservation goals identified by the New Jersey 

Energy Master Plan (State of New Jersey, 2008) and the Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships, Inc. (NEEP, 2009). 

The potential contributions of efficiency and conservation programs and renewable energy are 

based on achievement of the goals of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan (Plan) (State of New 

Jersey, 2008). Goal #1 of this Plan is to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent through 

efficiency and conservation programs. Based on the current generating capacity of 3656 MW(e) 

of Salem and HCGS, achievement of the 20 percent objective would contribute 731 MW(e) 

equivalent to this combination alternative. Goal #2 of the Plan is to reduce peak demand for 

electricity by 5,700 MW by 2020. Goal #3 of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan is to increase 

the current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 30 percent. Based on the original 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-28 

generating capacity of 3656 MW(e), with demand reduced by 20 percent to 2925 MW(e) 

through achievement of Goal #1, a 30 percent renewable energy contribution to this portfolio 

would comprise 878 MW(e). The remainder of the capacity, or approximately 2000 MW(e), 

would be generated by the implementation of natural gas generating units. 

The following sections analyze the impacts of the alternative outlined above. In some cases, 

detailed impact analyses for similar actions are described in previous sections of this chapter. 

When this occurs, the impacts of the combined alternatives are discussed in a general manner 

with reference to other sections of this SEIS. 

Each component of the combination alternative produces different environmental impacts, 

though several of the options would have impacts similar to—but smaller than—alternatives 

already addressed in this SEIS. Constructing a total of 2,000 MW(e) of gas-fired capacity on 

the Salem and HCGS sites would create roughly the same impacts as the on-site combinedcycle natural gas alternative described in Section 8.1.2. This alternative would make use of the 

existing transmission lines at the sites, but would require construction of a 25-mi (40 km) long 

natural gas pipeline, the same as would be required under the combined-cycle natural gas 

alternative evaluated in Section 8.1.2. The amount of air emissions, land use, and water 

consumption would be reduced due to the smaller number of natural-gas fired units. 

The staff has not yet addressed the impacts of wind power or conservation in this SEIS. A wind 

installation capable of yielding 878 MW(e) of capacity would likely entail placing wind turbines 

off of the New Jersey coast. A wind installation capable of delivering 878 MW(e) on average 

would require approximately 813 turbines with a capacity of 3.6 MW each (MMS, 2010). 

Because wind power installations do not provide full power all the time, the total installed 

capacity exceeds the capacity stated here and assumes a 30 percent capacity factor. 

Impacts from conservation measures are likely to be negligible, as indicated in the GEIS (NRC, 

1996). The primary concerns identified in the GEIS relate to indoor air quality and waste 

disposal. In the GEIS, air quality appeared to become an issue when weatherization initiatives 

exacerbated existing problems, and were expected not to present significant effects. Waste 

disposal concerns related to energy-saving measures like fluorescent lighting could be 

addressed by recycling programs. The overall impact from conservation is considered to be 

SMALL in all resource areas, though measures that provide weatherization assistance to lowincome populations may have positive effects on environmental justice conditions. 

 8.1.3.1 Air Quality 

The combination alternative will have some impact on air quality as a result of emissions from 

the onsite gas turbines. Because of the size of the units, an individual unit’s impacts would be 

SMALL. Section 8.1.2.1 of this SEIS describes the impacts on air quality from the construction 

and operation of natural gas units as SMALL to MODERATE. The construction and operation of 

the wind farm would have only minor impacts on air quality. 

Overall, the staff considers that the air quality impacts from the combination alternative would be 

SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-29 

8.1.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

The use of groundwater for a natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant would likely be limited to 

supply wells for drinking water and possibly filtered service water for system cleaning purposes. 

Total usage would likely be much less than Salem and HCGS because fewer workers would be 

onsite and the gas-fired alternative would have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. 

No effects on groundwater quality would be apparent except during the construction phase due 

to temporary dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of 

construction and the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of 

the natural gas-fired alternative would be SMALL. 

8.1.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

The primary water use and quality issues from this alternative would be from the gas-fired units 

at Salem and HCGS. While construction of a wind farm, particularly if located offshore, would 

result in some impacts to surface water, these impacts are likely to be short lived. An offshore 

wind farm is unlikely to be located immediately adjacent to any water users. Construction 

activities may increase turbidity; however, construction of an onshore wind farm could create 

additional erosion, as would construction of a gas-fired unit on the Salem and HCGS sites. In 

general, site management practices keep these effects to a small level. 

During operations, only the gas-fired plants would require water for cooling. The natural gas 

would likely use closed-cycle cooling, which would limit the effects on water resources. As the 

staff indicated for the coal-fired and gas-fired alternatives, the gas-fired portion of this alternative 

is likely to rely on surface water for cooling (or, as is the case in some locations, treated sewage 

effluent). 

The staff considers impacts on water use and quality to be SMALL for the combination 

alternative. The onsite impacts at the Salem and HCGS facility would be expected to be similar 

to the impacts described in Sections 8.1.2.2 and 8.1.2.3 of this SEIS. 

8.1.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecology from the gas-fired power plant component of the 

combination alternative, which includes five gas-fired units, would be similar to those described 

for the gas-fired alternative in Section 8.1.2.4. Therefore, ecological impacts would similarly be 

SMALL. 

Aquatic Ecology 

The wind farm component of this alternative, if located offshore, could have temporary impacts 

on aquatic organisms due to construction activities, which would likely increase turbidity in the 

area of construction. The staff assumes that the appropriate agencies would monitor and 

regulate such activities. Overall, the impacts to aquatic resources would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-30 

Based on data in the GEIS, an onshore wind farm component of the combination alternative 

producing 878 MW(e) of electricity would require approximately 459,000 ac (179,000 ha) spread 

over several offsite locations. Based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory figures from 

2009, it would require approximately 259,000 ac (101,000 Ha) (NREL, 2009). Permanent 

disturbance is approximately 2300 ac (880 Ha) (NREL, 2009). . The remainder of the land, if 

located onshore, could remain in use for activities such as agriculture. Additional land would 

likely be needed for construction of support infrastructure to connect to existing transmission 

lines. During construction, there would be an increased potential for erosion and adverse 

effects on adjacent water bodies, though stormwater management practices are expected to 

minimize such impacts. 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Impacts to terrestrial ecology from construction of the wind farm portion of the combination 

alternative and any needed transmission lines could include loss of terrestrial habitat, an 

increase in habitat fragmentation and corresponding increase in edge habitat. The GEIS notes 

that habitat fragmentation may lead to declines of migrant bird populations. Once operational, 

birds would be likely to collide with the turbines, and migration routes would need to be 

considered during site selection. Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources 

would be MODERATE. 

8.1.3.5 Human Health 

The primary health concerns under this option would be occupational health and safety risks 

during the construction of the new gas turbine and the wind farm. As described previously, if 

the risks are appropriately managed, the human health impacts from construction and operation 

of a gas-fired power plant are SMALL. Human health impacts from a wind farm would also be 

associated primarily with the construction of the facility and would also be minimal. Continued 

operation of HCGS with the existing closed-cycle cooling system would not change the human 

health impacts designation of SMALL as discussed in Chapter 4. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the overall human health impact from the combination 

alternative would be SMALL. 

8.1.3.6 Socioeconomics 

Land Use 

Impacts from this alternative would include the types of impacts discussed for land use in 

Section 8.1.2.6 of this SEIS. Section 8.1.2.6 states that the land use impacts from the 

construction of nine gas-fired units at the Salem site would be SMALL to MODERATE. The 

combined alternative includes five gas-fired units, which would fit on the existing site without 

purchasing additional land. In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required 

offsite for natural gas wells and collection stations. The land use impacts of the gas-fired 

component of the combination alternative would be similar to the impacts described in Sections 

8.1.2.6, which were designated SMALL to MODERATE. 

