Dtcv_dsw.rtf 

Division of Water Quality 

P.O. Box 029 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029 

Phone: (609) 292-4860 

Fax: (609) 984-7938 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

 January 7, 2010 

Michael Massaro 

Site Vice President 

Exelon Generation Company 

P.O. Box 388 

Oyster Creek Generating Station 

Forked River, NJ 08731-0388 

Re: Draft Surface Water Renewal Permit Action 

 Category: B -Industrial Wastewater 

 NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005550 

 Oyster Creek Generating Station, Lacey Twp, Ocean County 

Dear Mr. Massaro: 

Enclosed is a draft New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit action identified above 

which has been issued in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A. This draft permit supersedes the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection’s (the Department’s) previous draft permit which was issued on July 19, 2005. 

Notice of this draft permit action will appear in the Ocean County Observer and in the 2010 DEP Bulletin. The DEP 

Bulletin is available on the internet at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/bulletin or by contacting the DEP Document 

Distribution Center at (609) 777-4398. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-15.10(c)1i, at least a thirty day public comment 

period has been established. The Department has set a public comment period deadline of March 15, 2010. 

Issuance of this draft permit begins an extensive public process that will ultimately inform a final permit decision on 

this application. Two public hearings will be held and it is anticipated that there will be significant technical 

information provided to the Department for consideration. Issues that are expected to be raised include the costs and 

benefits of cooling towers, site logistics for construction of cooling towers, permitting requirements (other than 

NJPDES) associated with construction of cooling towers, timing required for the design, permitting and construction 

of cooling towers, fish and other species impacts resulting from continuing operation of the Oyster Creek Generating 

Station (OCGS), and other impacts to the ecology of Barnegat Bay unrelated to OCGS. The Department recognizes the 

broad range and technical complexity of issues associated with this permit and is committed to ensuring that the public 

process allows adequate time and attention to address all issues raised in a thorough and comprehensive manner. The 

final permit decision will reflect all input and comments provided as part of this process. 

A non-adversarial public hearing has been scheduled on February 24, 2010 at the Lacey Township Municipal Building 

on Lacey Road from 1 to 4 PM and 7 to 9 PM (or end of testimony) to provide an opportunity for interested persons to 

present and submit information on the proposed action. A second public hearing will be held in the Department’s 

Public Hearing Room at 401 East State Street in Trenton, NJ on March 3, 2010 from 1 PM to 4 PM (or end of 

testimony). 

 JON S. CORZINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MARK N. MAURIELLO 

 Governor Acting Commissioner 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer 

Recycled Paper

 JON S. CORZINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MARK N. MAURIELLO 

 

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer 

Recycled Paper
Dtcv_dsw.rtf 

As detailed in the DEP Bulletin and aforementioned newspaper, written comments must be submitted in writing to 

Pilar Patterson, Chief, Bureau of Surface Water Permitting, P.O. Box 029, Trenton, NJ 08625 by March 15, 2010. All 

persons, including the applicant, who believe that any condition of this draft document is inappropriate or that the 

Department's tentative decision to issue this draft document is inappropriate, must raise all reasonable arguments and 

factual grounds supporting their position, including all supporting materials, during the public comment period. 

The NJDEP will respond to all significant and timely comments upon issuance of the final document. The permittee 

and each person who has submitted written comments will receive notice of the NJDEP's final decision to issue, 

revoke, or redraft the document. 

If you have questions or comments regarding the draft action, please contact Susan Rosenwinkel of my staff at (609) 

292-4860. 

 Sincerely, 

Original Signed By 

Pilar Patterson, Chief 

 Bureau of Surface Water Permitting 

Enclosures 

c: Permit Distribution List 

Masterfile #: 15856; PI #: 46400
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION NJPDES Permit Number: NJ0005550 

Surface Water Renewal Permit Action Program Interest Number: 46400 

dtoc_dsw.rtf 

Table of Contents 

This permit package contains the items checked below: 

 

 1. Cover Letter 

 

 2. Public Notice / DEP Bulletin Notice 

 

 3. Fact Sheet / Statement of Basis 

 

 4. NJPDES Permit Authorization Page 

 

 5. Part I – General Requirements: NJPDES 

 

 6. Part II – General Requirements: Discharge Categories 

 

 7. Part III – Limits and Monitoring Requirements 

 

 8. Part IV – Specific Requirements: Narrative 

 

 
Pbnt_dsw.rtf 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Water Quality 

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting 

PUBLIC NOTICE 

Notice is hereby given that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) proposes to renew 

the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Discharge to Surface Water (DSW) Permit 

NJ0005550 in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq., and by authority of the Water Pollution Control Act at 

N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., for the following discharge: 

Applicant or Permittee Facility

 

Exelon Generation Company 

P.O. Box 388 – Oyster Creek Generating Station 

Forked River, NJ 08731-0388 

Oyster Creek Generating Station 

Route 9 South 

Forked River, Ocean County, NJ 

The Oyster Creek Generating Station (OCGS or the Station) is an existing nuclear fueled electric generating 

station. The Station is located between the South Branch of the Forked River and Oyster Creek, two tributaries of 

Barnegat Bay. This draft permit renewal proposes to authorize the intake of waters from Forked River as well as 

the discharge of wastewater through seven outfalls to both Forked River and Oyster Creek. The Station withdraws 

up to 662.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from an intake canal that leads from the Forked River, uses 

this water as non-contact cooling water, then discharges these waters into a discharge canal which leads to Oyster 

Creek, classified as SE-1 waters. The plant also withdraws approximately 732 MGD of water from the intake 

canal and discharges it directly into the discharge canal (without added heat) for the purpose of diluting the 

thermal discharge from the non-contact cooling water. This permit also serves to authorize the discharge of 

miscellaneous non-contact cooling water, process wastewater, intake screen washwater and stormwater in 

minimal amounts through five other outfalls. 

This draft permit renewal supersedes the NJDEP’s July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit. This proposed action 

incorporates NJDEP’s determination with respect to the permittee’s request for a thermal variance from surface 

water quality standards for heat and temperature pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Federal Clean Water Act. 

Further, this draft renewal permit incorporates NJDEP’s determination pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean 

Water Act regarding the best technology available for the cooling water intake structure. Specifically, the 

Department has determined that closed-cycle cooling (i.e. cooling towers) constitutes best technology available 

for the OCGS in accordance with best professional judgment. 

Issuance of this draft permit begins an extensive public process that will ultimately inform a final permit decision 

on this application. Two public hearings will be held and it is anticipated that there will be significant technical 

information provided to the Department for consideration. Issues that are expected to be raised include the costs 

and benefits of cooling towers, site logistics for construction of cooling towers, permitting requirements (other 

than NJPDES) associated with construction of cooling towers, timing required for the design, permitting and 

construction of cooling towers, fish and other species impacts resulting from continuing operation of the OCGS, 

and other impacts to the ecology of Barnegat Bay unrelated to OCGS. The Department recognizes the broad range 

and technical complexity of issues associated with this permit and is committed to ensuring that the public process 

allows adequate time and attention to address all issues raised in a thorough and comprehensive manner. The 

final permit decision will reflect all input and comments provided as part of this process. 

Modification provisions as cited in the permit may be initiated in accordance with the provisions set forth in Part 

IV and upon written notification from the Department. 

A draft NJPDES permit renewal has been prepared for this facility based on the administrative record filed at the 

NJDEP, 401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. Copies of the draft document can be obtained through 

the NJDEP’s website at www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq. If you are interested in scheduling an appointment or 
Pbnt_dsw.rtf 

requesting specific information regarding the draft document, contact Susan Rosenwinkel of the Bureau of 

Surface Water Permitting at (609) 292-4860. 

Written comments on the draft document must be submitted in writing to Pilar Patterson, Chief, or Attention: 

Comments on Public Notice NJ0005550, Bureau of Surface Water Permitting, P.O. Box 029, Trenton, NJ 08625 

by March 15, 2010. All persons, including the applicant, who believe that any condition of this draft document is 

inappropriate or that the Department's decision to issue this draft document is inappropriate, must raise all 

reasonable arguments and factual grounds supporting their position, including all supporting materials, during the 

public comment period. 

Notice is further given that, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-15.12, two non-adversarial public hearings have 

been scheduled to afford the public an opportunity to be heard on this proposed action. This public hearing will 

be held on February 24, 2010 from 1 to 4 PM and again from 7 to 9 PM (or end of testimony) at: 

Lacey Township Municipal Building 

Lacey Road 

Lacey Township, NJ 

A second public hearing will be held on March 3, 2010 from 1 PM to 4 PM (or end of testimony) at: 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Public Hearing Room – First Floor 

401 East State Street 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

The hearing shall be held before a Hearing Officer designated by the NJDEP. The applicant and other interested 

persons will have the opportunity to present and submit information on the proposed action. 

The NJDEP will respond to all significant and timely comments upon issuance of the final document. The 

permittee and each person who has submitted written comments will receive notice of the Department’s final 

permit decision.
Public Notice of Proposed Permit Actions 

(Division of Water Quality) 

Permit: • Name • NJPDES No. • Type

Facility Location:• Address • County 

NJDEP: • Case manager • Bureau• Phone No.

Receiving Discharge: • Stream or Formation 

or POTW 

• Stream Classification • Watershed

Executive Su

Oyster Creek Generating Station NJ0005550 DSW Major 

Route 9 South Forked River, NJ Ocean County 08731-0388 Ocean 

Susan Rosenwinkel Bureau of Surface Water Permitting (609) 292-4860 

Oyster Creek and Forked River SE1 Forked River/Oyster Creek

The Oyster Creek Generating Station (Stationlocated between the South Branch of the Forkdraft permit renewal proposes to authorize thRiver as well as the discharge of wastewater Forked River and Oyster Creek. The Station gallons per day (MGD) of water from an intaRiver, uses this water as non-contact cooling into a discharge canal which leads to Oyster approximately 732 MGD of water from the indirectly into the discharge canal (without addthe thermal discharge from the non-contact cserves to authorize the discharge of miscellanprocess wastewater, intake screen washwater amounts through five other outfalls. This draft permit renewal incorporates NJDEthe permittee’s request for a thermal variance standards (SWQS) for heat and temperature pFederal Clean Water Act. Further, this draft NJDEP’s determination pursuant to Section 3regarding the best technology available for thSpecifically, the Department has determined cooling towers) constitutes best technology aGenerating Station. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 1 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Water Quality 

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting 

FACT SHEET 

Masterfile #: 15856 PI #: 46400

This fact sheet sets forth the principle facts and the significant factual, legal, and policy considerations examined 

during preparation of the draft permit. This action has been prepared in accordance with the New Jersey Water 

Pollution Control Act and its implementing regulations at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq. - The New Jersey Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System. 

PERMIT ACTION: Surface Water Renewal Permit Action - Draft 

This fact sheet contains information organized into the following sections: 

Table of Contents 

Section Section Name Page Number

1 Overview of Draft Renewal Permit 1 

2 Name and Address of the Applicant 2 

3 Name and Address of the Facility/Site 2 

4 Discharge Location Information 3 

5 Description of Facility 4 

6 Description of Intake 5 

7 Description of Discharges 6 

8 Determination under Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act 7 

 A. Section 316(b) Determination 7 

 B. Section 316(a) Determination 25 

9 Impacts 28 

10 Type and Quantity of the Wastes or Pollutants 31 

11 Summary of Chemical-Specific Permit Conditions 31 

12 Description of Procedures for Reaching a Final Decision on the Draft Action 38 

13 Contact Information 38 

14 Permit Summary Tables 39 

15 Contents of the Administrative Record 43 

1 Overview of Draft Renewal Permit: 

The permittee has applied for a New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Surface Water 

Renewal Permit Action through an application dated May 28, 1999. Until such time as this renewal permit is finalized, 

the existing permit remains in full force and effect pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.8. 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) issued a draft renewal permit on July 19, 

2005. This permit incorporated conditions consistent with the final regulations issued by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Phase II facilities for which this facility meets the eligibility criteria. 

These regulations served to guide implementation of the 316(b) statute and became effective on September 7, 2004. 

However, EPA has since “suspended” the Phase II regulations. This is articulated in the July 9, 2007 Federal Register 

notice and is a result of the fact that the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the litigation over 

the Phase II regulation. See Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA, No. 04-6692, (2d Cir. January 25, 2007). The court’s decision 

remanded several provisions of the Rule on various grounds. Given that the Phase II rule is suspended, EPA has 

directed States and permitting authorities to issue permits in accordance with Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) 

pursuant to 40 CFR 401.14. Given the reliance of the July 19, 2005 draft permit on these now suspended regulations, 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 2 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

the Department is required to redraft the NJPDES permit for those conditions consistent with N.J.A.C. 7:14A15.14(a)1. 

Subsequent to the issuance of the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit, the permit was open to public comment. The 

thirty (30) day public comment period began on July 19, 2005 when the Public Notice was published in the Ocean 

County Observer. The Department held two public hearings (an afternoon and an evening session) at the Lacey 

Township Municipal Building on August 29, 2005. At that hearing, the Department made notice of its intention to 

extend the public comment period to November 7, 2005. Due in part to requests made by many commentors, the 

Department also provided another public hearing on October 24, 2005 (evening session only), which took place at the 

Ocean County Administrative Building in Toms River, NJ. Notice of this additional public hearing, as well as the 

public comment period extension, was published in the Ocean County Observer on September 23, 2005. Finally, the 

Department extended the public comment period for an additional two weeks to November 21, 2005 in a letter dated 

November 4, 2005. 

Issuance of this draft permit begins an extensive public process that will ultimately inform a final permit decision on 

this application. Two public hearings will be held and it is anticipated that there will be significant technical 

information provided to the Department for consideration. Issues that are expected to be raised include the costs and 

benefits of cooling towers, site logistics for construction of cooling towers, permitting requirements (other than 

NJPDES) associated with construction of cooling towers, timing required for the design, permitting and construction 

of cooling towers, fish and other species impacts resulting from continuing operation of the Oyster Creek Generating 

Station (OCGS), and other impacts to the ecology of Barnegat Bay unrelated to OCGS. The Department recognizes the 

broad range and technical complexity of issues associated with this permit and is committed to ensuring that the public 

process allows adequate time and attention to address all issues raised in a thorough and comprehensive manner. The 

final permit decision will reflect all input and comments provided as part of this process. 

This action supercedes the July 19, 2005 permit. As detailed in the public notice accompanying this document, the 

Department will hold public hearings to solicit comments on this draft permit renewal. The public comment period 

will expire on March 15, 2010. 

The NJPDES permit proposes to authorize the intake of waters from Forked River as well as the discharge of 

wastewater to both Forked River and Oyster Creek. As noted previously, this draft permit renewal serves to provide 

the Department’s determination pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act in accordance with Best 

Professional Judgment. Specifically, the Department has determined that closed-cycle cooling (i.e. cooling 

towers) constitutes best technology available for the Oyster Creek Generating Station in accordance with best 

professional judgment.