Impacts from the wind power component of this alternative would depend largely on whether the 

wind facility is located onshore or offshore. Onshore wind facilities would require more land 

than offshore facilities, simply because all towers and supporting infrastructure would be located 

on land. According to the GEIS, onshore installations could require approximately 60,000 ac 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-31 

(24,400 ha), though turbines and infrastructure would actually occupy only a small percentage 

(less than 10 percent) of that land area. The wind farm would most likely be located on 

agricultural cropland, which would be largely unaffected by the wind turbines. 

Although the wind farm would require a large amount of land, only a small component of that 

land would be in actual use. Also, the elimination of uranium fuel for Salem and HCGS could 

partially offset offsite land requirements. 

Land use impacts of an energy efficiency and conservation program would be SMALL. Rapid 

replacement and disposal of old energy inefficient appliances and other equipment would 

generate waste material and could potentially increase the size of landfills. However, given time 

for program development and implementation, the cost of replacements, and the average life of 

appliances and other equipment, the replacement process would probably be gradual. Older 

energy inefficient appliances and equipment would likely be replaced by more efficient 

appliances and equipment as they fail (especially frequently replaced items, like light bulbs). In 

addition, many items (like home appliances or industrial equipment) have substantial recycling 

value and would likely not be disposed of in landfills. Based on this information and the need for 

additional land, overall land use impacts from the combination alternative could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

Socioeconomics 

As previously discussed, socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the 

demographic and economic characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the 

number of jobs created by the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant at 

Salem and HCGS and wind farm could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures. 

Two types of jobs would be created: (1) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in 

duration, and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related 

jobs in support of power generating operations, which have the greater potential for permanent, 

long-term socioeconomic impacts. The staff conducted evaluations of construction and 

operations workforce requirements in order to measure their possible effect on current 

socioeconomic conditions. 

Impacts from this alternative would include the types of impacts discussed for socioeconomics 

in Section 8.1.2.6 of this SEIS. Section 8.1.2.6 states that the socioeconomics impacts from the 

construction and operation of nine gas-fired units at the Salem site would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. The combined alternative includes five gas-fired units. The size of the 

construction workforce and number of operational workers would be similar. Accordingly, the 

socioeconomic impacts from the gas-fired component of the combination alternative would be 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

An estimated additional 300 construction workers would be required for the wind farm. These 

workers could cause a short-term increase in demand for services and temporary (rental) 

housing in the region around the construction site(s). 

After construction, some local communities may be temporarily affected by the loss of the 

construction jobs and associated loss in demand for business services. The rental housing 

market could also experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. However, these 

effects would likely be spread over a larger area, as the wind farms may be constructed in more 

than one location. The combined effects of these two construction activities would range from 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-32 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

Additional estimated operations workforce requirements for this combination alternative would 

include 50 operations workers for the wind farm. Given the small number of operations workers 

at these facilities, socioeconomic impacts associated with operation of the natural gas-fired 

power plant at Salem and HCGS and the wind farm would be SMALL. Socioeconomic effects of 

an energy efficiency and conservation program would also be SMALL. As noted in the GEIS, 

the program would likely employ some additional workers. 

Transportation 

Construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant and a wind farm would increase 

the number of vehicles on roads in the vicinity of these facilities. During construction, cars and 

trucks would deliver workers, materials, and equipment to the work sites. The increase in 

vehicular traffic would peak during shift changes resulting in temporary level of service impacts 

and delays at intersections. Transporting components of wind turbines could have a noticeable 

impact, but is likely to be spread over a large area. Pipeline construction and modification to 

existing natural gas pipeline systems could also have an impact on local traffic. Traffic-related 

transportation impacts during construction could range from SMALL to MODERATE depending 

on the location of the wind farm site, current road capacities and average daily traffic volumes. 

During plant operations, transportation impacts would lessen. Given the small numbers of 

operations workers at these facilities, levels of service traffic impacts on local roads from 

operation of the gas-fired power plant at the Salem and HCGS site as well as the wind farm 

would be SMALL. Transportation impacts at the wind farm site or sites would also depend on 

current road capacities and average daily traffic volumes, but are likely to be SMALL given the 

low number of workers employed by that component of the alternative. 

Aesthetics 

Aesthetic impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the power plant and the 

surrounding landscape and the visibility of the power plant. In general, aesthetic changes would 

be limited to the immediate vicinity of Salem and HCGS and the wind farm facilities. 

Aesthetic impacts from the gas-fired power plant component of the combination alternative 

would be essentially the same as those described for the gas-fired alternative in Section 8.1.2.6. 

Noise during power plant operations would be limited to industrial processes and 

communications. In addition to the power plant structures, construction of natural gas pipelines 

would have a short-term impact. Noise from the pipelines could be audible offsite near 

compressors. In general, aesthetic changes would be limited to the immediate vicinity of Salem 

and HCGS and would be SMALL. 

The wind farm would have the greatest visual impact. Several hundred wind turbines over 300 

ft (100 m) in height and spread over 60,000 ac (24,400 ha) would dominate the view and would 

likely become the major focus of attention. Depending on its location, the aesthetic impacts 

from the construction and operation of the wind farm would be MODERATE to LARGE. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 

and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 

are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-33 

artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 

consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 

they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 

dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 

but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 

structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic Power 

Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 

important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 

geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features. 

The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 

potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants. 

The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 

location of the proposed site. To consider a project's effects on historic and archaeological 

resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 

archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 

develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 

activities. 

Onsite impacts to historical and cultural resources from the construction of a gas turbine plant 

are expected to be SMALL. Depending on the resource richness of the alternative site 

ultimately chosen for the wind power alternative, the impacts could range between SMALL to 

MODERATE. Therefore, the overall impacts on historic and archaeological resources from the 

combination alternative could range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Impacts to historic and archaeological resources from implementing the energy efficiency and 

conservation program would be SMALL and would not likely affect land use or historical or 

cultural resources elsewhere in the State. 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

could result from the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant at Salem 

and HCGS, wind farm, and energy efficiency and conservation programs. Adverse health 

effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human 

health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 

exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and 

exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 

comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to impacts or risk of 

impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that are 

significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such 

effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of these potential 

effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For example, increased 

demand for rental housing during power plant construction could disproportionately affect lowincome populations. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public 

residing around a power plant, and all are exposed to the same hazards generated from 

constructing and operating a natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant and wind farm. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-34 

Low-income families could benefit from weatherization and insulation programs. This effect 

would be greater than the effect for the general population because (according to the Office of 

Management and Budget [OMB]) low-income households experience home energy burdens 

more than four times larger than the average household (OMB, 2007). Weatherization 

programs could target low-income residents as a cost-effective energy efficiency option since 

low-income populations tend to spend a larger proportion of their incomes paying utility bills 

(OMB, 2007). Overall impacts to minority and low-income populations from energy efficiency 

programs would be nominal, depending on program design and enrollment. 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 

a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at Salem and HCGS and wind farm would 

mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, 

employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be shortterm and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing 

along site access roads would also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during 

shift changes and truck traffic. However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours 

of the day and not likely to be high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing during 

construction in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS and the wind farm could affect low-income 

populations. Given the close proximity to the Philadelphia and Wilmington metropolitan areas, 

most construction workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential 

demand for rental housing. 

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant and the 

wind farm (depending on its location) would not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 

8.1.3.7 Waste Management 

The primary source of waste would be associated with the construction of the new gas-fired 

combined-cycle plant and the wind farm. During the construction phase of this alternative, land 

clearing and other construction activities would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed 

onsite, or shipped to an offsite waste disposal facility. Because the gas-fired combined-cycle 

plant would be constructed on the previously disturbed Salem site, the amounts of waste 

produced during land clearing would be reduced. Waste impacts could be substantial but likely 

not noticeably alter or destabilize the resource during construction of the wind farms, depending 

on how the various sites handle wastes. 

The waste contribution from the remaining HCGS unit would be roughly one-third of the waste 

generated by the current facility (Salem and HCGS) described in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. If 

the remaining HCGS unit were to continue operation with the existing closed-cycle cooling 

system, waste impacts would be minor. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the overall impact from waste from the combination 

alternative would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-35 

Table 8-3. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of the Combination 

Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS

Combination Continued Salem and HCGS 

Operation 

Air Quality SMALL SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE SMALL 

Waste Management SMALL SMALL 

8.2 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed 

In the sections below, the staff presents other alternatives it initially considered for analysis as 

alternatives to license renewal of Salem and HCGS, but later dismissed due to technical, 

resource availability, or commercial limitations that currently exist and that the staff believes are 

likely to continue to exist when the existing Salem and HCGS licenses expire. Under each of 

the following technology headings, the staff indicates why it dismissed each alternative from 

further consideration. 

8.2.1 Offsite Coal- and Natural Gas-Fired 

While it is possible that coal- and natural gas-fired alternatives like those considered in Sections 

8.1.1 and 8.1.2, respectively, could be constructed at sites other than Salem and HCGS, the 

staff determined that they would likely result in greater impacts than alternatives constructed at 

the Salem and HCGS site. Greater impacts would occur from construction of support 

infrastructure, like transmission lines, and roads that are already present on the Salem and 

HCGS site. Further, the community around Salem and HCGS is already familiar with the 

appearance of a power facility and it is an established part of the region’s aesthetic character. 

Workers skilled in power plant operations would also be available in this area. The availability 

of these factors are only likely to be available on other recently-industrial sites. In cases where 

recently-industrial sites exist, other remediation may also be necessary in order to ready the site 

for redevelopment. In short, an existing power plant site would present the best location for a 

new power facility. 

8.2.2 New Nuclear 

In its ER, PSEG indicated that it is unlikely that a nuclear alternative could be sited, constructed 

and operational by the time the HCGS operating license expires in 2026 (PSEG, 2009b), nor 

could this be accomplished in a timeframe necessary to replace the generating output of Salem 

Unit 1, which has a license expiration date of 2016 (PSEG, 2009a). On May 25, 2010, PSEG 

submitted an application for an early site permit for two reactor units. Given the relatively short 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-36 

time remaining on the current Salem and HCGS licenses, the staff has not evaluated new 

nuclear generation as an alternative to license renewal. 

8.2.3 Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency 

Though often used interchangeably, energy conservation and energy efficiency are different 

concepts. Energy efficiency typically means deriving a similar level of services by using less 

energy, while energy conservation simply indicates a reduction in energy consumption. Both fall 

into a larger category known as demand-side management (DSM). DSM measures—unlike the 

energy supply alternatives discussed in previous sections—address energy end uses. DSM 

can include measures that shift energy consumption to different times of the day to reduce peak 

loads, measures that can interrupt certain large customers during periods of high demand, 

measures that interrupt certain appliances during high demand periods, and measures like 

replacing older, less efficient appliances, lighting, or control systems. DSM also includes 

measures that utilities use to boost sales, such as encouraging customers to switch from gas to 

electricity for water heating. 

Unlike other alternatives to license renewal, the GEIS notes that conservation is not a discrete 

power generating source; it represents an option that states and utilities may use to reduce their 

need for power generation capability (NRC, 1996). 

In October 2008, the State of New Jersey published its Energy Master Plan (State of New 

Jersey, 2008), which established goals and evaluated potential options for meeting the 

projected increase in electricity demand in the state through 2020. As part of this Master Plan, 

actions were identified to maximize energy conservation and energy efficiency, including: 

transitioning the state’s current energy efficiency programs to be implemented by the electric 

and gas utilities, modifying the statewide building code for new buildings to make new buildings 

at least 30 percent more energy efficient, increasing energy efficiency standards for new 

appliances and other equipment, and developing education and outreach programs for the 

public. An additional goal is to reduce peak electricity demand, primarily by expanding 

incentives developing technologies to increase participation in regional demand response 

programs. A separate goal established in the report (not related to energy conservation) 

included successful accomplishment of the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard by 

2020. 

The report concluded that the combination of all of these efforts (energy conservation, 

efficiency, and renewable energy sources) would still not result in meeting the increased 

demand for electricity in the state, and that additional development of traditional electricity 

sources would still be required. Therefore, these measures would not be able to replace the 

output of the Salem and HCGS facilities. Because of this, the staff has not evaluated energy 

conservation/efficiency as a discrete alternative to license renewal. It has, however, been 

considered as a component of the combination alternative. 

8.2.4 Purchased Power 

In the Salem and HCGS ERs, PSEG indicated that purchased electrical power is a potentially 

viable option for replacing the generating capacity of the Salem and HCGS facilities. PSEG 

anticipated that this power could be purchased from other generation sources within the 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland region, but that the source would likely be from new 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-37 

capacity generated using technologies that are evaluated in the GEIS. The technologies that 

would most likely be used to generate the purchased power would be coal and natural gas, and 

therefore the impacts associated with the power purchase would be similar to those evaluated in 

Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. In addition, purchased power would likely require the addition of 

transmission capacity, which would result in additional land use impacts. Because purchased 

electrical power would likely be provided by new generation sources evaluated elsewhere in this 

section, and would also require new transmission capacity, the staff has not evaluated 

purchased power as a separate alternative to license renewal

8.2.5 Solar Power

Solar technologies use the sun’s energy to produce electricity. Currently, the Salem and HCGS 

area receives approximately 4.5 to 5.5 kWh per square meter per day, for solar collectors 

oriented at an angle equal to the installation’s latitude (NREL, 2010). Since flat-plate 

photovoltaics tend to be roughly 25 percent efficient, a solar-powered alternative would require 

more than 140,000 ac (57,000 ha) of collectors to provide an amount of electricity equivalent to 

that generated by Salem and HCGS. Space between parcels and associated infrastructure 

increase this land requirement. This amount of land, while large, is consistent with the land 

required for coal and natural gas fuel cycles. In the GEIS, the staff noted that, by its nature, 

solar power is intermittent (i.e., it does not work at night and cannot serve baseload when the 

sun is not shining), and the efficiency of collectors varies greatly with weather conditions. A 

solar-powered alternative would require energy storage or backup power supply to provide 

electric power at night. Given the challenges in meeting baseload requirements, the staff did 

not evaluate solar power as an alternative to license renewal of Salem and HCGS. 

8.2.6 Wood-Fired 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates the amount of biomass fuel resources, 

including forest, mill, agricultural, and urban residues, available within New Jersey, Delaware, 

and Pennsylvania to be approximately 5.6 million dry tons per year (5.1 MT; Milbrandt, 2005). 

Based on an estimate of 9.961 million Btu per dry ton and a thermal conversion efficiency of 25 

percent, conversion of this entire resource would generate the equivalent of less than 500 

MW(e). Of the available biomass in the three states, the vast majority (80 percent) is in 

Pennsylvania, and assumed to be located primarily in the western portion of the state. 

Therefore, the volume that would be available for fueling a plant in the local area would be much 

less, and is not likely to be sufficient to substitute for the capacity provided by Salem and 

HCGS. As a result, the staff has not considered a wood-fired alternative to Salem and HCGS 

license renewal. 