2 Name and Address of the Applicant: 3 Name and Address of the Facility/Site: 

 

 Exelon Generation Company 

 Oyster Creek Generating Station 

 Route 9 South, P.O. Box 388 

 Forked River, NJ 08731 

 

 Exelon Generation Company 

 Oyster Creek Generating Station 

 Route 9 South 

 Lacey Township, Ocean County, NJ 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 3 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

4 Discharge Location Information: 

Description of Outfalls of Most Significant Flow (DSN 001A and 005A) 

Outfall 001A: Non-Contact Cooling Water 

(up to 662.4 million gallons per day or MGD) 

Outfall 005A: Dilution Water 

(up to 748.8 MGD)

Receiving Water: Oyster Creek Receiving Water: Oyster Creek 

Via : Discharge Canal Via : Discharge Canal 

Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe 

Classification: SE1 Classification: SE1 

Latitude: 39° 48’ 40” Latitude: 39° 48’ 48.9” 

Longitude: 74° 12’ 00” Longitude: 74° 12’ 28.2” 

County: Ocean County: Ocean 

Municipality: Forked River Municipality: Forked River 

Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay 

Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay 

WMA (a): 13 WMA (a): 13 

Watershed: Forked River/Oyster Creek Watershed: Forked River/Oyster 

Creek 

Subwatershed: Oyster Creek (below Rt 532) Subwatershed: Oyster Creek (below 

Rt 532) 

HUC 14 (b): 02040301110050 HUC 14 (b): 02040301110050 

Description of Other Outfalls (DSN 002A, 004A, 007A, 008A, 009A)

Outfall 002A: Non-Contact Cooling Water 

(3.5 MGD)

 Outfall 004A: Non-Contact Cooling Water, 

Stormwater, Floor Drains (0.06 MGD)

Receiving Water: Forked River Receiving Water: Oyster Creek 

Via : Intake Canal Via : Discharge Canal 

Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe 

Classification: SE1 Classification: SE1 

Latitude: 39° 48’ 52.9” Latitude: 39° 48’ 47.6” 

Longitude: 74° 12’ 28.2” Longitude: 74° 12’ 24.9” 

County: Ocean County: Ocean 

Municipality: Forked River Municipality: Forked River 

Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay 

Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay 

WMA (a): 13 WMA (a): 13 

Watershed: Forked River/Oyster Creek Watershed: Forked River/Oyster 

Creek 

Subwatershed: Forked River (below NB 

including Mid/South Branch) 

 Subwatershed: Oyster Creek (below 

Rt 532) 

HUC 14 (b): 02040301110030 HUC 14 (b): 02040301110050 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 4 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Outfall 007A: Process Wastewater (30 GPD) Outfall 008A: Intake Screen Washwater 

(2.4 MGD)

Receiving Water: Forked River Receiving Water: Oyster Creek 

Via : Intake Canal Via : Discharge Canal 

Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe 

Classification: SE1 Classification: SE1 

Latitude: 39° 48’ 50.9” Latitude: 39° 48’ 48.8” 

Longitude: 74° 12’ 55.1” Longitude: 74° 12’ 27.5” 

County: Ocean County: Ocean 

Municipality: Forked River Municipality: Forked River 

Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay 

Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay 

WMA (a): 13 WMA (a): 13 

Watershed: Forked River/Oyster Creek Watershed: Forked River/Oyster 

Creek 

Subwatershed: Forked River (below NB 

including Mid/South Branch) 

 Subwatershed: Oyster Creek (below 

Rt 532) 

HUC 14 (b): 02040301110030 HUC 14 (b): 02040301110050 

Outfall 009A: Fish Sampling Pool Wastewater 

Receiving Water: Forked River 

Via : Intake Canal 

Outfall Configuration: Submerged pipe 

Classification: SE1 

Latitude: 39° 48’ 48.6” 

Longitude: 74° 12’ 27.9” 

County: Ocean 

Municipality: Forked River 

Downstream Confluences: Barnegat Bay 

Receiving River Basin: Barnegat Bay 

WMA (a): 13 

Watershed: Forked River/Oyster Creek 

Subwatershed: Forked River (below NB 

including Mid/South Branch) 

HUC 14 (b): 02040301110030 

Footnotes: 

(a) WMA = Watershed Management Area 

(b) HUC 14 = 14 digit Hydrologic Unit Code 

5 Description of Facility: 

The Oyster Creek Generating Station (hereafter “Station”, “facility”, or “OCGS”) is a nuclear fueled electric 

generating station (SIC code 4911). The Station is located between the South Branch of the Forked River and Oyster 

Creek, two tributaries of Barnegat Bay. The Station consists of a single boiling water reactor rated to produce 670 

Megawatts. The unit was constructed between December 1964 and September 1969 where operation commenced in 

December 1969. The Station operates under a license issued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(US NRC) where this license was renewed on April 1, 2009. 

The facility is classified as a major discharger by the Department in accordance with the EPA rating criteria. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 5 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

6 Description of Intake: 

General

Construction of the Oyster Creek Generating Station resulted in the dredging and widening of the Forked River and 

Oyster Creek and the construction of man-made canals leading from Forked River to the Station (intake canal) and 

from the Station to Oyster Creek (discharge canal). The shapes of the intake and discharge canal could connect; 

however, there is a dike that separates the upstream ends of both canals. A map showing the location of both canals is 

included at the end of this Fact Sheet. 

The Station utilizes intake water for two primary purposes. The circulating water and service water systems utilize up 

to 662.4 million gallons per day (MGD) for the purposes of cooling the main condenser. The dilution water system 

utilizes up to 748.8 MGD for the purposes of mitigating the thermal effects in the discharge canal. These two systems 

are described in detail below. While Forked River is the primary source of intake water, an additional source of water 

used for operations is fresh water from an on-site well. 

Sanitary wastewater that is generated on site is conveyed to the Lacey Township Municipal Utilities Authority. 

Circulating Water and Service Water System

Water is withdrawn from Forked River via the Station’s Intake Canal. There are four intake pumps each with a 

capacity of 115,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (which is equivalent to 165.6 MGD). During normal operations, all four 

pumps operate continuously at an average flow rate of 662.4 MGD. This intake water is used to cool the main 

condenser and the turbine building heat exchangers. This cooling water is then discharged through DSN 001A into the 

discharge canal, which joins Oyster Creek and ultimately Barnegat Bay. 

The Station’s Intake Canal includes two surface water intake structures namely the Circulating Water Intake, which 

also services flow for the service water system, and the Dilution Water Intake. The Circulating Water Intake is divided 

into two sections or bays. Each bay contains three cells. Water enters the cells through trash racks where there is one 

trash rack per cell. The trash racks are constructed of steel, almost vertically positioned bars on 3 inch centers; so that 

the trash rack slot opening is about 2 1⁄2 inches. After passing through the trash rack, water is drawn through 

conventional vertical traveling screens (3/8 inch mesh) modified with “Ristroph” type fish buckets fitted to the base of 

each screen panel. These fish buckets are intended to prevent aquatic organisms that become trapped on the screens 

from falling back into the screen well and being repeatedly trapped. They also allow organisms to remain in a water 

filled bucket when the screen panel is rotated above the water surface. The screen-wash system includes an external 

low pressure spray (10 to 15 pounds per square inch or psi) and an internal low pressure spray (10 to 20 psi) designed 

to gently wash marine life off the screens and into the fish return system. After the marine organisms have been 

removed, a high pressure spray (70 to 90 psi) is used to remove debris from the screens. Screens normally rotate 

continuously at 1.3 cm/sec (2.5 feet per minute) but speeds can increase via manual control. Water passing through the 

trash racks and traveling screens is withdrawn by circulating or service water system pumps for use as cooling water. 

The fish return system is routed to the discharge canal which thereby eliminates the possibility that fish can be 

immediately reimpinged.

Intake screen washwater is discharged via DSN 008A where this flow averages approximately 2.4 MGD. The intake 

screen washwater removes debris and other organic matter from the Station’s traveling intake screens, including the 

screen washwater system strainers, and discharges to the discharge canal without any additives or treatment. The 

facility has the option of diverting fish and other organisms removed from the traveling screens to a fish sampling pool 

where the water from such is drained to the Forked River. The discharge from the fish sampling pool is authorized as 

DSN 009A and is utilized during impingement sampling events. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 6 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Dilution Water System

The permittee also pumps water from the Forked River via the intake canal and discharges it directly to the discharge 

canal via DSN 005A without any addition of heat or other pollutants and without treatment. Dilution pump water is 

withdrawn via one or two of the Station’s three dilution pumps and discharged for the purposes of moderating the 

temperature of the Station’s discharge to Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay. The dilution water system intake structure is 

divided into three sections or bays where each section contains two cells. Although the permittee contends that the 

design of these pumps allow for some entrainment survivability, these pumps are not currently equipped with any 

entrainment controls. Flow varies according to the number of dilution pumps in operation but averages approximately 

708 MGD. 

The dilution water system intake is located on the west bank of the Intake Canal, across from the cooling water intake. 

Three low speed (180 revolutions per minute) axial flow pumps with 7 foot impellers with a design capacity of 

260,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each provide water for the dilution water system. Normally two dilution pumps are 

used during “winter” and “summer” water conditions (as defined in a 1978 stipulation). The dilution water system 

intake has two trash racks for each of these three pumps. 

Fresh water is drawn from the Station fire protection water system and is used for dilution pump lube oil cooling and 

pump seal water. This water is discharged through DSN 005A at a rate of 0 to 100 gpm, depending upon the number 

of dilution pumps in operation. A small, intermittent component of the fire protection water system flow is the 

discharge from the emergency diesel fire pump heat exchangers. The two emergency diesel fire pumps are required 

for emergency purposes, such as fire protection and emergency core cooling. Their operation is limited to 163 hours 

per year. When the pumps are operated, cooling water from the heat exchangers is discharged through 1.5 inch pipes 

at a rate of approximately 35 gpm. The increase in temperature is about 11 degrees Fahrenheit and no chemicals are 

added to the discharge. Most of the cooling water flow is drawn into the flow for the fire protection water system and 

does not flow back to Oyster Creek. Additionally, on an infrequent basis, small quantities of stormwater that may 

accumulate in a cable vault in the Dilution Pump intake structure are introduced into the dilution water flow. 

7 Description of Discharges: 

Discharges to the Intake Canal

Approximately 3.53 MGD of wastewater and other washwater is discharged by the Station to the intake canal via 

outfalls DSN 002A, DSN 007A and DSN 009A. DSN 002A consists of approximately 3.5 MGD of chlorinated noncontact cooling water from the Station’s radioactive waste treatment system’s heat exchanger and augmented off-gas 

heat exchanger. DSN 007A consists of approximately 30 GPD of dilution pump seal wastewater, which is treated by 

an oil/water separator prior to discharge. As described previously, DSN 009A is the discharge from the fish sampling 

pool and is operated on an as needed basis. 

Discharges to the Discharge Canal

Approximately 1326 MGD of non-contact cooling water and other waters are discharged to the discharge canal. DSN 

001A typically consists of 592 MGD of once through non-contact cooling water from the previously described 

circulating water and service water system. This water is used to cool the main condenser prior to discharge through 

the discharge canal. This non-contact cooling water is chlorinated to protect the heat exchanger tubes from marine and 

organic fouling. The main condenser consists of six sections among which the flow is equally divided. The 

chlorination injection system (sodium hypochlorite) is designed so that each condenser section is separately 

chlorinated. Only one section is chlorinated at a time so that the sections are consecutively chlorinated for 20 minutes 

each during the daily cycle for a maximum of two hours per day of chlorination. The water then passes through the 

steam condensers and is discharged through DSN 001A.
Fact Sheet 

 Page 7 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

The Station discharges other wastewater via outfalls DSN 004A, DSN 005A, and DSN 008A to the discharge canal. 

DSN 004A consists of approximately 60,000 GPD of low volume wastewater that includes stormwater, non-contact 

cooling water from reactor building and emergency service water heat exchangers, laboratory and sampling streams, 

and various floor drains which emanate from sumps. As described previously, DSN 005A is the discharge of 

approximately 732 MGD (on average) of dilution pump water and DSN 008A is the discharge of approximately 2.4 

MGD of intake screen washwater. 

Stormwater Discharges

The existing permit contains requirements for outfalls DSN 012A, DSN 013A, and DSN 014A which discharge 

stormwater from sedimentation basins to the South Branch of the Forked River. These discharges are located on a 

portion of the site that was retained by First Energy when the Station was sold to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC 

(the permittee at that time) after the existing permit became effective. These outfalls are currently regulated under a 

general stormwater permit issued to First Energy and therefore are being removed from this permit action. 

8 Determinations under Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act: 

A. Section 316(b) Determination

1. Regulatory Background - Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

Section 316(b) “require[s] that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect 

the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” The majority of environmental impacts 

associated with intake structures are caused by water withdrawals that ultimately result in aquatic organism losses. In 

that regard, cooling water intakes can have two types of effects. The first effect, referred to as impingement, occurs 

when organisms are caught on the intake screens or associated trash racks. The second effect, referred to as 

entrainment, occurs when organisms pass through the facility’s intake screens and the cooling system itself. 

Impingement takes place when organisms are trapped against intake screens by the force of the water passing through 

the cooling water intake structure. Impingement can result in starvation and exhaustion (organisms are trapped against 

an intake screen or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure), asphyxiation (organisms are 

pressed against an intake screen or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure by velocity forces 

that prevent proper gill movement, or organisms are removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and 

descaling (fish lose scales when removed from an intake screen by a wash system) as well as other physical harms. 

Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the cooling water intake structure into the cooling system. 

Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, planktonic, and nektonic organisms, including 

early life stages of fish and shellfish. Many of these small organisms serve as prey for larger organisms that are found 

higher on the food chain. As entrained organisms pass through a plant's cooling system they are subject to mechanical, 

thermal, and/or toxic stress. Sources of such stress include physical impacts in the pumps and condenser tubing, 

pressure changes caused by diversion of the cooling water into the plant or by the hydraulic effects of the condensers, 

shear stress, thermal shock in the condenser and discharge canal, and chemical toxemia induced by antifouling agents 

such as chlorine. 

As noted previously, EPA issued final regulations effective September 7, 2004 which served to guide implementation 

of the 316(b) statute. Phase II existing facilities, as defined by EPA in their Phase II regulations, are facilities that 

commenced construction before January 17, 2002 that have design flows over 50 MGD. This facility is eligible under 

Phase II of the regulations. The term “cooling water intake structure” is defined as the total physical structure and any 

associated constructed waterways used to withdraw cooling water from waters of the U.S. The cooling water intake 

structure extends from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source up to, and including, the 

intake pumps. As noted in other parts of this document, the Phase II regulations have since been suspended. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 8 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

On April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a decision regarding the validity of cost/benefit determinations for Phase 

II facilities. The Supreme Court determined that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in providing for 

cost-benefit variances from those standards as part of the Phase II regulations. This decision will have a direct bearing 

on any redrafted Phase II regulations prepared by EPA. In the meantime, states are required to issue Section 316(b) 

determinations in accordance with best professional judgment. 

2. Historical Section 316(b) Technical Information

a. Contractor Review

In 1987, the Department engaged Versar, Inc. as an independent contractor to assist in reviewing the permittee’s 

Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration. The Section 316 Demonstration was originally submitted in 1974 with 

supplements in 1978 and July 1986. The 1986 supplement included an analysis of entrainment and impingement 

studies conducted from November 1984 through December 1985. 

Versar was tasked to review and evaluate the Section 316 documents, to evaluate the impact of the facility on the 

aquatic environment, and to recommend the limitations which should be placed on the intakes and discharges so as to 

meet the intent of Section 316 and other applicable State and Federal requirements. The Department released Versar’s 

1988 Advanced Final Report for comment in 1988. In reviewing the permittee’s 1988 comments, the Department 

learned that Versar had not been aware of critical data collected by the permittee at that time, namely GPU Nuclear. 

Upon review of this additional information, Versar submitted a report entitled “Technical Review and Evaluation of 

Thermal Effects Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station, Revised Final Report”, dated May 1989 (hereafter “1989 Versar Report”). A summary of this data 

and Versar’s findings are noted below.

b. Summary of Historic Impingement/Entrainment Losses in a Population Context

While dated, historical impingement and entrainment data as contained in the above referenced documents is still 

appropriate for consideration as it gives a measure of the impingement and entrainment impacts as well as the 

Representative Important Species (RIS) used to evaluate the effects. The historical data should also be considered 

because there have been no substantial changes to the operation of the plant. The Section 316 demonstration relied on 

the following Representative Important Species (RIS) to assess intake impacts at the Station: 

Winter Flounder Bay Anchovy 

Sand Shrimp Hard Clam 

Blue Crab Eelgrass 

Opossum Shrimp Atlantic Ridley turtle 

Teredo spp. Bankia gouldi

The RIS impact assessment approach is based on the concept that it is not feasible or cost effective to measure power 

plant effects on all species inhabiting aquatic environments. In most aquatic ecosystems it is, however, generally 

possible to identify biota which because of their abundance, distribution, ecological, or economic importance are 

essential to and/or representative of the maintenance of balanced, indigenous populations of shellfish, fish, and 

wildlife. These RIS species are used to focus impact assessment efforts, making the assumption that if populations of 

these surrogate species are protected, then other populations, and the ecosystem as a whole, will also be protected. 

Because many RIS are near the top of the estuarine food webs or are key links in food webs, changes in the abundance 

or distribution are indicators of system wide alterations. In order for RIS to be reliable indicators of impact, they 

should include biota that are sensitive to power plant impacts as well as biota that are representative of all major 

trophic levels. 

As noted in the 1989 Versar Report, the following three models were used to evaluate impingement and entrainment 

losses in the context of population size or biological productivity to understand the potential consequences of losses to 

Barnegat Bay RIS populations. The models used were: 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 9 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

1. Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) which examines changes in survivorship to sexual maturity or recruitment 

into a fishery. 

2. Production Foregone Model (PFM) which examines fractional reductions in annual net population (weight) 

production. 

3. Spawning/Nursery Area of Consequence Model (SNAC) which estimates fractional (or percent) reduction in 

RIS populations which are directly attributable to the Oyster Creek facility. 

The EAM evaluated the number of RIS which would have survived to adulthood if impingement and entrainment 

losses had not occurred. The EAM was used since many of the aquatic organisms lost are at early life stages or are 

juveniles. Results of the EAM in the 1989 Versar Report are presented below: 

 Species Estimated Adult Loss (Thousands per year)

 Bay Anchovy 137,000 

 Hard Clam 59 

 Blue Crab 10.4 

 Winter Flounder 56.4 

 Opossum Shrimp 1,720,000 

 Sand Shrimp 164,000

Versar noted that the projected equivalent adult losses for bay anchovy, opossum shrimp, and sand shrimp are high but 

the production foregone model provided a better means to evaluate the significance of these losses to ecological 

functions in the Barnegat Bay. Versar also noted that these calculated equivalent adult losses are highly variable due to 

large uncertainties associated with entrainment losses. 

The PFM estimated percentage declines in annual net production due to entrainment and impingement for those RIS 

which serve a forage function. Results of Versar’s PFM are presented below: 

RIS species Percent loss Forage Production Lost

 Bay Anchovy 12.4% 354,000 pounds 

 Opossum Shrimp 8.7 % 67,000 pounds 

RIS species Percent loss Forage Production Lost 

Sand Shrimp 16.5% 1,650,000 pounds 

The SNAC model estimated percentage declines in populations due to entrainment and impingement at the Oyster 

Creek Generating Station. Results of Versar’s SNAC model in the 1989 Versar Report are presented below: 

RIS species Percent of Population Decline

 Winter Flounder 2.1% 

 Bay Anchovy 3.2% 

 Hard Clam 1.5% 

 Blue Crab 0.4% 

 Sand Shrimp 16.6% 

 Opossum Shrimp 2.0% 

As summarized above, the 1989 Versar Report provided information regarding losses to RIS and also provided loss 

information in the context of populations. Loss data is helpful in assessing what technologies may be available to 

reduce losses. However, the Department maintains that it is unnecessary to have to prove that an impact to a 

population must be demonstrated in order to trigger Section 316(b). While the Section 316(b) regulations are now 

suspended, this rationale is consistent with the Phase II regulations where adverse environmental impact was not 

defined. Available data shows that impingement and entrainment losses are documented and must be minimized 

consistent with the goal of the Section 316(b) statute. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 10 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

c. Alternative Intake Protection Technologies from Historical Studies 

As described in the 1994 NJPDES permit and summarized in the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit, the Department 

evaluated available information on various technologies, including their technical feasibility, biological effectiveness, 

and associated costs in reviewing Versar’s 1989 findings. The alternative technologies identified by the Department’s 

contractor, Versar, to have the greatest potential for application to reduce impingement and entrainment at the Station 

were: 

1. Replacing the existing 3/8” mesh traveling screens with fine mesh screen panels. 

2. Traveling screens with conventional 3/8” mesh or fine mesh retrofitted in front of the dilution pumps and/or 

fine-mesh centerflow screens retrofitted in front of the dilution pump. 

3. Replacement of intakes with fine-mesh wedgewire screens. 

4. Closed cycle cooling (cooling towers). 

5. Optimization of dilution pump operations. 

As discussed in the 1989 Versar Report, the first two alternatives would increase impingement losses while reducing 

entrainment. The net ecological benefit of these retrofits would depend on the degree to which the reduction in 

entrainment losses exceeds the gain in impingement losses. Versar looked primarily at the first three physical barrier 

alternatives as they could be applied without complete replacement of the intake structure so as to avoid the high cost 

of an entirely new intake structure. Versar was concerned with limited data on the engineering feasibility of some of 

these alternatives and was not able to recommend that the cost of these technologies could be appropriate in view of 

the limited benefits of these technologies. In sum, Versar found that none of the screening options would reduce losses 

at the facility by even 50%. 

Versar dismissed the wedgewire screen alternative because its costs far exceeded its benefits. Biofouling and detrital 

clogging would also be an operational concern in the application of wedgewire screens at the Station. 

Versar also considered the alternative of recirculating cooling towers which are a demonstrated, effective technology 

for reducing entrainment and impingement, as well as reducing thermal discharge impacts. Cooling towers are the 

most expensive alternative but would provide the highest degree of protection of any single currently available 

technology as a proportionate reduction in impact would result from the withdrawal (flow) reduction. Cooling towers 

were expected to be more costly then the physical barrier alternatives and Versar did not recommend cooling towers to 

be designated the best technology available due to concerns about economic cost. Additionally, Versar concluded that 

there are ecological costs associated with cooling towers. Natural draft cooling towers are typically several hundred 

feet high and add considerable visual impact. Mechanical draft towers may be lesser in size thereby imposing less 

visual impact but would impose noise from tower fans as well as the potential for local salt drift, fogging and icing. 

Versar also looked into optimization of dilution pump operations as an alternative for reducing total plant 

impingement-entrainment losses. Optimization studies would compare the benefits of an altered thermal mortality rate 

(from the cooling provided by dilution pump flows) with the environmental cost of exposure by entrainment of a 

greater number of organisms due to dilution pump flows. Versar found that the Section 316 Demonstration did not 

contain sufficient information to optimize dilution pump operations. Versar found that November through February 

(potential cold shock) and July and August (potential heat shock) are periods of high risk of increasing total mortality 

associated with the facility. 

3. Section 316(b) Determination in Previous Permits

a. 1994 NJPDES Permit

Based on the above noted review of available intake protection technologies and available Section 316(b) guidance at 

that time, the Department determined in its 1994 NJPDES permit that the existing cooling water intake structure, in 

conjunction with the pursuit of Dilution Pump Optimization Studies, was designated Best Technology Available under 

Section 316(b). 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 11 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

b. 2005 NJPDES Draft Permit (never finalized) 

The July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit was issued based upon the Section 316(b) regulations for Phase II facilities 

which were in effect at that time. These regulations have since been repealed. In the 2005 draft NJPDES permit, the 

Department expressed concern about both impingement and entrainment losses, but particular concern about 

entrainment losses. Species of particular concern include hard clam, blue crab, bay anchovy and sand shrimp. 

Nonetheless, the Department stated that it understood that there are limited design and construction technologies 

available to reduce entrainment. Specifically, the Department recognized that closed cycle cooling is the only cooling 

water intake structure technology available to the facility to reduce entrainment. Closed cycle cooling serves to 

significantly limit the amount of intake flow and thereby reduces both impingement and entrainment. Restoration 

could be used as a means to offset entrainment where there would also be benefits to larger life stages that are typically 

susceptible to impingement.

Based upon a review of site-specific factors at the facility, past Department policies and practices in implementing 

Section 316(b), and given the fact that the facility withdraws water from a tidal river or estuary, the Department 

determined that two compliance alternatives were available as specified in the then effective Section 316(b) 

regulations. As specified in the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit, these alternatives are as follows: 

1) Alternative 1: Reduce intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling 

system. This is the Department’s preferred alternative. If Alternative 1 is chosen, the permittee would not be 

required to submit the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) as referenced in the Phase II Section 316(b) 

regulations. 

2) Alternative 2: If the permittee demonstrates that Alternative 1 is unavailable to this facility, the Department would 

allow the permittee to select, install, properly operate and maintain a combination of design and construction 

technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures that will, in combination with any existing design 

and construction technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures, meet the following national 

performance standards: 

Impingement Mortality Performance Standard – Reduce impingement mortality for all life stages of fish and 

shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline1. 

Entrainment Performance Standard – Reduce entrainment for all life stages of fish and shellfish by 60 to 90 

percent from the calculation baseline1. 

In addition to compliance with the national performance standards, the permittee shall initiate a wetlands 

restoration and enhancement program of a minimum of 350 acres within the Barnegat Bay estuary to offset any 

residual impingement and entrainment losses at the facility to realize benefits as soon as possible. 

It is the Department’s practice and policy to set forth a Best Technology Available (BTA) determination in its NJPDES 

permits with respect to Section 316(b). Consistent with past practice, the Department set forth a BTA determination in 

the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit based on the site-specific factors at Oyster Creek and available information. 

Therefore, based on the above findings, the Department determined that BTA for this facility is as follows: 

• Option 1 - the implementation of closed-cycle cooling is best technology available. 

• Option 2 - BTA consists of the permittee’s existing once-through cooling system coupled with a limit on the 

intake velocity, pursuit of the studies required under the Section 316(b) Phase II Regulations, and the initial 

restoration requirement. 

 

1 The calculation baseline means an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment that would occur on-site assuming a 

shoreline cooling water intake structure with an intake capacity commensurate with a once-through cooling water system and no 

impingement and/or entrainment controls. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 12 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

In addition to the above, the Department reiterated the specific requirements of the CDS within the permit, as specified 

in the then effective Section 316(b) Phase II regulations, along with set deadlines. 

4. Summary of Recent Impingement and Entrainment Data

a. Proposal for Information Collection (PIC)

In direct response to the now suspended Section 316(b) Phase II regulations, OCGS submitted a PIC which is a 

component of the CDS as outlined in the regulations. The PIC is dated June 29, 2005 and includes the information 

contained in the Rule at 40 CFR 125.95(b)(1). Specifically, the PIC is the proposed work plan for collecting 

information to be used to support the CDS and specifically outlined additional analyses, including new field studies, to 

be performed. 

The PIC describes the sampling programs for the new field studies as follows: 

The sampling programs at the circulating water intake structure address impingement, impingement mortality, entrainment 

and entrainment survival. At the dilution/bypass water intake structure, studies will examine the magnitude of entrainment of 

impingeable-size organisms and their ability to survive passage through the dilution/bypass pumps and entrainment survival. 

Additionally, OCGS will conduct an optimization study of the dilution/bypass pumps to assess the feasibility of reducing the 

operation time of these pumps. 

 

Collection efficiency tests and delayed mortality studies were also proposed for the traveling screens at the circulating 

water intake structure. 

With respect to dilution pump survivability, the objective of this program was to (1) produce accurate density estimates 

of impingeable-size fish and shellfish passed through the dilution/bypass pumps, and (2) to produce accurate estimates 

of initial survival. The seven target species for this program are: Atlantic silverside, bay anchovy, northern pipefish, 

winter flounder, sand shrimp, grass shrimp, and blue crab. Weekly sample collection was proposed including 

nighttime sampling which is consistent with sampling in the most recent historical studies. 

The Department conducted a comprehensive review of the PIC as detailed in a letter dated September 9, 2005. In this 

response letter on the PIC, the Department included a comparison of the historical and proposed impingement 

sampling programs at the circulating water intake as follows: 

Species Targeted 

in PIC – 

Impingement 

Historical 

Impingement 

Sampling 

>70% of the Finfish 

Catch through the 

Circulating Water 

Intake during the 

September 1975 through 

October 1985 period 

96% of the Total Number of 

Organisms Passing through 

the Dilution/Bypass pumps 

During the December 1984 to 

December 1985 Study Period 

Sand shrimp Sand shrimp Sand Shrimp (42%) 

Blue Crab Blue crab Blue Crab (4%) 

Atlantic Silverside Atlantic Silverside Atlantic Silverside Atlantic Silverside (3%) 

Northern Pipefish Northern Pipefish Northern Pipefish 

Winter Flounder Winter Flounder Winter Flounder 

Bay Anchovy Bay Anchovy Bay Anchovy Bay Anchovy (30%) 

 Weakfish Weakfish 

 Blueback Herring Blueback Herring 

 Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Menhaden 

 Bluefish 

 Summer Flounder 

 Northern Puffer Northern Puffer 

 Northern Kingfish 

Grass Shrimp Grass Shrimp (17%) 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 13 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Based on the above comparison, the Department provided approval of the species selected for impingement sampling 

provided that weakfish, blueback herring, atlantic menhaden and summer flounder were added making a total of eleven 

target species. The permittee agreed to the inclusion of these additional target species in a letter dated September 21, 

2005. The permittee formally responded to the Department’s comments on the PIC in a letter dated November 7, 

2005. 

Also, in its September 9, 2005 letter, the Department found the entrainment sampling design acceptable so long as the 

details of such were consistent with the sampling design for the 1975 through 1981 data. 

Due in part to fulfill its requirements under the Coastal Zone Management Process, as described below, the permittee 

decided to extend impingement and entrainment sampling to a second year (i.e. Year 2). 

b. Summary of Results of “Oyster Creek Generating Station Fishery Data Report” 

To provide the impingement and entrainment results that were collected as outlined in the PIC and to support the 

permittee’s application under the Coastal Zone Management Act, AmerGen (the permittee at that time) submitted the 

OCGS Fishery Data Report dated November 20, 2007 (hereafter “2007 Fishery Report”). This report transmits all 

Year 1 and Year 2 data. This report also compares Year 1 and Year 2 impingement and entrainment data with the 

results of historical impingement and entrainment studies conducted at OCGS in the 1970s and 1980s as well as with 

the conclusions of the 1989 Versar Report. The purpose of these comparisons is to (1) determine if major differences 

in species composition and abundance that cannot be attributed to normal fluctuations in biological systems are 

apparent between the historical data and the recent data, and (2) evaluate whether recently observed data are consistent 

with trends as documented in Versar 1989. 

The results were then used to reach conclusions about impacts of OCGS on the natural functioning of marine fish in 

Barnegat Bay, as required by the CZMA. Application under the CZMA was made since the permittee applied for an 

extension to a federal agency for a relicense of an existing facility within New Jersey’s Coastal Zone. In this case, the 

permittee requested that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relicense the facility for a period of 

20 years, or until 2029. This license renewal was granted on April 1, 2009. 

• Impingement Sampling 

Recent Impingement Sampling – 2007 Fishery Report Results

Impingement sampling at the Circulating Water Intake was performed for one 24 hour sampling event per week. Each 

sampling event was subdivided into 12-hour predominantly day/night periods to allow for a determination of day/night 

differences. At least 12 collections were made during each 24-hour event, with a ratio of approximately twice as many 

collections made during the night period since historical sampling data suggest that greater numbers of organisms are 

impinged after sunset. 