8.2.7 Wind (Onshore/Offshore) 

The American Wind Energy Association indicates that New Jersey currently ranks 33rd among 

the states in installed wind power capacity (7.5 MW), and 29th among the state in potential 

capacity. No projects are currently under construction (AWEA, 2010). No wind capacity is 

installed in Delaware. Although Pennsylvania ranks 15th among the states in installed capacity, 

with a total of 748 MW, most of this installed capacity is located in the western portion of the 

state (AWEA, 2010). The report of the New Jersey Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-38 

Development of Wind Turbine Facilities in Coastal Waters(State of New Jersey, 2006) 

concluded that onshore wind speeds in New Jersey are not viable for commercial wind power 

development, and that the vast majority of the state’s wind generation capacity was offshore. 

The report also concluded that development of the offshore resources is not commercially viable 

without significant state and/or federal subsidies. Also, preliminary information evaluated in the 

report indicated that the timing of peak offshore wind speeds did not coincide with the times of 

peak energy demand, and that offshore wind alone could not significantly reduce reliance on 

fossil fuel and domestic nuclear capacity (State of New Jersey, 2006). Finally, the results of a 

study of potential impacts of large-scale wind turbine siting by the NJDEP identified large areas 

along the New Jersey Coast that would likely be considered to be off limits to large scale wind 

development due to documented bird concentrations, nesting for resident threatened and 

endangered bird species, and stopover locations for migratory birds (NJDEP, 2009b).

Given wind power’s intermittency and inability to supply base load power, the lack of easily 

implementable onshore resources in New Jersey, and restrictions on placement of turbines in 

areas that would otherwise have high resource potential, the staff will not consider wind power 

as a stand-alone alternative to license renewal. However, given the potential for development 

of offshore resources, the staff will consider wind power as a portion of a combination 

alternative. 

8.2.8 Hydroelectric Power 

According to researchers at Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), New 

Jersey has an estimated 11 MW of technically available, undeveloped hydroelectric resources 

at 12 sites throughout the State (INEEL, 1996). Given that the available hydroelectric potential 

in the State of New Jersey constitutes only a small fraction of generating capacity of Salem and 

HCGS, the staff did not evaluate hydropower as an alternative to license renewal. 

8.2.9 Wave and Ocean Energy 

Wave and ocean energy has generated considerable interest in recent years. Ocean waves, 

currents, and tides are often predictable and reliable. Ocean currents flow consistently, while 

tides can be predicted months and years in advance with well-known behavior in most coastal 

areas. Most of these technologies are in relatively early stages of development, and while some 

results have been promising, they are not likely to be able to replace the capacity of Salem and 

HCGS by the time their licenses expire. Therefore, the staff did not consider wave and ocean 

energy as an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal. 

8.2.10 Geothermal Power 

Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

power where available. However, geothermal electric generation is limited by the geographical 

availability of geothermal resources (NRC, 1996). Although New Jersey has some geothermal 

potential in a heating capacity, it does not have geothermal electricity potential for electricity 

generation (GHC, 2008). The staff concluded that geothermal energy is not a reasonable 

alternative to license renewal at Salem and HCGS. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-39 

8.2.11 Municipal Solid Waste 

Municipal solid waste combustors use three types of technologies—mass burn, modular, and 

refuse-derived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method used most frequently in the United 

States and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or 

hazardous components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are 

exhausted to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. Currently, approximately 87 

waste-to-energy plants operate in the United States. These plants generate approximately 

2,531 MW(e), or an average of 29 MW(e) per plant (Energy Recovery Council, 2010). This 

includes five plants in New Jersey generating a total of 173 MW(e). More than 124 averagesized plants would be necessary to provide the same level of output as the other alternatives to 

Salem and HCGS license renewal. 

Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a waste-fired 

plant would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, wastefired plants have the same or greater operational impacts than coal-fired technologies (including 

impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). The initial capital costs for 

municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at coalfired facilities or at wood-waste facilities because of the need for specialized waste separation 

and handling equipment (NRC, 1996). 

The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an 

alternative to landfills rather than energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste 

disposal option is likely to increase in the near term as energy prices increase; however, it is 

possible that municipal waste combustion facilities may become attractive again. 

Given the small average installed size of municipal solid waste plants and the unfavorable 

regulatory environment, the staff does not consider municipal solid waste combustion to be a 

feasible alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal. 

8.2.12 Biofuels 

In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are other concepts for biomass-fired 

electric generators, including direct burning of energy crops, conversion to liquid biofuels, and 

biomass gasification. In the GEIS, the staff indicated that none of these technologies had 

progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable enough to 

replace a baseload plant such as Salem and HCGS. After reevaluating current technologies, 

the staff finds other biomass-fired alternatives are still unable to reliably replace the Salem and 

HCGS capacity. For this reason, the staff does not consider other biomass-derived fuels to be 

feasible alternatives to Salem and HCGS license renewal. 

8.2.13 Oil-Fired Power 

The EIA projects that oil-fired plants would account for very little of the new generation capacity 

constructed in the United States during the 2008 to 2030 time period. Further, the EIA does not 

project that oil-fired power would account for any significant additions to capacity (EIA, 2009a). 

The variable costs of oil-fired generation tend to be greater than those of the nuclear or coalfired operations, and oil-fired generation tends to have greater environmental impacts than 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-40 

natural gas-fired generation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oilfired generation increasingly more expensive (EIA, 2009a). The high cost of oil has prompted a 

steady decline in its use for electricity generation. Thus, the staff did not consider oil-fired 

generation as an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal. 

8.2.14 Fuel Cells 

Fuel cells oxidize fuels without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is 

produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air (or oxygen) 

over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts (depending on 

fuel characteristics) are heat, water, and CO2. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of 

hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically 

used as the source of hydrogen. 

At the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other 

alternatives for electricity generation. In addition, fuel cell units are likely to be small in size. 

While it may be possible to use a distributed array of fuel cells to provide an alternative to Salem 

and HCGS, it would be extremely costly to do so and would require many units. Accordingly, 

the staff does not consider fuel cells to be an alternative to Salem and HCGS license renewal. 

8.2.15 Delayed Retirement 

The power generating merchants within the PJM region have retired a large number of 

generation sources since 2003, totaling 5,945 MW retired and 2,629 MW pending retirement. 

Most of these retirements involve older fossil fuel-powered plants which are retired due to 

challenges in meeting increasingly stringent air quality standards (PJM, 2009). Although these 

retirements have caused reliability criteria violations, the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland 

Interconnection Association does not have any authority to compel owners to delay retirement 

(PJM, 2009) and, therefore, retirements are likely to continue. Therefore, delayed retirement of 

non-nuclear plants is not considered as a feasible alternative to Salem and HCGS license 

renewal. 

8.3 No-Action Alternative 

This section examines environmental effects that would occur if the NRC takes no action. No 

Action in this case means that the NRC does not issue a renewed operating license for Salem 

and HCGS and the licenses expire at the end of their current license terms. If NRC takes no 

action, the plants would shutdown at or before the end of the current license. After shutdown, 

plant operators would initiate decommissioning according to 10 CFR 50.82. Table 8-4 provides 

a summary of environmental impacts of No Action compared to continued operation of the 

Salem and HCGS.

The staff notes that the option of No Action is the only alternative considered in-depth that does 

not satisfy the purpose and need for this SEIS, as it does not provide power generation capacity 

nor would it meet the needs currently met by Salem and HCGS or that the alternatives 

evaluated in Section 8.1 would satisfy. Assuming that a need currently exists for the power 

generated by Salem and HCGS, the no-action alternative would require that the appropriate 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-41 

energy planning decision-makers rely on an alternative to replace the capacity of Salem and 

HCGS or reduce the need for power. 