A summary of impingement data for those species that accounted for more than one percent of the total number in 

either year is included below. These data were collected between September 2005 through September 2007 with the 

exception of those weeks in which the plant was not operating or there was construction interference with the sampling 

pool. These numbers are scaled up for full flow assuming all four circulating pumps are operating. The estimated total 

number is a sum of the individual collections where data is as follows: 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 14 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Impingement 

 Year One Year Two 

Taxon Estimated 

Total 

Number 

Percent Rank Estimated 

Total 

Number 

Percent Rank 

Grass Shrimp 802,323 28.0 1 570,887 19.5 3 

Sand Shrimp 764,000 26.7 2 1,020,499 34.9 1 

Blue Crab 714,790 24.9 3 738,777 25.3 2 

Atlantic Croaker 138,847 4.8 4 11,438 0.4 8 

Unmeasurable 108,384 3.8 5 0 -- 

Atlantic 

Silverside 

76,107 2.7 6 0 -- 

Atlantic 

Menhaden 

43,732 1.5 7 242,585 8.3 4 

Bay Anchovy 37,081 1.3 8 33,330 1.1 7 

Weakfish 3.841 0.1 9 59,949 2.1 6 

Atherinidae 0 -- 123,165 4.2 5 

Collection efficiency tests were performed as part of the Year One and Year Two data. However, the data presented in 

the 2007 Fishery Report were not adjusted for collection efficiency due to time limitations. No effort was made in the 

analysis of Year One and Year Two data to adjust for organisms catchability or gear efficiency since the historical 

analysis did not make such adjustments. Other differences between historic and current collection methods include 

changes in sample location (due to security changes at OCGS) and improvements in sampling gear. 

Impingement – AmerGen’s Comparison of Year One and Year Two Data

In the AmerGen 2007 Fishery Report, the permittee concludes that the OCGS impingement data show a high degree of 

consistency between Year One and Year Two data, both in terms of actual numbers impinged and species/groups most 

often impinged. With similar pumping periods during the sample years, it is reasonable to compare total numbers of 

impinged organisms. In Year One (September 2005 through September 2006), 2,866,000 aquatic organisms were 

estimated impinged; in Year Two (October 2006 through September 2007) 2,922,000 aquatic organisms were 

estimated impinged. In both years, impingement collections were dominated by three invertebrate species: grass 

shrimp, sand shrimp and blue crab. 

Together these three invertebrate species comprise approximately 80 percent of all organisms impinged in Year One 

and 80 percent of all organisms impinged in Year Two. This is generally consistent with historic data – invertebrates 

make up the bulk of impinged organisms. Given the abundance of young shrimp and blue crabs at certain times of the 

year, it is not surprising to see their relatively high rates of impingement. Moreover, both shrimp and crabs, regardless 

of age, are generally more vulnerable to impingement than finfish. Both shrimp species are highly vulnerable to 

impingement as juveniles and somewhat less vulnerable as adults. With regard to finfish, impingement collections in 

both years were dominated by small, schooling species, most notably Atlantic menhaden, Atherinidae (several species 

of silverside), and bay anchovy. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 15 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Impingement – AmerGen’s Comparison of Recent (Year One and Year Two) Data with Historic Data

Historical impingement studies were conducted annually at OCGS from September 1975 through December 1985. 

Both similarities and differences exist among the various years of these studies. Similarities include the location of 

impingement sampling, the sampling gear used, and the techniques used for processing impingement samples. 

Major differences among years include the type of traveling screens, the mode of screen wash operation, the length of 

impingement sampling time, the frequency for sampling, and the time of day at which samples were collected. Until 

1980, OCGS utilized conventional vertical traveling screens then these conventional screens were replaced with 

Ristroph screens. Both types of screens have a 9.5 mm mesh screen. The screen rotation and wash operation varied 

from 1975 to 1985 depending upon the magnitude of debris and organisms impinged on the screens. The frequency of 

sampling and the time of day in which samples were taken changed appreciably over the years. The sampling period 

encompassed all times of day, and except for the period September 1977 to March 1979, samples were taken both 

during the day and night. None of the sampling data was corrected for collection efficiency as noted in the 1989 

Versar Report. 

In its 2007 Fishery Report, the permittee compared the Year One and Year Two recent data with the historical data. 

Only those historic data with comparable sampling methods and sufficient information on sample volume/ sample time 

to yield comparable estimates of entrained/impinged organisms were compared for this report. Specifically, 

impingement data sets from 1976 to 1979 and 1985 were compared to the Year One and Year Two data sets. 

To ensure a clear understanding of this comparison, the Department has included a summary of historical data from 

these years, as represented in the 1986 EA report, which is as follows: 

Annual Impingement of Selected Species by Study Year 

Adjusted for Differences in Sampling Effort (EA 1986)

Species Sep 1975 – 

Aug 1976 

Sep 1976 – 

Aug 1977 

Sep 1977 – 

Aug 1978 

Sep 1978 – 

Aug 1979 

Sep 1979 – 

Aug 1980 

Nov 1984 – 

Oct 1985 

Blueback herring 28,120 27,496 42,279 103,498 35,034 52,190 

Atlantic Menhaden 17,788 94,960 54,460 9,388 3,427 4,654 

Bay Anchovy 1,811,550 147,202 155,858 146,531 85,611 195,867 

Atlantic Silverside 61,272 35,051 86,687 196,164 153,912 276,943 

Northern Pipefish 36,066 11,220 21,881 53,700 29,822 107,875 

Bluefish 14,086 3,935 3,661 9,658 2,392 4,937 

Weakfish 11,790 27,297 20,839 5,272 46,186 11,083 

Northern Kingfish 16 105 23 20 342 0 

Summer Flounder 4,266 2,380 1,881 1,308 6,440 3,437 

Winter Flounder 8,908 18,618 27,600 148,442 16,122 18,205 

Northern Puffer 3,313 1,516 50,414 272 420 981 

Sand Shrimp 3,342,143 600,278 3,793,355 4,818,977 3,365,975 17,090,788 

Blue Crab 5,627,253 230,691 1,167,289 310,873 77,727 1,333,894 

1 Night samples only were collected from the period of September 1977 through May 1979. 

While the Department recognizes that there are limitations to these data sets, to enable an overall comparison of 

historical data against average Year One and Year Two data , the Department has prepared the following summary. 

Please note that the Department has only included recent data for those species that comprise more than one percent of 

the recent impingement losses: 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 16 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

 Average Annual 

Impingement Over 

Years 

Average Annual 

Impingement Over 

Years 

Percent 

Change 

(rounded) 

Species 1975 – 1980; 1984-1985 2005-2006; 2006-2007 

Sand Shrimp 5501919 892250 - 84

Blue Crab 1491288 726784 - 51

Grass Shrimp --- 686605 --

Bay Anchovy 423770 35206 - 92

Atlantic Silverside 134930 38054 - 72

Bluefish 64445 2212 - 97

Blueback herring 48103 6645 -86

Northern Pipefish 43427 28800 -34

Winter Flounder 39649 8901 -78

Atlantic Menhaden 30780 1432 -95

Weakfish 20411 31895 +56

Northern Puffer 9486 4294 -55

Summer Flounder 3285 2686 -18

Northern Kingfish 84 435 + 417

As noted by the permittee, when recent data (i.e. Year One and Year Two) is compared with historic data, the relative 

impingement rank is a more appropriate comparison because historic data do not account for times of pump operation 

or total volume of water. Of the 10 most commonly impinged species in Year 2, seven were among the top ten in Year 

One; six appeared in the top 10 in 1978; five in the top ten in 1976 and 1985 (not the same five species each year); and 

four in 1977. Three species have been among the ten most commonly collected species every year. As with any fish 

community, the numbers of individuals collected at OCGS of a given species vary widely between years. However, 

five of the ten most common species in Year Two were also among the ten most common species in 1976, the earliest 

collection year. 

Grass shrimp, which is one of the top three species impinged in both Year One and Year Two, was not included in the 

historic data set as it was not selected as a historic RIS species. 

• Entrainment Sampling 

Recent Entrainment Sampling – 2007 Fishery Report Results

Entrainment sampling was performed at the Circulating Water Intake once per week. Samples were obtained every six 

hours during each weekly 24-hour sampling event during two separate 12-hour periods which approximated day and 

night. Entrainment sampling coincided with weekly impingement sampling. The samples were collected immediately 

in front of the intake screens. Note that sampling was not conducted at the dilution/bypass water intake to 

quantify entrainment at this location. 

A summary of entrainment data for those species that accounted for more than one percent of the total number in either 

year is included below. These data were collected from September 28, 2005 to September 29, 2006 for Year 1 (53 

weeks) and from October 3, 2006 to October 24, 2007 for Year 2 (49 weeks). The estimated total number (x 106

) of 

each fish species entrained at OCGS are as follows: 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 17 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Circulating Water Intake – Entrainment 

 Year One Year Two 

Taxon Estimated Total 

Number (x 106) 

Percent Estimated Total 

Number (x 106) 

Percent 

Bay Anchovy 819.47 59.76 249.41 36.39 

Gobiidae 152.14 11.10 80.05 11.68 

Cunner 112.84 8.23 4.44 0.65 

Atlantic Croaker 84.30 6.15 51.97 7.58 

Windowpane 80.82 5.90 50.83 7.42 

Northern Pipefish 19.48 1.42 13.28 1.94 

Tautog 18.32 1.34 0.81 0.12 

Scianediae 14.89 1.10 0 -- 

Four-beard 

Rockling 

13.61 1.00 1.66 0.24 

Winter Flounder 11.39 0.83 118.82 17.34 

Feather Blenny 10.10 0.73 7.30 1.60 

Atlantic Menhaden 4.65 0.34 25.14 3.37 

Weakfish 3.60 0.26 31.41 4.58 

Prinotus sp. 1.77 0.13 7.90 1.12 

Hogchoker 1.64 0.12 10.95 1.60 

The estimates assume four (460,000 gallons per minute) pumps running continuously. In other words, these data are 

scaled up for full flow but do not include entrainment losses via the dilution/bypass water and therefore do not 

represent all entrainment losses at OCGS. The dilution pumps account for more than half of the total intake flow at 

the facility. In addition, this data was not corrected for gear efficiency or organism catchability, which is consistent 

with the historical sampling analysis. 

Entrainment – AmerGen’s Comparison of Year One and Year Two Data

The estimated total number of ichthyoplankton (all species combined) entrained during Year 2 (685 million) was 

almost exactly half of the number entrained during Year 1 (1371 million). The difference between years was due 

primarily to entrained bay anchovy and cunner. An estimated 819 million bay anchovy were entrained in Year One 

compared to 249 million in Year Two. The number of entrained cunner fell from approximately 113 million to 

approximately 4 million. 

Other species showing substantial inter-annual variability include Atlantic menhaden (4.65 million in Year One and 

25.14 million in Year Two), hogchoker (1.64 million and 10.95 million), and tautog (18.32 million and 0.81 million). 

The family Sciaenidae went from 14.89 million (Year One) to zero (Year Two), but this change resulted from an 

increased resolution in classifying Sciaenids (e.g., spotted seatrout and weakfish) to the species level. 

With respect to recreationally important species, higher numbers of weakfish and winter flounder were entrained in 

Year Two. A total of 3.6 million weakfish were entrained in Year One, while 31.41 million weakfish were entrained 

in Year Two. Similarly, the number of winter flounder entrained increased from 11.39 million in Year One to 118.82 

million in Year Two. Winter flounder was the second most common species entrained in Year Two; only bay 

anchovies were entrained more often. 

Because OCGS operating procedures were the same during Year One and Year Two, it is reasonable to conclude that 

the higher entrainment rates for some species in Year Two are not the result of OCGS operations. Many factors, such 

as changes in weather or water quality in the Bay, a change in the distribution of spawning females or a “pulse” of 

larvae drifting into the intake area could have affected species-specific entrainment rates. The entrainment data for 

Atlantic Menhaden (5 times higher in Year Two), weakfish (9 times higher in Year Two), winter flounder (10 times 

higher in Year Two), and Clupeidae (165 times higher in Year Two) are likely indicative of more favorable 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 18 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

environmental conditions for these species during 2006 – 2007 than during 2005 – 2006. On the other hand, fewer bay 

anchovy and cunner were entrained in Year Two, suggesting less favorable conditions for these species. 

Entrainment - Comparison of Recent (Year One and Year Two) Data with Historic Data

The report compared the two most recent years of entrainment data to historic data. Only those historic data with 

comparable sampling methods and sufficient information on sample volume/ sample time to yield comparable 

estimates of entrained organisms were retained for this report. Specifically, entrainment data sets from 1976 to 1981 

were compared to the recent data sets (i.e. Year One and Year Two). 

To ensure a clear understanding of this comparison, the Department has included a summary of the historical data from 

these years, as represented in the 1986 EA report, which is as follows: 

Estimated Number (x 106 of Selected Ichthyoplankton Passed through the Condenser and 

Dilution/Bypass Pumps at Oyster Creek from September 1975 through August 1981 (EA 1986) 

Species Lifestage 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978 

Condenser Dilution Condenser Dilution Condenser Dilution 

Silverside Larvae 15.81 12.15 5.72 3.68 38.28 31.27 

Bay anchovy Larvae 1,152.09 1,158.82 457.41 297.71 497.35 533.39 

Bay anchovy Eggs 14,135.76 13,535.1 196.71 179.04 1,994.76 2,158.24 

Winter flounder Larvae 116.25 140.86 850.84 865.00 597.58 635.09 

Sand lance Larvae 27.57 36.92 109.77 109.35 142.28 151.69 

Goby Larvae 614.02 591.79 101.19 84.19 160.19 162.60 

Naked goby Juveniles 6.71 7.77 0.41 0.21 0.77 0.84 

Blenny Larvae 11.56 10.54 18.19 12.24 17.38 14.35 

Northern pipefish Juveniles 54.38 48.42 7.16 5.39 36.53 38.29 

 

Species Lifestage 1978-1979 1979-1980 1980-1981 

Condenser Dilution Condenser Dilution Condenser Dilution 

Silverside Larvae 66.50 55.52 5.14 1.71 105.56 98.94 

Bay anchovy Larvae 1,270.35 1,412.46 144.12 135.26 314.06 318.98 

Bay anchovy Eggs 3,029.43 3,241.40 475.44 322.38 3,818.59 3,914.51 

Winter flounder Larvae 1,077.08 808.80 126.05 128.36 

Sand lance Larvae 1,294.87 1,389.67 133.67 147.90 

Goby Larvae 85.64 97.21 188.49 144.17 187.79 202.61 

Naked goby Juveniles 0.27 0.31 1.82 1.81 1.93 2.91 

Blenny Larvae 4.01 4.40 8.43 6.26 4.12 4.37 

Northern pipefish Juveniles 30.69 33.29 17.37 14.48 42.06 39.03 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 19 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Species Lifestage Average Annual 

Condenser Dilution 

Silverside Larvae 33.86 29.04 

Bay anchovy Larvae 547.91 554.80 

Bay anchovy Eggs 3,378.67 3,335.81

Winter flounder Larvae 461.30 429.69 

Sand lance Larvae 284.69 305.92 

Goby Larvae 191.05 183.22 

Naked goby Juveniles 1.70 1.98 

Blenny Larvae 9.10 7.45 

Northern pipefish Juveniles 26.88 25.56 

While the Department recognizes that there are limitations to these data sets, to enable an overall comparison of 

historical data (condenser side only) against average Year One and Year Two data , the Department has prepared the 

following summary. Please note that the Department has only included recent data for those species that comprise 

more than one percent of the recent entrainment losses: 

 Average Annual 

Entrainment (x 106

) Over 

Years – 

Condenser Side Only 

(broken down by life stage) 

Average Annual 

Entrainment (x 106) 

Over Years – 

Condenser Side Only 

(all life stages) 

Percent Change 

(rounded) 

Species 1975 – 1980; 1984-1985 2005-2006; 2006-2007 

Bay Anchovy 547.91 – larvae 

3,378.67 - eggs 

534.44 - 86 

Gobiidae 192.75 116.95 - 39 

Cunner -- 58.64 -- 

Atlantic Croaker -- 68.135 -- 

Windowpane -- 65.825 -- 

Tautog -- 9.565 -- 

Scianediae -- 7.445 -- 

Four-beard Rockling -- 7.635 -- 

Atlantic Menhaden -- 14.895 -- 

Weakfish -- 17.505 -- 

Prinotus sp. -- 4.835 -- 

Hogchoker -- 6.295 -- 

Blue Crab -- 0.925 -- 

Atlantic Silverside 33.86 – larvae 2.88 - 91 

Bluefish -- -- 

Blueback herring -- -- 

Northern Pipefish 26.88 – juveniles 16.38 - 39 

Winter Flounder 461.30 – larvae 65.105 - 86 

Northern Puffer 1.46 -- 

Summer Flounder -- 4.035 -- 

Northern Kingfish -- 0.125 -- 

Sand lance 284.69 - larvae -- -- 

Blenny 9.10 - larvae -- -- 

While the data for some of these species is not summarized above, the permittee compared recent and historic 

entrainment data for winter flounder, summer flounder, American eel, bay anchovy, weakfish, northern pipefish, 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 20 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

northern puffer, Atlantic silverside, Atlantic menhaden, tautog, hogchoker, croaker, American sand lance and 

Gobiidae. Entrainment data for most species shows a high degree of variability over the last 30 years. Atlantic 

menhaden and bay anchovy, in particular, show marked fluctuations in total entrainment and entrainment rates that 

presumably correspond with cycles of adult abundance. American eel shows a relatively constant (and precipitous) 

decline in entrainment rate over the 1976 – 2007 timeframe. 

• Survivability via Traveling Screens and Dilution Pumps 

Impingement – Ristroph Traveling Screens Survivability

As described in the 2007 Fishery Report, preliminary survival estimates (Proportion surviving) at OCGS for impinged 

RIS were determined from the condition indices (alive, dead, damaged, unmeasurable) recorded during collection. 

Data for each of the 11 RIS were pooled by week and survival estimated as: 

Survival = ______________ Σ Number Alive_______________________________________

 Σ (Number Dead + Number Damaged + Number Unmeasurable + Number Alive) 

A survival score of one for a species during a sampling week means that all impinged individuals of that species were 

alive during that week’s collection. A score of zero means that all individiuals were dead, damaged, or unmeasurable. 

The data for median and mean weekly survival for each of the RIS is as follows: 

Median and Mean Initial Survival for Impinged RIS at OCGS, 

September 2005 through September 2007 

Species Median Survival Mean Survival

Blueback Herring 1.00 0.72 

Atlantic Menhaden 0.88 0.76 

Bay Anchovy 0.23 0.31 

Atlantic Silverside 1.00 0.92 

Northern Pipefish 0.89 0.81 

Weakfish 1.00 0.86 

Summer Flounder 1.00 0.98 

Winter Flounder 1.00 0.93 

Sand Shrimp 0.95 0.90 

Blue Crab 0.97 0.92 

Grass Shrimp 0.96 0.93 

As noted by the permittee, because the distribution is skewed toward high survival, median is a more appropriate 

measure of the central tendency than is the mean. Survival was generally high for most species – even for Atlantic 

silverside, a species sensitive to handling. Bay anchovy, another species known to exhibit high handling mortality, had 

the lowest survival in the study. Significantly, factors such as temperature and dissolved oxygen affect survival. Fish 

exposed to low dissolved oxygen and high temperatures will likely have significantly lower survival rates than those 

not exposed to such conditions. The analysis presented makes no adjustments for any such factors and presents a firstorder examination of the data. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 21 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Entrainment - Dilution Pump Survivability

As described in the 2007 Fishery Report, dilution/bypass water sampling was performed most recently from December 

1984 to December 1985 to measure the abundance of impingeable-sized fish and macroinvertebrates passing through 

the dilution/bypass pumps and to determine their initial condition after pump passage (EA 1986). Because there are no 

traveling screens at the dilution pumps, all species are entrained. Five species comprised 96% of the total number of 

organisms passing through the dilution/bypass pumps during the study period: sand shrimp (42% of the total), bay 

anchovy (30%), grass shrimp (17%), blue crab (4%), and Atlantic silverside (3%). EA (1986) reported the large 

majority of most species survived at least 30 minutes after collection. Species reported as having high survival (over 

80%) included sand shrimp, blue crab, winter flounder, summer flounder, northern pipefish, and Atlantic silverside. 

Bay anchovy and blueback herring, known to be fragile species, had survival rates of 54% and 42%, respectively. 

c. Department’s Conclusions Regarding Impingement and Entrainment Data 

It is the Department’s long standing position that the best starting point to evaluate Section 316(b) of the Clean Water 

Act is to refer to impingement and entrainment data sets. This data reflects the direct effects of the Station. An 

assessment of these effects is integral to defining alternatives to minimizing these losses. 

As noted at length above, the Department reviewed both historic and recent data in evaluating the impingement and 

entrainment effects of this facility. Based on this review, the Department concludes the following: 

• There is a significant data gap encompassing over two decades for both impingement and entrainment. While 

recent data is useful and includes a count of all species impinged and entrained, it is difficult to draw any long 

range conclusions given these interruptions in data. 

• The top three organisms impinged in both Year One and Year Two are grass shrimp, sand shrimp and blue crab. 

These three species comprise approximately 80% of the total species impinged. However, grass shrimp losses 

were not ennumerated in the historical data set; therefore, a comparison of historical and recent data can not be 

made. 

• While there are only two years of recent data available, a comparison of the recent data to the historical data shows 

that the magnitude of the number of species impinged is dramatically less for most species. During this same time 

span plant operations have not substantially changed with respect to intake and effluent flows. This indicates that 

the decline in these species may be due to other causes which may include environmental impacts such as the 

overall health of Barnegat Bay. 

• Recent entrainment data was insufficient at the dilution pumps to estimate annual passage at this location. As a 

result, data collected at the circulating water intake was used to estimate entrainment at the dilution pumps. Since 

the dilution pumps represent over half the intake flow of OCGS, they account for a significant portion of all 

Station entrainment losses. 

• As noted by AmerGen in the 2007 Fishery Report, there were differences among years for the sampling gear used, 

techniques used for processing samples and even sampling locations. Again, this results in limitations to any 

comparative data analysis. 

5. Available Intake Protection Technologies 

a. Summary of “Determination of Cooling Tower Availability” Study 

As noted previously, the Department issued a draft NJPDES permit on July 19, 2005 which required one of two 

alternatives. The Department specified that its preferred alternative was to reduce the intake capacity to a level 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 22 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

commensurate with the use of a closed-cycle, recirculating cooling system. If the permittee demonstrated that this 

alternative was unavailable to the facility, a second alternative could be pursued. 

To address the issue of cooling tower availability, URS, on behalf of the permittee, submitted a report entitled 

“Determination of Cooling Tower Availability” (hereafter “report”) dated March 4, 2006. In this report, various 

cooling tower alternatives for OCGS were evaluated. This evaluation relied upon previous cooling tower studies, 

drawings, and design data to develop a conceptual model for the construction and operation of cooling towers at 

OCGS. The conceptual model was updated to account for new technologies, site conditions, environmental impacts 

and regulatory requirements. 

As noted in this report, URS chose a conceptual model of a recirculating closed-cycle cooling system that consists of 

two multi-cell mechanical draft hybrid cooling towers. A hybrid cooling system, which is a combination of wet 

evaporative cooling and dry cooling, was chosen because of the need for both consumptive water use reduction and 

plume abatement at this particular site. Additionally, the newly implemented security systems at OCGS can not be 

hindered by either an elevated plume or ground fog. A hybrid system can effectively eliminate a visible plume and 

ground fog at a lower cost and using less land area than air-cooled condensers. The reduction or elimination of a 

visible plume is, by necessity, the driving factor in the design of any cooling system at OCGS. 

Since the primary purpose of installing a closed-cycle cooling system is to minimize intake and effluent flow volume, 

comparing the water balance as part of a closed-cycle cooling system to the current once-through cooling system is 

critical. An excerpt of the section from this report which outlines the water balance associated with the conceptual 

cooling tower design is as follows: 

OCGS’ current open-cycle cooling system has virtually no consumptive water use. With the addition of a closed cooling 

system, the water flow through the intake/discharge system is reduced. However, there is consumptive use of water. As water 

is evaporated in the cooling tower, the amount of dissolved and suspended solids and minerals in the water become 

concentrated. If left uncontrolled, these chemicals will inhibit the operation and efficiency of the cooling tower with a buildup 

of slime and scale. 

To control scale and slime build-up, a certain percentage of water is discharged (as “blowdown”) from the cooling tower basin 

into the discharge canal. Makeup water that is pumped to the cooling tower replenishes the water evaporated and the 

blowdown water. The ratio of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the recirculating water to the TDS in the makeup water is 

termed “the cycles of concentration”. Cooling towers using makeup water with low dissolved impurities typically operate 

with a cycle of concentration factor between seven and ten. The industry standard for cooling towers using salt water or 

brackish water, such as at the OCGS site, is two or less cycles of concentration.... 

Two 10,000 gpm pumps would be used to supply the makeup water to the cooling tower. The makeup water would be 

supplied from the intake canal and sent to a filter skid to remove silt and other foreign substances. 

During the summer, when the hybrid cooling tower would be operating in full evaporative cooling mode, the average makeup 

water supply would be approximately 14,000 gpm. Using a cycle of concentration factor of two means that half the makeup 

water flow (7000 gpm) is returned to the discharge system as blowdown with the other half evaporated. Thus, the average 

consumptive use of intake water during the summer is approximately 7000 gpm. 

In the event that there are no circulating water pumps available, such as during the maintenance of the pump, intake tunnel, or

main condenser, at least one of the three dilution pumps must be available to meet OCGS’ procedural requirements. The 

available pump will also allow water from the intake canal to be available to supply other emergency needs. 

In addition to having operational dilution pumps available, a single dilution pump must remain in operation to: 

• prevent the stagnation of water and accumulation of silt in the intake and discharge canals 

• provide thermal dilution of warm blowdown water (from the cooling tower circulating water outlet line) at the 

discharge canal 

• provide dilution of concentrated and trace elements in the blowdown water within the discharge canal 

One dilution pump (260,000 gpm), with a makeup design requirement of 20,000 gpm, would create a total flow through the 

intake canal of approximately 280,000 gpm. The flow through the discharge canal would be approximately 270,000 gpm, or 

about 30 percent of the flow of the current open-cycle system. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 23 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

As noted in this report, it is estimated that the cost of a hybrid dry cooling tower is between 705 million dollars and 

801 million dollars over a ten year period. Costs include (in descending order): 1) construction (material and labor); 2) 

lost energy revenue; 3) lost energy during outage; 4) risk factor; 5) added real estate taxes; 6) maintenance/chemicals; 

7) added security personnel; 8) added operators; 9) lost capacity revenue; 10) lost capacity during outage; 11) 

environmental/public relations; 12) dislocation of master plan; 13) added insurance. It is therefore concluded in this 

report that based on the technical and engineering difficulty of retrofitting the existing OCGS station with this 

alternative as well as the associated costs, cooling towers are unavailable under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. 

The calculated average annual net power loss with a hybrid cooling tower system would be 32.5 MW. Specifically, 

OCGS currently operates at 641 MW whereas a closed-cycle cooling system would result in the plant operating at 609 

MW. 

b. Department’s Conclusions Regarding Available Intake Protection Technologies Considering 

Impingement and Entrainment Data 

The Department recognizes that Ristroph traveling screens at OCGS are a proven and effective technology to minimize 

impingement mortality. Constant screen rotation and low pressure washes serve to reduce impingement mortality by 

assisting organisms into the fish return system. The fish return system is designed in a manner that minimizes stresses 

as it was constructed with a gentle slope with various quiet pools to allow the fish to orient themselves in the current. 

The fish return system does not divert these organisms to the heated discharge but rather to the dilution pump 

discharge which is not heated nor chlorinated. In sum, the Department agrees that impingement mortality is 

minimized at the circulating water intake. 

However, the circulating water intake represents less than half the total intake flow at the facility. There is no 

technology employed at the dilution pumps therefore all species are entrained. While the dilution pumps may be 

designed with some fish friendly attributes such as few and widely spaced impellers and low rotation speed, the intake 

flow is significant and therefore so are losses even with some survivability. 

Beyond Ristroph traveling screens, there are limited intake protection technologies to effectively reduce impingement 

mortality. In addition, there are even fewer intake protection technologies to reduce entrainment. While the EPA 

Phase II Rule is suspended, its findings regarding intake protection technology are still valid. Specifically, on page 

41601 of the Phase II regulation the following is stated: 

...EPA believes the record contains ample evidence to support the proposition that entrainment is related to flow.....while 

impingement is related to a combination of flow, intake velocity and fish swim speed....Larger withdrawals of water may 

result in commensurate greater levels of entrainment. Entrainment impacts of cooling water intake structures are closely 

linked to the amount of water passing through the intake structure because the eggs and larvae of some aquatic species are 

free-floating and may be drawn with the flow of cooling water into an intake structure. Swim speeds of affected species as 

well as intake velocity must be taken into account to predict rates of impingement in relation to flow in order to account for 

the ability of juvenile and adult life stages of species to avoid impingement. Due to this relationship, EPA agrees that 

reducing intake by installing flow reduction technologies will result in a similarly high reduction of impinged and entrained 

organisms. 

The Department has completed its review of the March 4, 2006 “Determination of Cooling Tower Availability”. To 

summarize the findings of this report, the difference in flows between the closed-cycle cooling system and current 

once through system is as follows: 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 24 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

 Current OnceThrough Cooling Conceptual ClosedCycle Cooling Percent Change from 

Current System 

Intake Flow 

Circulating Water System 

Dilution Pumps 

Cooling Tower Make-up 

662 

748 

N/A 

N/A 

374* 

29 

Total Intake Flow 1410 403 -71% 

Effluent Flow 

Circulating Water System 

Dilution Pump 

Cooling Tower Blowdown 

662 

748 

N/A 

N/A 

374* 

14 

Total Effluent Flow 1410 388 -72% 

* It is contended in this report that operation of a dilution pump is necessary. This summary of flow reductions 

assumes that this contention is accurate. 

Based on its review of this report, the Department does not agree that the permittee has substantiated that cooling 

towers are “unavailable” to OCGS at this time. As a result, based on the information available at this time, the 

Department has determined that closed-cycle cooling is an available technology to OCGS. 

6. Court Decisions and Implications on Section 316(b) Determination

Subsequent to the issuance of the July 19, 2005 draft permit, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 

decision in the litigation over the Phase II regulation. See Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA, No. 04-6692, (2d Cir. January 25, 

2007). The court’s decision remanded several provisions of the Rule on various grounds including, but not limited to 

the following: 

• EPA’s determination of the Best Technology Available under section 316(b); 

• The Rule’s performance standard ranges; 

• The Cost-cost and cost-benefit compliance alternatives; 

• The Technology Installation and Operation Plan provision and; 

• The restoration provisions. 