This section addresses only those impacts that arise directly as a result of plant shutdown. The 

environmental impacts from decommissioning and related activities have already been 

addressed in several other documents, including the Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC, 

2002); the license renewal GEIS (Chapter 7; NRC, 1996); and Chapter 7 of this SEIS. These 

analyses either directly address or bound the environmental impacts of decommissioning 

whenever PSEG ceases operating Salem and HCGS. 

The staff notes that, even with renewed operating licenses, Salem and HCGS would eventually 

shut down, and the environmental effects addressed in this section would occur at that time. 

Since these effects have not otherwise been addressed in this SEIS, the impacts will be 

addressed in this section. As with decommissioning effects, shutdown effects are expected to 

be similar whether they occur at the end of the current license or at the end of a renewed 

license. 

8.3.1 Air Quality 

When the plant stops operating, there would be a reduction in emissions from activities related 

to plant operation such as use of diesel generators and employees vehicles. In Chapter 4, the 

staff determined that these emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality during the 

renewal term. Therefore, if the emissions decrease, the impact to air quality would also 

decrease and would be SMALL. 

8.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

The use of groundwater would diminish as plant personnel are removed from the site and 

operations cease. Some consumption of groundwater may continue as a small staff remains 

onsite to maintain facilities prior to decommissioning. Overall impacts would be smaller than 

during operations, and would remain SMALL. 

8.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

The rate of consumptive use of surface water would decrease as the plant is shut down and the 

reactor cooling system continues to remove the heat of decay. Wastewater discharges would 

also be reduced considerably. Shutdown would reduce the already SMALL impact on surface 

water resources and quality. 

8.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

Aquatic Ecology 

If the plant were to cease operating, operational impacts to aquatic ecology would decrease, as 

the plant would withdraw and discharge less water than it does during operations. Shutdown 

would reduce the already SMALL impacts to aquatic ecology. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-42 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Shutdown would result in no additional land disturbances onsite or offsite, and terrestrial 

ecology impacts would be SMALL. 

8.3.5 Human Health 

Human health risks would be smaller following plant shutdown. The plant, which is currently 

operating within regulatory limits, would emit less gaseous and liquid radioactive material to the 

environment. In addition, following shutdown, the variety of potential accidents at the plant 

(radiological or industrial) would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events 

and fuel handling and storage. In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the staff concluded that the impacts of 

continued plant operation on human health would be SMALL. In Chapter 5, the staff concluded 

that the impacts of accidents during operation were SMALL. Therefore, as radioactive 

emissions to the environment decrease, and as the likelihood and variety of accidents decrease 

following shutdown, the staff concludes that the risks to human health following plant shutdown 

would be SMALL. 

8.3.6 Socioeconomics 

Land Use 

Plant shutdown would not affect onsite land use. Plant structures and other facilities would 

likely remain in place until decommissioning. Most transmission lines connected to Salem and 

HCGS would remain in service after the facilities stop operating. Maintenance of most existing 

transmission lines would continue as before. The transmission lines could be used to deliver 

the output of any new capacity additions made on the Salem and HCGS site. Impacts on land 

use from plant shutdown would be SMALL. 

Socioeconomics 

Plant shutdown would have an impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region around Salem 

and HCGS. Should the plants shut down, there would be immediate socioeconomic impacts 

from loss of jobs (some, though not all, of the approximately 1,614 employees would begin to 

leave) and property tax payments may be reduced. These impacts, however, would not be 

considered significant on a regional basis given the close proximity to the Philadelphia and 

Wilmington metropolitan areas and because plant workers’ residences are not concentrated in a 

single community or county. 

Revenue losses from Salem and HCGS operations would affect Salem County and the 

communities closest to and most reliant on the plant’s tax revenue (like Lower Alloways Creek 

Township, which receives approximately 57 percent of its property tax revenue from Salem and 

HCGS). The socioeconomic impacts of plant shutdown would (depending on the jurisdiction) 

range from SMALL to LARGE. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC, 2002), 

for additional discussion of the potential socioeconomic impacts of plant decommissioning. 

Transportation 

Traffic volumes on the roads in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS would be greatly reduced after 

plant shutdown due to the loss of jobs. Deliveries of materials and equipment to Salem and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-43 

HCGS would also be reduced until decommissioning. Transportation impacts from the 

termination of plant operations would be SMALL. 

Aesthetics 

Plant structures and other facilities would likely remain in place until decommissioning. The 

plume from the cooling tower would cease or greatly decrease after shutdown. Noise caused 

by power plant operations would cease. Aesthetic impacts of plant closure would be SMALL. 

Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL, since Salem and HCGS would be 

decommissioned. A separate environmental review would be conducted for decommissioning. 

That assessment would address the protection of historic and archaeological resources. 

Environmental Justice 

Impacts to minority and low-income populations when Salem and HCGS cease operation would 

depend on the number of jobs and the amount of tax revenues lost by the communities 

surrounding the facilities. Closure of Salem and HCGS would reduce the overall number of jobs 

(there are currently 1,614 permanent positions at the facilities) and the tax revenue attributed to 

plant operations (approximately 57 percent of Lower Alloways Creek Township’s tax revenues 

and 2.9 percent of Salem County’s tax revenues are from Salem and HCGS). Since the Salem 

and HCGS tax payments represent such a significant percentage of Lower Alloways Creek 

Township’s total annual property tax revenue, it is likely that economic impacts within the 

township would range from MODERATE to LARGE should Salem and HCGS be shut down and 

closed. Therefore, minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of Salem and HCGS 

could experience disproportionately high and adverse environment effects from plant shutdown. 

8.3.7 Waste Management 

If the no-action alternative were implemented the generation of high-level waste (HLW) would 

stop and generation of low-level and mixed waste would decrease. Impacts from 

implementation of the no-action alternative are expected to be SMALL. 

Wastes associated with plant decommissioning are unavoidable and will be significant whether 

the plant is decommissioned at the end of the initial license period or at the end of the 

relicensing period. Therefore, the selection of the no-action alternative has no impact on issues 

relating to decommissioning waste. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-44 

Table 8-4. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of No Action 

Compared to Continued Operation of Salem and HCGS

No Action Continued Salem and HCGS 

Operation 

Air Quality SMALL SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to LARGE SMALL 

Waste Management SMALL SMALL 

8.4 Alternatives Summary 

In this chapter, the staff considered the following alternatives to Salem and HCGS license 

renewal: supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle generation, and a 

combination of alternatives. No action by the NRC and the effects it would have were also 

considered. The impacts for all alternatives are summarized in Table 8-5. 

Socioeconomic and groundwater impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE. The staff 

did not determine a single significance level for these impacts, but the Commission determined 

them to be Category 1 issues nonetheless. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 

(issuing renewed Salem and HCGS operating licenses) would be SMALL for all other impact 

categories, except for the Category 1 issue of collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel 

cycle, HLW, and spent fuel disposal. 

The staff’s evaluation indicated that the coal-fired alternative would have the greatest overall 

adverse environmental impact. This alternative would result in MODERATE air quality, human 

health, and waste management impacts. Its impacts upon socioeconomic and biological 

resources would range from SMALL to MODERATE. This alternative is not an environmentally 

preferable alternative due to air quality impacts from NOx, SOx, PM, PAHs, CO, CO2, and 

mercury (and the corresponding human health impacts), as well as construction impacts to 

transportation, aquatic, and terrestrial resources. 