EPA then suspended the Phase II Section 316(b) regulations as articulated in the July 9, 2007 Federal Register. EPA 

directed States and permitting authorities to issue permits in accordance with Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) 

pursuant to 40 CFR 401.14. All of the above referenced rule provisions were included as components of permit 

conditions in the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit. As a result of this suspension, the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES 

permit have been reevaluated under Best Professional Judgment. EPA has yet to release draft Section 316(b) 

regulations for Phase II facilities and has not announced any schedule for doing such. 

Cost-benefit analysis was one element of the Second Circuit Court decision. The issue of cost-benefit analysis was 

brought before the Supreme Court. Specifically, the question presented was “Whether 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 

33 U.S.C. 1326(b), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to compare costs with benefits when determining 

the “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts” at cooling water intake structures?” 

On April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a decision regarding the validity of cost/benefit determinations for Phase 

II facilities. The Supreme Court determined that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in providing for 

cost-benefit variances from those standards as part of the Phase II regulations. This decision will have a direct bearing 

on any redrafted Phase II regulations prepared by EPA. In the meantime, states are required to issue Section 316(b) 

determinations in accordance with best professional judgment. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 25 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

7. Section 316(b) Determination in this Renewal Permit

The Department is hereby making a determination that closed-cycle cooling constitutes best technology available for 

this facility in accordance with Best Professional Judgment. This determination is based upon the following factors: 

• Significant impingement and entrainment losses are documented in both historic and current data. The magnitude 

of these losses is due primarily to the location of OCGS in a marine environment. Closed-cycle cooling will 

reduce water intake usage significantly thereby decreasing impingement and entrainment effects. It is particularly 

noteworthy that closed-cycle cooling is one of the few technologies available to target entrainment effects. 

• Based on its review of the permittee’s Cooling Tower Availability study, the Department remains unconvinced 

that closed-cycle cooling is unavailable for this site. 

• The permittee has received a 20 year renewal of its operating license for OCGS from the United States Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. As a result, any costs incurred from closed-cycle cooling can be ammortized over a 

longer time frame thereby contributing to cost-effectiveness. 

The compliance schedule for implementation of a closed-cycle cooling system is as follows: 

• Apply for all necessary permits and approvals by the effective date of the permit (EDP) + 12 months. 

• Finalize design and award construction contracts by EDP + 48 months. 

• Operate closed-cycle cooling system within three years of finalizing design and awarding construction 

contracts specified above. 

 

While the Department relies directly on plant-related impingement and entrainment effects in implementing the 

Section 316(b) statute, the Department considered the overall health of Barnegat Bay in this determination. While 

there is a lack of long term biological monitoring data throughout Barnegat Bay, the significantly decreased numbers 

of certain species collected in impingement and entrainment samples as compared to historical data, is indicative of a 

decline in the biological health of Barnegat Bay. This decline is likely attributable to a variety of reasons including, 

but not limited to: non-point source pollution loading, nitrogen loading, motorized boat and jet-ski usage, 

eutrophication, the loss of wetland and other estuarine habitat, overall development and changes in tidal regime within 

the estuary. Nonetheless, OCGS is also contributing impacts through impingement and entrainment effects. These 

plant related impacts can be minimized to the fullest extent through closed-cycle cooling. 

B. Section 316(a) Determination 

1. Regulatory Background - Thermal Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) and Section 316(a)

Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) for SE1 waters are established in N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1 et seq. and are 

applicable to the Barnegat Bay, Forked River, and Oyster Creek. These standards require that ambient water 

temperatures in the receiving waters shall not be raised by more than 2.2o

 C (4o F), from September through May, nor 

more than 0.8 o C (1.5 o F) from June through August, nor cause temperatures to exceed 29.4 o C (85 o F), except in 

designated heat dissipation areas. SWQS provide that “heat dissipation areas” in “streams” (including SE waters) shall 

not exceed one-quarter (1/4) of the cross section and/or volume of the water body at any time; nor more than twothirds (2/3) of the surface from shore to shore at any time. SWQS further provide that these “heat dissipation areas” 

limits: 

“...may be exceeded by special permission, on a case-by-case basis, when a discharger can demonstrate that a 

larger heat dissipation area meets the tests for a waiver under Section 316 of the Federal Clean Water Act.” 

SWQS provide that for bays, “heat dissipation areas” will be developed on a case by case basis at N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.14 

(c)(11)(ii)(2).
Fact Sheet 

 Page 26 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Section 316(a) of the Federal Clean Water Act regulates the thermal component of surface water discharges. 

Specifically, Section 316(a) authorizes variances from thermal surface water quality standards where it is shown that 

the alternative limit proposed will “assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of 

shellfish, fish, and wildlife” in the receiving water. 

2. Historical Technical Information

As noted previously, in 1987 the Department engaged Versar, Inc. as an independent contractor to assist in reviewing 

the permittee’s Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration. As described in the 1989 Versar Report, Versar reviewed the 

extent of the thermal plume from the Station based on dye plume mapping, thermal plume mapping, recirculation 

studies and hydrothermal modeling submitted by the permittee and other agencies. 

The 1989 Versar Report indicated that operation of the Station did not appear to produce unacceptable, substantial 

long-term population and ecosystem level impacts and such operation assures the protection and propagation of a 

balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on the receiving waters. The 1989 Versar Report 

recommends, among other things, that the Department grant a thermal variance pursuant to Section 316(a) and that the 

Department require the permittee to conduct and submit Dilution Pump Optimization Studies. The goal of this study 

was to develop a decision framework to predictively evaluate the seasonal operation of the dilution pumps in order to 

minimize the potential for the Oyster Creek cooling system to affect the biota of Barnegat Bay. In other words, the 

goal of any study would be to predict a schedule for operation of the dilution pumps to ensure that pumps were 

operated to mitigate thermal effects, but yet minimize operations to minimize entrainment effects. A workplan for this 

study was completed and submitted in May 1995.

3. Section 316(a) Determination in Previous Permits

In the June 30, 1994 draft renewal permit, the Department made a determination that the existing thermal limitations 

and operating requirements met the 316(a) criteria based on the findings of the permittee’s 1987 316(a) study. 

However, the existing permit requires a number of operating and monitoring conditions to ensure that thermal effects 

were minimized during critical periods. These conditions have been continued in this draft renewal permit and can be 

summarized and justified as follows: 

• Planned Winter Shutdown Conditions – The permittee shall not schedule routine shutdowns during the months 

of December, January, February, and/or March to reduce the possibility of a fish-kill resulting from cold 

shock. The permittee shall also not schedule routine maintenance that may cause violation of thermal 

limitations or intake velocity limitations during the months of June, July, August, and/or September. The 

Department acknowledges that the NJPDES Regulations require the permittee to maintain its plant in good 

working order and efficient operation and, therefore, some maintenance may be required. This condition is 

included in Part IV of the permit. 

Basis and Background to Planned Winter Shutdown Condition - Many fish species initiate their autumn 

migration from temperate estuarine areas such as Barnegat Bay to southern areas or deeper oceanic waters in 

response to temperature cues. Fish commonly thermoregulate by seeking water having temperature closer to 

their thermal preference. As a consequence, during the autumn, winter, and spring, fish are attracted to areas 

such as the Oyster Creek Discharge Canal, which acts to confine heated water from condenser cooling. Upon 

winter shutdowns of the Station, the thermal discharge from condenser cooling ceases and the temperature of 

this area quickly reverts towards ambient. 

Provisions in the 1987 NJPDES permit regarding planned winter shutdowns of the Station required the 

permittee to avoid scheduling shutdowns during the months of December, January, February, and March. 

These provisions were, for the most part, based on a permit issued by USEPA. The restriction on planned 

winter shutdowns was included in the 1987 and 1994 NJPDES permits to lessen the probability of winter 

shutdown fish kills associated with cold shock. This condition has been retained once again in this renewal 

permit.
Fact Sheet 

 Page 27 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

• Temperature Monitoring at Route 9 Bridge – The permittee is required to continuously monitor temperature at 

a point four feet below the surface of Oyster Creek at the Route 9 bridge. A maximum temperature action 

level of 97 o

F (36.1 oC) shall be continued in this permit action. Upon exceedance of this action level, the 

permittee may be required to conduct and submit an Effluent Temperature Evaluation Study (ETES) as 

detailed in Part IV of the permit. Temperature results from this location shall also determine when dilution 

pumps become operational. This condition is included in Part IV of the permit. 

Basis and Background to Temperature Monitoring at Route 9 Bridge - In order to ensure that the temperature 

of the water at the point it enters Barnegat Bay remains approximately at the temperature that was used in the 

Section 316(a) determination, the Department is requiring the Station to continue to monitor water temperature 

at the Route 9 Bridge. If the temperature is monitored above 97o

F, the Station is required to submit a written 

report to the Department stating the reason for such. If the temperature increase is due to (a) unusually high 

influent temperature, i.e., any influent temperature in excess of 85o

 F; (b) operation of the Dilution Pumps in 

accordance with Part IV; or (c) implementation of the alternate effluent limitations in accordance with a 

Maximum Emergency Generation event as defined in this permit, the Station is required to do no more. If the 

temperature increases is not attributable to any of the above, the Station is required to conduct an Effluent 

Temperature Evaluation Study (“ETES”) as detailed in Part IV to identify the cause of the temperature 

increases and to implement measures to prevent the temperature increases from occurring again. 

The Station’s exceedance of the temperature monitoring action level of 97 degrees Fahrenheit is not a violation 

of the permit for which an enforcement action could be taken. The Station’s failure to report an exceedance, to 

provide the Department with a written report providing reasons for the exceedance or to conduct the ETES in 

the time frames and manner established in the permit would, however, constitute violations of the permit for 

which enforcement action could be instituted.

• Maximum Emergency Generation – The permittee is permitted to increase its heat load, effluent temperature 

and delta T limitations for outfall DSN 001A during a Maximum Emergency Generation event as ordered by 

the PJM Interconnection Office of Information Dispatcher in accordance with Section 2 (Capacity Conditions) 

of the PJM Interconnection Emergency Operations Manual M-13, dated October 10, 1998 and any subsequent 

revisions thereto. Within 8 hours of the permittee being advised that Maximum Emergency Generation has 

been ordered, the permittee must notify the Department by telephone declaring that the Station has invoked the 

use of the alternate thermal limits of the permit. The Station must follow-up the telephone notification within 

five working days with a written report setting forth the following: the time and date of the telephone 

notification to the Department, the time and date the Station actually invoked relief under this permit 

condition, and the time and date it terminated such relief. A similar condition was contained in the 1994 

permit issued to this facility; however, the term Emergency Need for Power has been replaced with Maximum 

Emergency Generation to reflect revisions to the PJM Interconnection Emergency Operations Manual. 

In sum, the Department proposed to continue those thermal limitations and operating requirements in the July 19, 2005 

draft permit action and thereby grant a thermal variance in accordance with Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act. In 

addition to the above, the variance contained in the July 19, 2005 draft permit is based on the fact that the facility’s 

operations have not changed appreciably since the time that the existing permit was issued and based on the fact that 

cooling water intake flow rates have remained relatively constant. 

4. Section 316(a) Determination in this Renewal Permit

As noted previously, closed-cycle cooling is being required in accordance with best professional judgment in 

accordance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. As described in the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit, the 

Department proposed to grant a thermal variance for the existing once-through cooling system. Unlike Section 316(b), 

the operative regulations for Section 316(a), namely 40 CFR 125.70 – 125.73, have not been remanded and are the 

same as when the July 19, 2005 draft permit was issued. Similarly, the NJSWQS have also not appreciably changed 

for heat and temperature since the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit renewal was issued. As a result, the 

Department’s analysis under Section 316(a) remains the same as in the July 19, 2005 draft NJPDES permit renewal. 

In sum, the Department continues to propose a Section 316(a) variance for the once-through cooling system.
Fact Sheet 

 Page 28 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

While implementation of closed-cycle cooling is not being required under Section 316(a), the Department would be 

remiss if it did not recognize the benefits of closed-cycle cooling on thermal impacts. According to the information 

presented in the report entitled “Determination of Cooling Tower Availability” dated March 4, 2006, closed-cycle 

cooling will result in a reduction of flow volume for DSN 001A from 460,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of oncethrough cooling water to 10,000 gpm of cooling tower blowdown. This is a 98% reduction in the flow volume for the 

heated discharge from DSN 001A. 

However, the installation of a closed loop system would not eliminate the thermal discharge. Specifically, a thermal 

discharge would occur via cooling tower blowdown although the volume would be less given the site-specifics of 

OCGS. It is also expected that a thermal variance would still be necessary for any cooling tower blowdown discharge. 

As a result, the Department is retaining the daily maximum temperature limitation of 41.4 degrees Celsius for 

the cooling tower blowdown. However, the Department is requiring thermal modeling for any closed-cycle cooling 

discharge flow once this discharge commences. The purpose of this modeling is to appropriately define any heat 

dissipation area and determine if a Section 316(a) determination is necessary. This condition has been included in Part 

IV. 

The Department acknowledges that there have been documented fish kills associated with cold shock for the oncethrough cooling system. These instances were typically the result of winter shutdown conditions and, given 

compliance with permit conditions, it is expected that fish kills will not occur with the once-through cooling system. 

Nonetheless, given the significant reduction in any thermal discharge flow associated with a closed-cycle cooling 

system, it is expected that fish kills will be eliminated or greatly reduced. 

9 Impacts: 

A. Federal Consistency Determination

Impingement and entrainment and the thermal discharge results in impacts to aquatic life. In addition, the issue of 

impacts has relevance within the context of the Federal Consistency Determination pursuant to Section 307 of the 

federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-573), as amended. The Department’s assessment with respect 

to impacts is relevant. While a component of the Federal Consistency Determination concerns impacts, Section 316(b) 

is the statute that regulates impingement and entrainment impacts and Section 316(a) addresses thermal impacts. To 

ensure that the issue is fully addressed, the Department has included a summary of the Federal Consistency 

Determination administrative history, technical submittals and conclusions. 

The Federal Consistency Determination (FCD) was required pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act as 

a result of AmerGen (the permittee at that time) applying to a federal agency for a license renewal of an existing 

facility within New Jersey’s Coastal Zone. In this case, the permittee requested that the United States Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (USNRC) relicense the facility for a period of 20 years, or until 2029. The Department’s 

Coastal Zone Management rules at N.J.A.C. 7:7E represent the standards for reviewing the Federal Consistency 

Determination request. The Federal Consistency Determination was issued by the Department’s Land Use Regulation 

Program on December 28, 2007. The USNRC license extension was granted on April 1, 2009. 

To provide the administrative history, AmerGen submitted an application for a Federal Consistency Determination 

Request for License renewal of AmerGen’s Oyster Creek Generating Station on January 21, 2005. By letter of March 

31, 2005, the Division of Land Use Regulation advised AmerGen that the State agency’s review had begun and a 

decision was due on or before July 21, 2005. In addition, the March 31, 2005 Division of Land Use Regulation letter 

requested information to address application deficiencies. The Division of Land Use Regulation requested that the 

applicant submit the information and an analysis of that information to support the following assertions made by the 

permittee: 

• The impacts of entrainment and impingement during current operations are being monitored on a continual 

basis; 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 29 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

• The Ristroph traveling screens currently being used reduce the number of fish impinged and impingement 

mortality; 

• The water quality of Barnegat Bay, which had been in decline, is recovering and now supports a healthy fish 

population; and 

• The impacts of heat shock during current operations are also being monitored on a continual basis. 

As described previously, impingement and entrainment data was already being collected, consistent with the Proposal 

for Information Collection. The collection of this data was a direct result of the requirement for a Comprehensive 

Demonstration Study in the now suspended Phase II EPA Regulations for Section 316(b). Impingement and 

entrainment data was collected for two years (i.e. Year 1 and Year 2) and was submitted in the 2007 Fishery Data 

Report. This information was utilized in for two regulatory purposes, namely Section 316(b) and the FCD request. 