With the exception of socioeconomic and air quality impacts, the gas-fired alternative would 

result in SMALL impacts. Socioeconomic and air quality impacts would range from SMALL to 

MODERATE. This alternative would result in substantially lower air emissions and waste 

management than the coal-fired alternative. 

The combination alternative would have lower air emissions and waste management impacts 

than both the gas-fired and coal-fired alternatives; however, it would have relatively higher 

construction impacts in terms of aquatic and terrestrial resources and potential disruption to 

historic and archaeological resources, mainly as a result of the wind turbine component. 

Under the no-action alternative, plant shutdown would begin to eliminate most of the 

approximately 1,614 jobs at Salem and HCGS and would reduce general tax revenue in the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-45 

region. Depending on the jurisdiction, the economic loss would have a SMALL to LARGE 

impact. The no-action alternative, however, would not meet the purpose and need stated in this 

draft SEIS. 

Therefore, in the staff’s best professional opinion, the environmentally preferred alternative in 

this case is the license renewal of Salem and HCGS. All other alternatives capable of meeting 

the needs currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the 

proposed action of license renewal of Salem and HCGS. 
Table 8-5. Summary of the Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Alternative 

Impact Area 

Air Quality 

Groundwater 

Surface Water 

Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Resources 

Human Health 

Socioeconomics 

Waste Management 

License Renewal SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL(a)

Supercritical Coal-fired 

Alternative MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE 

Gas-fired Alternative SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Combination Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL 

No Action Alternative SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL 

(a) For the Salem and HCGS license renewal alternative, waste management was evaluated in Chapter 6. Consistent with the findings in the GEIS, these 

impacts were determined to be SMALL with the exception of collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal. 

 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-46 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-47 

8.5 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 75. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 75. 

“Continuous Emission Monitoring.” 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 81, 

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

63 FR 49442. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Revision of Standards of Performance 

for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to 

Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam 

Generating Units.” Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 179, pp.49442-49455. September 16, 1998. 

64 FR 35714. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Regional Haze Regulations.” Federal 

Register, Vol. 64, No. 126, pp.35714-35774. July 1, 1999. 

65 FR 79825. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), “Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.” Federal Register, Vol. 

65, No. 245, pp. 79825–79831. December 20, 2000. 

65 FR 32214. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), “Notice of Regulatory Determination on 

Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 99, pp.32214–

32237. May 22, 2000. 

AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 2010. “U.S. Wind Energy Projects” for New 

Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. Available URL: http://www.archive.awea.org/projects/ 

(accessed April 16, 2010). 

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009a. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 With Projections 

to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2009). Washington, D.C. March 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009b. “Table A4. Approximate Heat Content of 

Natural Gas, 1949–2008 (Btu per Cubic Foot).” Available URL: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1304.html (accessed on April 15, 2010). 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010a. Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. 

Available URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html (accessed April 12, 

2010). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-48 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010b. Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants 

2007 and 2008. DOE/EIA-0191(2008). Washington, D.C. January 2010. Available URL: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/cq/cqa2008.pdf (accessed April 12, 2010). 

Energy Recovery Council. 2010. “The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants.” 

Available URL: http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/file/IWSA_2007_Directory.pdf

(accessed April 15, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. “Section 1.1: Bituminous and 

Subbituminous Coal Combustion – Final Section, Supplement E.” in Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition. 

Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s01.pdf

(accessed September 2, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Section 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines – 

Final Section, Supplement F” in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C. Available URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s01.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Final Report: Environmental Footprints 

and Costs of Coal-Based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle and Pulverized Coal 

Technologies. EPA-430/R-06/006. July 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/coaltech/2007_01_epaigcc.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. “Clean Air Mercury Rule.” Available 

URL: http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/ (accessed April 17, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.” 

Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html (accessed 

April 15, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. “Clean Air Interstate Rule: New Jersey.” 

Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/nj.html (accessed April 5, 2010). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. “Propose Rule to Control Mercury and 

Other Toxic Air Emissions from Power Plants.” Available URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/ (accessed March 21, 2011). 

GE (GE Power Systems). 2001. “Advanced Technology Combined Cycles.” May 2001. 

Available URL: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/downloads/

ger3936a.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

GHC (Geo-Heat Center). 2008. “U.S. Geothermal Projects and Resource Areas.” Available 

URL: http://geoheat.oit.edu/dusys.htm (accessed April 16, 2010). 

INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). 1996. U.S. Hydropower 

Resource Assessment for New Jersey. DOE/ID-10430(NJ), March 1996. Available URL: 

http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/nj.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010). 

INGAA Foundation. 2000. Implications of Reduced Gas Use on Emissions from Power 

Generation. Available URL: http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=282 (accessed April 15, 2010). 

Milbrandt, A. 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resources Availability 

in the United States. Technical Report NREL/TP-560-39181. Prepared for National Renewable 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-49 

Energy Laboratory. December 2005. Available URL: 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39181.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010). 

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2010. “Renewable Energy Program, Cape Wind 

Project.” Available URL: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWind.htm

(accessed April 16, 2010). 

NEEP (Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc.). 2009. An Energy Efficiency Strategy 

for New Jersey: Achieving the 2020 Master Plan Goals. March 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/emp/docs/pdf/041609NEEP.pdf (accessed September 2, 2010). 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2010. “United States Atlas of Renewable 

Resources.” Interactive Map. Available URL: 

http://mapserve2.nrel.gov/website/Resource_Atlas/viewer.htm (accessed April 15, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009a. State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for Regional Haze. Final. July 2009. Available URL: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/

baqp/2008%20Regional%20Haze/Complete%20Regional%20Haze%20SIP.pdf (accessed 

April 15, 2010). 

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Large Scale Wind 

Turbine Siting Map Report. September 8, 2009. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/landuse/forms/wind_report090908f.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010). 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement. 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. May 

1996. Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. 

ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report.” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. August 1999. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML04069720. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 

November 2002. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023500395, ML023500322, ML023500310, and 

ML023500295. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2009. Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind 

Power Plants in the United States. Available URL: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf

(accessed March 23, 2011). 

OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2007. “Detailed Information on the Low 

Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assessment.” Available URL: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001059.2003.html (accessed July 10, 

2007).
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-50 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009a. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage, Salem Nuclear Generating Station. August 2009. ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092400532, ML092400531, and ML092430231. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2009b. Hope Creek Generating Station, License Renewal 

Application, Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal 

Stage, Hope Creek Generating Station. August 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML092430389. 

PSEG (PSEG Nuclear, LLC). 2010. Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 

dated April 16, 2010. Related to the Environmental Review. Response to ENV-106. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML101440272. 

PJM (PJM Interconnection Association). 2009. “2009 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.” 

Available URL: http://www.pjm.com/documents/reports/rtep-report.aspx (accessed April 16, 

2010). 

State of New Jersey. 2006. Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Turbine Facilities in 

Coastal Waters. Final Report to Governor Jon S. Corzine. April 2006. Available URL: 

http://www.state.nj.us/njwindpanel/docs/finalwindpanelreport.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010). 

State of New Jersey. 2008. New Jersey Energy Master Plan. October 2008. Available URL: 

http://www.nj.gov/emp/docs/pdf/081022_emp.pdf (accessed April 16, 2010). 
 9-1 

9.0 CONCLUSION 

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) contains the environmental 

review of the PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG or applicant) applications for renewed operating 

licenses for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (Salem) and Hope Creek 

Generating Station (HCGS) as required by Part 51 of Title 10, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), the U.S Regulatory Commission (NRC’s) regulations that 

implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Chapter 9 presents the 

conclusions and recommendations from the site-specific environmental review of Salem and 

HCGS and summarizes site-specific environmental issues of license renewal that were 

identified during the review. The environmental impacts of license renewal are summarized in 

Section 9.1; a comparison of the environmental impacts of license renewal and energy 

alternatives is presented in Section 9.2; resource commitments are discussed in Section 9.3; 

and conclusions and NRC staff (staff) recommendations are presented in Section 9.4. 

9.1 Environmental Impacts of License Renewal 

The staff’s review of site-specific environmental issues in this final SEIS leads it to conclude that 

issuing a renewed license would have SMALL impacts for the 21 Category 2 issues applicable 

to license renewal at Salem and HCGS, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of 

electromagnetic fields. 

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue, as applicable. For air quality 

and ground water and surface water use issues, current measures to mitigate the environmental 

impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate. Additionally, the staff concludes that 

impacts to fish and shellfish from entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at Salem and 

HCGS would not warrant additional mitigation beyond the Estuary Enhancement Program for 

the purpose of this license renewal. 

The staff identified a variety of mitigation measures that could reduce human health impacts by 

minimizing public exposures to electric shock hazards. However, no cost benefit studies 

applicable to these mitigation measures were identified. The potential for chronic effects from 

these fields continues to be studied and is not known at this time. The staff considers the GEIS 

finding of “Uncertain” still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue. 

There are no known historic and archaeological resources on the Salem and HCGS site. The 

potential for National Register eligible historic or archaeological resources to be impacted by 

renewal of this operating license is SMALL. Based on this conclusion there would be no need 

to review mitigation measures. 

The staff also considered cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes them. 

The staff concluded that cumulative impacts of Salem’s and HCGS’ license renewals is SMALL 

for potentially affected resources with one exception. Cumulative impacts affecting aquatic 

resources in the Delaware Estuary would range from MODERATE to LARGE. However, the 

incremental contribution from the continued operation of Salem and HCGS on aquatic resources 

would be SMALL to MODERATE for most impacts. The potential direct and indirect impacts to 

socioeconomics from continued operation of Salem and HCGS would be SMALL. However, if 
Conclusion 

 9-2 

PSEG decides to proceed with the construction of a new nuclear plant at the Salem and HCGS 

site, the cumulative impacts to socioeconomics could be SMALL to LARGE. 

9.2 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives 

In the conclusion to Chapter 8, the staff determined that impacts from license renewal are 

generally less than the impacts of alternatives to license renewal. In comparing likely 

environmental impacts from supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle 

generation, and a combination alternative (natural gas, renewable energy, and 

conservation/efficiency) to environmental impacts from license renewal, the staff found that 

license renewal of Salem and HCGS results in the lowest environmental impact. Therefore, in 

the staff’s best professional opinion, the environmentally preferred alternative in this case is the 

license renewal of Salem and HCGS. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs 

currently served by Salem and HCGS entail potentially greater impacts than the proposed 

action of license renewal of Salem and HCGS. 

9.3 Resource Commitments 

9.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are impacts that would occur after implementation 

of all feasible mitigation measures. Implementing any of the energy alternatives considered in 

this SEIS, including the proposed action, would result in some unavoidable adverse 

environmental impacts. 

Minor unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality would occur due to emission and release of 

various chemical and radiological constituents from power plant operations. Nonradiological 

emissions resulting from power plant operations are expected to comply with U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards, although the alternative of 

operating a fossil-fueled power plant in some areas may worsen existing attainment issues. 

Chemical and radiological emissions would not exceed the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

During nuclear power plant operations, workers and members of the public would face 

unavoidable exposure to radiation and hazardous and toxic chemicals. Workers would be 

exposed to radiation and chemicals associated with routine plant operations and the handling of 

nuclear fuel and waste material. Workers would have higher levels of exposure than members 

of the public, but doses would be administratively controlled and would not exceed any 

standards or administrative control limits. In comparison, the alternatives entailing the 

construction and operation of a non-nuclear power generating facility would also result in 

unavoidable exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals to workers and the general public. 

The generation of spent nuclear fuel and waste material, including low-level radioactive waste, 

hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste would also be unavoidable. In comparison, 

hazardous and nonhazardous wastes would also be generated at non-nuclear power generating 

facilities. Wastes generated during plant operations would be collected, stored, and shipped for 

suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal in accordance with applicable Federal and State 

regulations. Due to the costs of handling these materials, power plant operators would be 
 Conclusion 

 9-3 

expected to conduct all activities and optimize all operations in a way that generates the 

smallest amount of waste practical. 

9.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

The operation of power generating facilities would result in short-term uses of the environment 

as described in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. “Short term” is the period of time during which 

continued power generating activities would take place. 

Power plant operations would necessitate short-term use of the environment and commitments 

of resources, and would also commit certain resources (e.g., land and energy) indefinitely or 

permanently. Certain short-term resource commitments would be substantially greater under 

most energy alternatives, including license renewal, than under the No Action Alternative due to 

the continued generation of electrical power as well as continued use of generating sites and 

associated infrastructure. During operations, all energy alternatives would entail similar 

relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long term productivity. 

Air emissions from power plant operations would introduce small amounts of radiological and 

nonradiological constituents to the region around the plant site. Over time, these emissions 

would result in increased concentrations and exposure, but are not expected to impact air 

quality or radiation exposure to the extent that public health and long-term productivity of the 

environment would be impaired. 

Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during power plant 

operations would directly benefit local, regional, and State economies over the short term. 

Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other 

required services could enhance economic productivity over the long term. 

The management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste, hazardous 

waste, and nonhazardous waste would require an increase in energy and would consume 

space at treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to 

meet waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land. 

Power plant facilities would be committed to electricity production over the short term. After 

decommissioning these facilities and restoring the area, the land could be available for other 

future productive uses. 

9.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that have 

been identified in this SEIS. Irreversible resources refer to when primary or secondary impacts 

limit the future options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or 

consumption of resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. Irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources for electrical power generation would include the 

commitment of land, water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and man-made resources 

required for power plant operations. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and 

material resources would also be irreversible. 
Conclusion 

 9-4 

The implementation of any of the energy alternatives considered in this SEIS would entail the 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, and, in some cases, fossil 

fuels. These resources would be committed during the license renewal term and over the entire 

life cycle of the power plant and would essentially be unrecoverable. 

Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and power plant 

operations and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuels would be 

purchased from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water 

supply systems. These resources are readily available, and the amounts required are not 

expected to deplete available supplies or exceed available system capacities. 

The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources includes materials that 

cannot be recovered or recycled, materials that are rendered radioactive and cannot be 

decontaminated, and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms of waste. 

However, none of the resources used by these power generating facilities are in short supply, 

and, for the most part, are readily available. 

Various materials and chemicals, including acids and caustics, would be required to support 

operations activities. These materials would be derived from commercial vendors, and their 

consumption is not expected to affect local, regional, or national supplies. 

The treatment, storage, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste, 

hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste would require the irretrievable commitment of 

energy and fuel and would result in the irreversible commitment of space in disposal facilities. 

9.4 Recommendations 

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) information provided in the 

environmental report (ER) submitted by PSEG; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local 

agencies; (4) a review of pertinent documents and reports; and (5) consideration of public 

comments received during scoping, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission 

determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Salem and HCGS are 

not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers 

would be unreasonable. 
10-1

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

This supplemental EIS was prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

with assistance from other NRC organizations and contract support from AECOM.

Table 10-1. List of Preparers. AECOM provided contract support for preparing the 

SEIS. Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) provided contract 

support for preparing the severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) 

analysis, presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix F.