A summary of the December 28, 2007 FCD issued by the Department Land Use Regulation program to Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) is as follows: 

...The continued operation of the OCNGS, which is the subject of this FCD request, is subject to review pursuant to the CZM 

rules. The scope of this review is focused on the continued operation of the facility on the coastal environment. 

The operation of the OCNGS is causing an impact on the estuarine environment specifically to marine fish and fisheries, 

through the once-through cooling process. Specifically, fish and shellfish are impinged on the cooling water intake screens, 

entrained through the circulating water system and the dilution pumps, and subjected to thermal impacts from discharge water. 

While the applicant has provided two years of recent monitoring data (encompassing a period from 2005 through 2007) to 

supplement previous data collected and to quantify the impacts from impingement and entrainment, the long-term effects on 

the coastal ecosystem are difficult to quantify. The difficulty in making this assessment is due to a number of factors listed

below, some of which are not well-understood by the scientific community: 

• Lack of long-term biological monitoring data throughout Barnegat Bay; 

• Non-point source pollution loading into the Bay; 

• Nitrogen loading into the Bay from various sources (air deposition, groundwater discharge, non-point source pollution); 

• Extensive motorized boat and jet-ski usage throughout the Bay; 

• Eutrophication within the Bay; 

• Loss of wetland and other estuarine habitat; 

• Changes in tidal regime within the estuary resulting from reconstruction of the Barnegat Inlet south jetty; and 

• Development on the Bay and within the Barnegat Bay Watershed, including docks, piers, bulkheads and other waterfront 

structures. 

Given the fact that the facility was built in 1968, and the difficulty in drawing a clear nexus between the continued operations 

of OCNGS and the Bay impairments, the applicant has proposed various mitigation activities intended to offset any impacts of 

continued operation. All of these activities are proposed to be funded by AmerGen and conducted under the direction 

supervision of the Department’s Division of Fish and Wildlife. Environmental enhancement/mitigation activities proposed by 

the applicant, as outlined in letters from AmerGen dated September 13, 2007 and November 30, 2007 include: 

• Tidal wetland restoration 

• Hard Clam Bed restoration 

• Oyster Bed Restoration 

• Enhance public access to and use of the Barnegat Bay waterfront 

As noted previously, there are limited intake protection technologies to address entrainment. Restoration is an 

alternative that could be used at OCGS as a means to offset losses. Therefore, the Department hereby acknowledges 

any benefits that may come of the above referenced projects via the CZMA process. 

B. Biological Monitoring Program 

While the Department does not render a Section 316(b) determination based on long-term population effects, there is 

precedence within the NJPDES program for facilities to conduct an on-going biological monitoring program. Since 

OCGS uses the natural resources of the North Branch of the Forked River and Oyster Creek to operate their process, it 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 30 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

is reasonable to require an assessment of the overall health of the ecosystem as a steward of that resource. As noted at 

length above, there is a paucity of data available in Barnegat Bay and a biological monitoring program could serve to 

fill that gap. 

In order to better assess the impacts that Oyster Creek Generating Station is having on Barnegat Bay and to monitor 

any effects from the implementation of closed-cycle cooling technology, the permittee is hereby required to implement 

a Biological Monitoring Program pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)14. This Biological Monitoring Program shall 

include the following components: 

1. Shallow Water Survey of Estuarine Organisms

There is currently a large data gap in assessing population trends of organisms in Barnegat Bay. As such, a Barnegat 

Bay-wide beach seining survey needs to be conducted year round to identify and assess all estuarine organisms that 

inhabit shallow water environments. This survey shall be designed to accomplish the following: 

• Identify and quantify any forage finfish species, young-of-year, yearlings, early life stages of predator finfish 

species, macroinvertebrates, and other life forms encountered within the shallow water habitats of Barnegat Bay. 

• Develop relative abundance indices (number of organisms caught per sampling effort) for the major forage species 

identified in recent plant-related impingement and entrainment samples. 

• Once sufficient data becomes available, perform a trends analysis of those species impacted by the impingement 

and entrainment operations at OCGS to be used as indicator organisms to conduct a statistically robust trend 

analysis of their relative abundance indices over an extended time period. 

• The shallow water surveys should be conducted at a minimum frequency of once per month or at a frequency set 

forth in any biological monitoring program work plan approved by the Department. 

2. Biological Monitoring Program Work Plan

• The permittee shall submit to the Department for approval an improved Biological Monitoring Work Plan, which 

addresses the study components described above. This Work Plan shall be submitted within EDP + 6 months 

as indicated in Part IV. 

• Not later than sixty days after receipt of the Department’s written approval of the Work Plan, the permittee 

shall implement the Work Plan as indicated in Part IV.

• The Department reserves the right to designate a third party to oversee any biological monitoring. 

C. Plant Related Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring During Operation of Once-Through Cooling 

System 

 

In order to ensure that recent impingement and entrainment monitoring is continued thereby allowing a long term 

assessment of plant related intake effects, continued impingement and entrainment monitoring shall be conducted as 

follows: 

• The permittee shall conduct ongoing entrainment sampling at the circulating water intake during normal Station 

operations at a minimum frequency of twice per month from May through October and once per month from 

November through April, weather and operational conditions permitting. Sampling shall be conducted in 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 31 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

accordance with the procedures set forth in the June 29, 2005 Proposal for Information Collection or as specified 

in a Department approved workplan. 

• The permittee shall conduct ongoing impingement sampling at the circulating water intake during normal Station 

operations at a minimum frequency of twice per month on a year round basis. Sampling shall be conducted in 

accordance with the procedures set forth in the June 29, 2005 Proposal for Information Collection or as specified 

in a Department approved workplan. 

10 Type and Quantity of the Wastes or Pollutants: 

The Permit Summary Table near the end of this fact sheet contains a summary of the quantity and quality of pollutants 

treated and discharged from the facility and the proposed effluent limitations. Effluent data was obtained from the 

facility's Monitoring Report Forms for the time period specified in the table. 

11 Summary of Chemical-Specific Permit Conditions: 

The existing and proposed effluent limitations and other pertinent information regarding the draft permit are described 

below: 

A. Basis for Effluent Limitations and Permit Conditions - General: 

The effluent limitations and permit conditions in this permit have been developed to ensure compliance with the 

following: 

1. NJPDES Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:14A), 

2. New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9B), 

3. New Jersey’s 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (include 305(b) Report 

and 303(d) List), 

4. Existing permit limitations in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.19 and 40 CFR 122.44 (antibacksliding 

requirements), 

5. Permit limitations in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d) (antidegradation requirements), 

6. Statewide Water Quality Management Planning Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:15), 

7. Technology Based Treatment Requirements or Effluent Limitation Guideline Requirements (N.J.A.C. 

7:14A-13.2 to 13.4), 

8. 40 CFR Part 423 – Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 

9. 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart H 

Technology based limitations are authorized by Section 301 of the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 122, N.J.S.A. 

58:10A-4, and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.2(a)1.ii., 13.3(b), and 13.4. In general, effluent limitations are based on Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), or on 

case-by-case limitations developed through a Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) analysis in cases where ELGs are 

not available or appropriate. ELGs are minimum technology based requirements applicable on a nation-wide basis 

and are published in 40 CFR Subchapter N. ELGs consider the category of industry that produce common 

pollutants taking into account the specific factors unique to a particular type of industry (manufacturing process, 

type and quantity of pollutants generated, types of treatment facilities available to treat the pollutants, etc.). In 

cases where ELGs are applicable for surface water dischargers, ELG loading limitations are calculated using the 

specified concentration value and the production information provided by the permittee. BPJ determinations are 

authorized by Section 402 (a)(1) of the Clean Water Act. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 32 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) are applicable to this facility in accordance with 40 CFR 423, the Steam 

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. Where applicable, these guidelines were used to develop 

effluent limitations for the discharges from this facility unless a more stringent federal, state, or local effluent 

limitation was applicable. 

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.5, Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) are imposed when 

it has been determined that the discharge of a pollutant causes an excursion of criteria specified in the New Jersey 

Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS), N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.1 et seq., and the Federal Water Quality Standards, 40 

CFR Part 131. WQBELs are authorized by Section 301 of the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 122, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-4, 

and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.2 and 13.3. The policies used to develop WQBELs are contained in the State and Federal 

Standards. Specific procedures, methodologies, and equations are contained in the current USEPA "Technical 

Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control" (TSD) (EPA- 505/2-90-001) and are referenced in 

N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.5 and 13.6. 

Expression of all effluent limitations are in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.14 and 13.15. 

Whole effluent toxicity limitations are expressed as a minimum as a percent. 

B. Basis and Derivation for Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements- Specific: 

All permit limitations and conditions in this permit action, are equal to or more stringent than those contained in 

the existing permit action. As a result, this permit action satisfies the federal and state anti-degradation regulations 

40 CFR 131.12 and N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(d), and no further anti-degradation analysis is necessary. 

DSN 001A: Non-Contact Cooling Water (approximately 592 MGD) 

1. Flow: This permit does not include a numerical limitation for flow. Monitoring conditions for effluent and 

influent are applied pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13. Monitoring is required on a continuous basis with a 

calculated sample type. 

2. pH: The effluent limitations of 6.5 standard units as a monthly minimum and 8.5 standard units as a monthly 

maximum are consistent with the existing permit and are imposed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. A 

condition for monitoring intake pH has been included since a narrative condition regarding pH compliance has 

been included in Part IV A.1.h. 

Monitoring for pH shall be conducted twice/week with a grab sample type. 

3. Effluent Temperature, Intake Temperature, Temperature Difference Between Intake and Discharge, Net Rate 

of Addition of Heat: The effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements are originally based on the 

findings of the permittee’s 1987 316(a) study and are retained from the existing permit in accordance with 

N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. Additional information regarding temperature and heat limitations is included in the 

Section 316(a) determination discussed previously in this Fact Sheet. 

Temperature shall be monitored on a continuous basis with a grab sample type. 

Consistent with the existing permit, the Department has continued effluent limitations for effluent temperature, 

temperature difference between intake and discharge, and net rate of addition of heat under two scenarios that 

are identified in this permit as Option 1 and Option 2 limits. Option 1 limits are applicable when four 

circulating water pumps are operating for condenser cooling. Option 2 limits shall be applicable during 

periods of condenser backwash, intake component maintenance or during a Maximum Emergency Generating 

Event. An explanation of these conditions is also specified as items G.2.g. and G.2.i. of Part IV. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 33 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

4. Intake Velocity: The daily maximum limitation for intake velocity of 2.2 feet per second is imposed consistent 

with the existing permit pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. This limitation was imposed in the existing permit 

to reduce impingement and entrainment at the cooling water intake. Additional information regarding intake 

velocity is included in the Section 316(b) determination discussed previously in this Fact Sheet. The intake 

velocity limit is also indicated as item G.4.i. of Part IV. 

Intake velocity shall be measured monthly. 

5. Chlorine Produced Oxidants (CPO): In accordance with the Surface Water Quality Standards N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1 

et seq. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) is now referred to as CPO. The term CPO is simply a more appropriate 

name for the compounds which the TRC test measures. The TRC test measures not only residual chlorine, but 

the sum of free and combined chlorine and bromine as well. 

The daily maximum limitation of 0.2 mg/L is based on 40 CFR 423.13(b)(1), N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.6(c), and is 

retained from the existing permit consistent with the provisions of N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. Monthly average 

monitoring and reporting is also required. 

A narrative condition has been included as item A.1.j. of Part IV to ensure that chlorination only occurs for 

two hours per day consistent with 40 CFR Part 423. An additional CPO limit on a concentration basis applies 

to the turbine building closed cooling water heat exchanger. Data for this wastestream shall be tracked on 

monitoring report forms. 

CPO shall be monitored daily with a grab sample. 

6. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET): Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a national policy 

of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In addition, 

section 101(a)(3) of the CWA and the State's Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(a)3 state that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts is prohibited. Further, 40 CFR 122.44(d) 

and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.6(a) require that where the Department determines using site-specific WET data that a 

discharge causes, shows a reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above the SWQS, the 

permitting authority must establish effluent limits for WET. 

Acute WET sampling was imposed in the existing permit at a quarterly monitoring frequency. The 

Department issued a modification on November 26, 1996 that reduced the monitoring frequency to annual. 

Since January 1995, the permittee has consistently reported an acute result of LC50>100% for this discharge. 

However, given the significant volume of this discharge, the Department has retained annual sampling. A 

composite sample type shall be used. 

The test species method to be used for acute testing shall be the Mysidopsis bahia 96 hour definitive test. Such 

selection is based on the saline characteristics of the receiving stream, the existing permit, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5 

and N.J.A.C. 7:18, the Regulations Governing the Certification of Laboratories and Environmental 

Measurements (N.J.A.C. 7:18). 

DSN 002A - Non-Contact Cooling Water (3.5 MGD) 

1. Flow: This permit does not include a numerical limitation for flow. Monitoring conditions are applied 

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13. 

Monitoring is required twice per month with a calculated sample type. 

2. pH: The effluent limitations of 6.5 standard units as a monthly minimum and 8.5 standard units as a monthly 

maximum are consistent with the existing permit and are imposed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. A 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 34 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

condition for monitoring intake pH has been included since a narrative condition regarding pH compliance has 

been included in Part IV A.1.h. 

Monitoring for pH shall be conducted twice/week with a grab sample type. 

3. Effluent Temperature, Intake Temperature, Temperature Difference Between Intake and Discharge, Net Rate 

of Addition of Heat: The effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements are originally based on the 

findings of the permittee’s 1987 316(a) study and are retained from the existing permit in accordance with 

N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. Additional information regarding temperature and heat limitations is included in the 

Section 316(a) determination discussed previously in this Fact Sheet. 

Temperature shall be monitored on a twice/month basis with a grab sample type. 

4. Chlorine Produced Oxidants (CPO): In accordance with the Surface Water Quality Standards N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1 

et seq. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) is now referred to as CPO. The daily maximum limitation of 0.2 mg/L 

is based on 40 CFR 423.13(b)(1) and is retained from the existing permit in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:14A13.19. Monthly average monitoring and reporting is also required. 

Monitoring for CPO shall be conducted on a twice/month basis with a grab sample type. 

5. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET): Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a national policy 

of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In addition, 

section 101(a)(3) of the CWA and the State's Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(a)3 state that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts is prohibited. Further, 40 CFR 122.44(d) 

and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.6(a) require that where the Department determines using site-specific WET data that a 

discharge causes, shows a reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above the SWQS, the 

permitting authority must establish effluent limits for WET. 

Acute WET sampling was imposed in the existing permit at a quarterly monitoring frequency. The 

Department issued a modification on November 26, 1996 that reduced the monitoring frequency to annual. 

Since January 1995, the permittee has consistently reported an acute result of LC50>100% for this discharge. 

However, given the volume of this discharge, the Department has retained annual sampling. A composite

sample type shall be used. 

The test species method to be used for acute testing shall be the Mysidopsis bahia 96 hour definitive test. Such 

selection is based on the saline characteristics of the receiving stream, the existing permit, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5 

and N.J.A.C. 7:18, the Regulations Governing the Certification of Laboratories and Environmental 

Measurements (N.J.A.C. 7:18). 

DSN 004A - Non-Contact Cooling Water, Stormwater, Floor Drains (0.06 MGD) 

 

1. Flow: This permit does not include a numerical limitation for flow. Monitoring conditions are applied 

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13. Consistent with the existing permit, the permittee is required to monitor 

and report net flow and heat exchanger flow where net flow shall be used for the purposes of calculating 

loading values. 