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dennis Beissel Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hydrology

Rich Bulanevitz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Terrestrial Ecology

Leslie Perkins Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Ray Gallucci

Project Manager

Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Tina Ghosh Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Stephen Klementowicz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiation Protection; Human Health; 

Radiological Waste

Dennis Logan Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic Ecology

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Jeffrey Rikhoff Nuclear Reactor Regulation Socioeconomics; Land Use; Environmental 

Justice

Allison Travers Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources

SEIS Contractor

Katie Broom AECOM Project Support

Steve Dillard AECOM Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology

Robert Dover AECOM Hydrology; Air Quality; Alternatives

Bonnie Freeman AECOM Administrative Support

Carol Freeman AECOM Project Support; Environmental Justice

Roberta Hurley AECOM Project Manager

Susan Provenzano AECOM Socioeconomics; Land Use; Environmental 

Justice; Cultural Resources

Evelyn Rogers AECOM Technical Editor

Erika Schreiber AECOM Project Support; Ecology

Nicole Spangler AECOM Project Coordinator

Kevin Taylor AECOM Radiation Protection; Human Health; 

Radiological Waste
List of Preparers

10-2

SAMA Contractors

Garill Coles

(a)

PNNL

Bob Schmidt

Severe Accidents Mitigation Alternatives

PNNL

Bruce Schmitt

Severe Accidents Mitigation Alternatives

PNNL

Steve Short

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

PNNL Severe Accidents Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Batelle for the U.S. Department of Energy
 11-1 

11.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO 

WHOM COPIES OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT ARE SENT 

Name and Title Company and Address 

Reid Nelson 

Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 803 

Old Post Office Bldg 

Washington, DC 20004 

Timothy A. Slavin 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs 

21 The Green 

Dover, DE 19901-3611 

J. Rodney Little 

Director and State Historic Preservation Officer 

Maryland Historical Trust 

100 Community Place, 3rd Floor 

Crownsville, MD 21032-2023 

Daniel Saunders 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

New Jersey Historic Preservation Office 

401 East State Street 

PO Box 304 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 

Jean Cutler 

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 

Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation 

Commonwealth Keystone Bldg, 2nd Floor 

400 North St 

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0093 

EIS Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Environmental Review Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 

290 Broadway 

New York, NY 10007-1866 

Annette Scherer 

Senior Fish & Wildlife Biologist (Endangered Species) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New Jersey Field Office 

927 N Main St 

Heritage Square, Building D 

Pleasantville, NJ 08232 

Patricia Kurkul 

Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

55 Great Republic Dr 

Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 

Stanley W. Gorski 

Field Offices Supervisor 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Habitat Conservation Division 

James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory 

74 Magruder Rd 

Highlands, NJ 07732 
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 

 11-2 

Name and Title Company and Address 

Thomas McCloy 

Administrator 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Marine Fisheries Administration 

PO Box 400 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0400 

Christopher Dolphin 

Section Chief, Bureau of Coastal Regulation 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Land Use Regulation 

PO Box 439 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

KarenTuccillo New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Paul Bauldauf 

Assistant Director, Radiation Protection Programs 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

PO Box 415 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 

Elizabeth Koniers Brown 

Director of Strategic Initiatives 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network 

300 Pond Street, 2nd Floor 

Bristol, PA 19007 

Rober K. Marshall 

Executive Director 

NJ Energy Coalition 

207 Bogden Boulevard, Suite D 

Millville, NJ 08332 

Chad Pindar 

Supervisor, Project Review Section 

Delaware River Basin Commission – New Jersey 

25 State Police Dr 

PO Box 7360 

West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360 

Delaware Nation P.O. Box 825 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

Chief Jerry Douglas Delaware Tribe of Nations 

Delaware Tribal Headquarters 

220 NW Virginia Avenue 

Bartesville, OK 74003 

Chairman Mark Gould Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey 

18 East Commerce Street 

Bridgeton, NJ 08302 

Chief Dwaine Perry Ramapough Mountain Lenape 

Ramapough Tribal office 

189 Stag Hill Rd 

Mahwah, NJ 07430 

Powhatan Renape Nation Rankokus Indian Reservation 

P.O. Box 225 

Rancocas, NJ 08073 

Echota Chickamauga Cherokee Tribe of New Jersey 1164 Stuyvesant Avenue 

Irvington, NJ 07111 

Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke-Lenni Lenape 

Nation 

Building 191 

Back Neck Road 

Bridgeton, NJ 08302 

Osprey Band of Free Cherokees P.O. Box 673 

Mays Landing, NJ 08330 

Nanticoke Indians Association, Inc Rout 4, Box 107-A 

Millsboro, DE 19966 
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 

 11-3 

Name and Title Company and Address 

Lenape Tribe of Delaware P.O. Box 79 

Cheshold, DE 19936 

Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Sub-Tirbes, Inc P.O. Box 1484 

LaPlata, MD 20646 

Piscataway Indian Nation P.O. Box 131 

Accokeek, MD 20607 

Youghiogheny Shawnee Band 6110 Melvern Drive 

Bethesda, MD 20851 

Accohannock Indian Tribe 427 Loblolly Lane 

Salisbury, MD 21801 

Pocomoke Indian Nation P.O. Box 687 

Mount Airy, MD 21771 

The Nause-Waiwash Tirbe 7 Willis Street 

Cambridge, MD 21613 

Eastern Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania 21 Cedar Lane 

Mountville, PA 17554 

Salem Free Library 112 West Broadway 

Salem, NJ 08079 

Ellen Pomper Lower Alloways Creek Township 

501 Locust Island Road 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 

Sidney Goodman 158 Grandview Lane 

Mahwah, NJ 07430 

Julie Acton 

Chairman, Public Services Committee 

Salem County Freeholders 

Court House 

94 Market St 

Salem, NJ 08079 

Jamie Turner 

Director 

Delaware Emergency Management Agency 

165 Brick Store Landing Rd 

Smyrna, DE 19977 

Cheryl Reardon 

Project Director 

Association of New Jersey Environmental 

Commissions 

PO Box 157 

Mendham, NJ 07945 

Tanya Baker Office of Senator Kaufman 

1105 N. Market St 

Suite 2000 

Wilmington, DE 19801-1233 

Kate Roher 

Kent/Sussex Director 

Office of Representative Mike Castle 

300 South New Street 

Dover, DE 19904 

Jane Nogaki New Jersey Environmental Federation 

223 Park Avenue 

Marlton, NJ 08053 

Tom Figlio Township of Pittsgrove 

989 Centerton Road 

Pittsgrove, NJ 08318 
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 

 11-4 

Name and Title Company and Address 

Kathryn Sutton Morgan Lewis 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2541 

Jerry Humphreys New Jersey Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 

33 Artic Parkway 

P.O. Box 415 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Rich Pinney New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

33 Artic Parkway 

P.O. Box 415 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Scott Brubaker 

Director 

State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Office of Permit Coordination and Environmental 

Review 

401 East State Street 

P.O. Box 423 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Nancy Ranek 

License Renewal Environmental Lead 

Exelon 

200 Exelon Way, KSA/2-E 

Kennett Square, PA 19348 

Al Fulvio 

Manager License Renewal 

Exelon 

200 ExelonWay 

Kennett Square, PA 19348 

Joseph Sindoni PSEG Nuclear, LLC 

P.O. Box 236 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 

Michael Tuosto PSEG Nuclear, LLC 

1640 Miriam Drive 

Brunswick, NJ 08902 

James Stavely PSEG Nuclear, LLC 

One Alloway Creek Neck Road 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 

Township Clerk Lower Alloways Creek Township 

Municipal Building 

PO Box 157 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 

Senior Resident Inspector, Salem Nuclear Generating 

Station 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Drawer 0509 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 

Senior Resident Inspector, Hope Creek Generating 

Station 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Drawer 0509 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 

Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Region I 

475 Allendale Rd 

King of Prussia, PA 19406