Effluent flow monitoring and heat exchanger flow monitoring (internal monitoring) shall be performed 

monthly. Net flow shall be calculated on a monthly basis. 

2. Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Net: The concentration limitations are based on 40 CFR 423.12(b)(3), are 

consistent with the existing permit, and are imposed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. The loading 

limitations are based on the long- term average flow of 0.06 MGD. As the source water for this discharge is 

the receiving stream, the permittee was allowed under the previous permit to meet these limitations on a ‘net’ 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 35 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

basis. This condition has been retained as it is allowable under N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.4(k). Because net limits 

are applied, monitoring and reporting for intake and effluent TSS is also required as a monthly average and 

daily maximum. 

Monitoring for TSS shall be conducted on a monthly basis with a grab sample type. 

3. pH: The effluent limitations of 6.0 standard units as a monthly minimum and 9.0 standard units as a monthly 

maximum are consistent with the existing permit and are imposed in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. A 

condition for monitoring intake pH has been included since a narrative condition regarding pH compliance has 

been included in Part IV A.1.h. 

Monitoring for pH shall be conducted once/week with a grab sample type. 

4. Effluent Temperature: The effluent limitation of 37.2 degrees Celsius as a daily maximum is based on the 

anti-backsliding provisions as cited in N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. Monthly average monitoring and reporting is 

also required. 

Monitoring for effluent temperature shall be conducted on a monthly basis with a grab sample type. 

5. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: The effluent limitations are based on N.J.A.C. 7:14A-12.8(c). The loading 

limitations are based on the long term average flow of 0.06 MGD. As the source water for this discharge is the 

receiving stream, the permittee was allowed under the previous permit to meet these limitations on a ‘net’ 

basis. This condition has been retained as it is allowable under N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.4(k). Because net limits 

are applied, monitoring and reporting for intake and effluent petroleum hydrocarbons is also required as a 

monthly average and daily maximum. 

Monitoring for petroleum hydrocarbons shall be conducted on a monthly basis with a grab sample type. 

6. Total Organic Carbon: The daily maximum effluent limitation of 50 mg/L is imposed consistent with the 

existing permit pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. Monthly average monitoring and reporting is also required. 

Monitoring for total organic carbon shall be conducted on a monthly basis with a grab sample type. 

7. Chlorine Produced Oxidants (CPO): In accordance with the Surface Water Quality Standards N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1 

et seq. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) is now referred to as CPO. The daily maximum limitation of 0.2 mg/L 

is based on 40 CFR 423.13(b)(1) and is retained from the existing permit in accordance with N.J.A.C 7:14A13.19. Monthly average monitoring and reporting is also required. 

Monitoring for CPO shall be conducted on a monthly basis with a grab sample type. 

8. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET): Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a national policy 

of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In addition, 

section 101(a)(3) of the CWA and the State's Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) at N.J.A.C. 7:9B1.5(a)3 state that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts is prohibited. Further, 40 CFR 122.44(d) 

and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.6(a) require that where the Department determines using site-specific WET data that a 

discharge causes, shows a reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above the SWQS, the 

permitting authority must establish effluent limits for WET. 

Acute WET sampling was imposed in the existing permit at a quarterly monitoring frequency. The 

Department issued a modification on November 26, 1996 that reduced the monitoring frequency to annual. 

Since January 1995, the permittee has consistently reported an acute result of LC50>100% for this discharge. 

However, given the volume of this discharge, the Department has retained annual sampling. A composite

sample type shall be used. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 36 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

The test species method to be used for acute testing shall be the Mysidopsis bahia 96 hour definitive test. Such 

selection is based on the saline characteristics of the receiving stream, the existing permit, N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5 

and N.J.A.C. 7:18, the Regulations Governing the Certification of Laboratories and Environmental 

Measurements (N.J.A.C. 7:18). 

DSN 005A – Dilution Water (732 MGD) 

1. Flow: This permit does not include a numerical limitation for flow. Monitoring conditions are applied 

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13. Part IV contains dilution pump operation requirements that are in 

accordance with the existing permit. 

Monitoring is required on a continuous basis with a calculated sample type. 

 

DSN 007A – Miscellaneous Wastewater (30 MGD) 

1. Flow: This permit does not include a numerical limitation for flow. Monitoring conditions are applied 

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13. 

Monitoring is required on a monthly basis with a calculated sample type. 

2. pH: The pH of the effluent shall not be less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than 9.0 S.U.; or, during periods when 

the pH of the intake water is less than 6.0, the pH of the effluent shall not be less than that of the intake; or, 

during periods when the pH of the intake water is greater than 9.0, the pH shall not be greater than that of the 

intake. However, no monitoring or reporting for pH is required at this time at this outfall. This requirement is 

included as a narrative condition in Part IV. 

This condition is included as item A.1.h. of Part IV. 

3. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: The monthly average effluent limitation of 10 mg/L and the daily maximum effluent 

limitation of 15 mg/L are imposed consistent with the existing permit pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:14A-13.19. These 

limitations are also consistent with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-12.8(c). 

DSN 008A – Intake Screen Washwater (2.4 MGD) 

1. Flow: Monitoring conditions for flow are applied pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13 and to allow for a 

measure of intake screen washwater. A flow limit is not imposed at this outfall. No pollutants are added to 

this discharge as the discharge consists of canal water used for screen washwater. 

Monitoring is required on a monthly basis with a calculated sample type. 

DSN 009A – Discharge from Fish Sampling Pool (0 MGD) 

1. Flow: Monitoring conditions for flow are applied pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:14A-13.13 and to ensure that any 

operations at this discharge point are tracked. A flow limit is not imposed at this outfall. No pollutants are 

added to this discharge as the discharge consists of canal water used for the purposes of providing water in the 

fish sampling pool. Monitoring is required on a monthly basis with a calculated sample type. 

C. Effluent Monitoring Frequencies and Sample Types: 

Monitoring frequencies and sample types are in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-14, unless specified otherwise in 

the permit. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-14.2, the permittee may submit a written request for a modification 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 37 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

of the permit to decrease monitoring frequencies for non-limited parameters listed in Part III if site specific 

conditions indicate the applicability of such a modification. 

D. Recommended Quantitation Levels Policy (RQLs): 

The Department developed the RQLs to insure that useful data is provided to the Department in order to 

characterize the discharger's effluent. The Department recommends that the permittee achieve detection levels that 

are at least as sensitive as the RQLs found in Part III. The Department has determined that the quantitation levels 

listed therein can be reliably and consistently achieved by most state certified laboratories for most of the listed 

pollutants using the appropriate procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 136. FAILURE TO ATTAIN A 

QUANTITATION LEVEL AS SENSITIVE AS A LISTED RQL IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE PERMIT, 

BUT DOES TRIGGER SOME ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PERMITTEE AS 

SPECIFIED IN PART IV A.1.c. OF THE PERMIT. 

E. Reporting Requirements: 

All data requested to be submitted by this permit shall be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), 

Waste Characterization Reports (WCR), and Residual Transfer Reports (RTR) as appropriate and submitted to the 

Department as required by N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.8(a). 

F. General conditions: 

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.3 and 6.1(b), specific rules from the New Jersey Administrative Code have 

been incorporated either expressly or by reference in Part I and Part II.

G. Operator Classification Number: 

The operator classification requirement is no longer included in the permit. To obtain or determine the appropriate 

licensed operator classification for the treatment works specified, the permittee shall contact the Bureau of 

Engineering South at (609) 984-6840. 

H. Residuals/Sludge Conditions: 

All treatment works with a discharge regulated under N.J.A.C. 7:14A must have permits that implement applicable 

technical standards for residuals management. Generally, the permit issued to the treatment works generating the 

residual will include applicable residual quality monitoring as well as other general conditions required by 

N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6. In addition, the permit may include conditions related to any aspect of residual management 

developed on a case-by-case basis where the Department determines that such conditions are necessary to protect 

public health and the environment. 

The permit may also include conditions establishing requirements for treatment works that send residual to other 

facilities for final use or disposal. Thus, ALL residual preparers (that is, generators as well as persons who 

manage the residual) are required to submit basic information concerning their residual use and disposal practices. 

This basic information is submitted by compliance with the Sludge Quality Assurance Regulations (N.J.A.C. 

7:14C). 

The documents listed below have been used to establish the residual conditions of the Draft Permit: 

a. United States Environmental Protection Agency “Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge” 

(40 CFR Part 503), 

b. "New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System” (N.J.A.C. 7:14A), 

c. Technical Manual for Residuals Management, May 1998, 

d. USEPA Part 503 Implementation Guidance, EPA 833-R-95-001, October 1995. This document is a 

compilation of federal requirements, management practices and EPA recommended permit conditions 

for sewage sludge use and management practices, 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 38 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

e. USEPA A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule, EPA/832/R-93/003, September 

1994, 

f. New Jersey “Statewide Sludge Management Plan”, November 1987 and 

g. New Jersey “Sludge Quality Assurance Regulations” (SQAR), N.J.A.C. 7:14C.

I. Biocides or Other Cooling Water Additives: 

The Department has approved the permittee’s request to chlorinate its non-contact cooling water. In accordance 

with 40 CFR 423.13(b)(2), chlorine produced oxidants may not be discharged from any single generating unit for 

more than two hours per day. Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination is permitted. 

If the permittee decides to begin using any additional additives in the future, the permittee must notify the Bureau 

of Surface Water Permitting at least 180 days prior to use so that the permit may be reopened to incorporate any 

additional limitations deemed necessary.

12 Description of Procedures for Reaching a Final Decision on the Draft Action: 

Please refer to the procedures described in the public notice that is part of the draft permit. The public notice for this 

action is published in the Ocean County Observer and in the DEP Bulletin. 

13 Contact Information 

If you have any questions regarding this permit action, please contact Susan Rosenwinkel, Bureau of Surface Water 

Permitting at (609) 292-4860. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 39 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

14 Permit Summary Tables 

Unless otherwise noted all effluent limitations are expressed as maximums. Dashes (--) indicate there is no effluent 

data, no limitations, or no monitoring for this parameter depending on the column in which it appears. 

DSN 001A

PARAMETER (1) UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA 

(2) 

EXISTING 

LIMITS 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Effluent Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

326 

662 

MR 

MR 

MR 

MR 

Intake Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

MR 

MR 

Temperature Difference Between Intake 

and Discharge (Option 1) 

°C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

10.63 

12.8 

MR 

12.8 

MR 

12.8 

Temperature Difference Between Intake 

and Discharge (Option 2) 

°C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

8.5 

13.9 

MR 

18.3 

MR 

18.3 

Effluent Temperature (Option 1) °C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

26.47 

41.1 

MR 

41.1 

MR 

41.1 

Effluent Temperature (Option 2) °C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

17.89 

41.1 

MR 

43.3 

MR 

43.3 

Intake Temperature °C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

-- 

31.7 

MR 

MR 

MR 

MR 

Effluent pH Su Instant Min. 

Instant Max. 

6.9 

8.2 

6.5 (3) 

8.5 (3) 

6.5 (3) 

8.5 (3) 

Intake pH Su Instant Min. 

Instant Max. 

6.7 

8.3 

MR 

MR 

MR 

MR 

Chlorine Produced Oxidants – Normal 

Operations (Option 1) 

kg/d Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

9.50 

39.7 

MR 

41.7 

MR 

41.7 

Chlorine Produced Oxidants – Normal 

Operations (Option 1) 

mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

# Det. / # N.D. 

0.1 

0.2 

2/21 

MR 

0.2 

MR 

0.2 

Chlorine Produced Oxidants – During 

operation of the turbine building closed 

cooling water heat exchanger (Option 2) 

mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

# Det. / # N.D. 

0.1 

0.2 

3/21 

MR 

0.2 

MR 

0.2 

Intake Velocity Ft/sec Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.68 

1.57 

MR 

2.2 

MR 

2.2 

Net Rate of Heat 

(Option 1) 

MBTU/hr Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

4202 

4537 

MR 

5420 

MR 

5420 

Net Rate of Heat 

(Option 2) 

MBTU/hr Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

3005 

4457 

MR 

5700 

MR 

5700 

Acute Toxicity, LC50 % Minimum >100 MR MR 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

(1) Consistent with the existing permit, the Department has continued effluent limitations for effluent temperature, temperature 

difference between intake and discharge, net rate of addition of heat, and CPO under two scenarios that are identified in this 

permit as Option 1 and Option 2 limits. Option 1 heat and temperature limits are applicable when four circulating water 

pumps are operating for condenser cooling. Option 2 heat and temperature limits shall be applicable during periods of 

condenser backwash, intake component maintenance or during a Maximum Emergency Generating Event. Option 1 CPO 

limits are applicable to DSN 001A. Option 2 CPO limits are applicable during periods of chlorination of the turbine building 

closed CW heat exchanger. An explanation of these conditions is also reiterated as items A.2.j.(CPO), G.2.g. , G.2.j and 

G.2.i.. of Part IV. 

(2) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08 

(3) During periods when the pH of the intake water is less than 6.5, the pH of the effluent shall not be less than that of the intake; 

or, during periods when the pH of the intake water is greater than 8.5, the pH of the effluent shall not be greater than that of 

the intake. 

(4) Monitoring of the parameters listed above for DSN 001A is not required when there is no flow and/or heat load across the 

Station’s main condensers. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 40 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

DSN 002A

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA 

(1) 

EXISTING 

LIMITS 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

3.63 

5.4 

MR 

MR 

MR 

MR 

Temperature Difference 

Between Intake and 

Discharge 

°C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

2.61 

14.5 

MR 

18.3 

MR 

18.3 

Effluent Temperature °C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

18.5 

39.8 

MR 

45 

MR 

45 

Intake Temperature °C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

-- 

29 

MR 

MR 

MR 

MR 

Effluent pH Su Instant Min. 

Instant Max. 

6.6 

8.2 

6.5 (2) 

8.5 (2) 

6.5 (2) 

8.5 (2) 

Intake pH Su Instant Min. 

Instant Max. 

6.7 

8.3 

MR 

MR 

MR 

MR 

Chlorine Produced 

Oxidants 

mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

# Det. / # N.D. 

0.1 

0.2 

9/16 

MR 

0.2 

MR 

0.2 

Net Rate of Addition of 

Heat 

MBTU/Hour Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

6 

33 

MR 

790 

MR 

790 

Acute Toxicity, LC50 % Minimum >100 MR MR 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

(1) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08. 

(2) During periods when the pH of the intake water is less than 6.5, the pH of the effluent shall not be less than that of the intake; 

or, during periods when the pH of the intake water is greater than 8.5, the pH of the effluent shall not be greater than that of 

the intake. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 41 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

DSN 004A

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA (1) 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Net Flow (2) MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.06 

0.06 

MR 

MR 

Effluent Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

8.66 

8.66 

MR 

MR 

Heat Exchanger Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

8.6 

8.6 

MR 

MR 

Effluent Temperature °C Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

21.44 

31.4 

MR 

37.2 

Effluent pH S.U. Instant Min. 

Instant Max. 

6.9 

8.1 

6.0 (3) 

9.0 (3) 

Intake pH S.U. Instant Min. 

Instant Max. 

6.7 

8.3 

MR 

MR 

Chlorine Produced 

Oxidants 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

# Det. / # N.D. 

0.1 

0.2 

7/17 

MR 

0.2 

Total Organic Carbon Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

6.8 

11.6 

MR 

50 

Net Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.71 

10 

10 

15 

Net Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

Kg/day Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.23 

2.27 

MR 

4.54 

Effluent Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max 

# Det. / # N.D. 

4.55 

12.5 

6/18 

MR 

MR 

Intake Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

# Det. / # N.D. 

2.12 

7.8 

5/19 

MR 

MR 

Net Total Suspended 

Solids 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.20 

9.4 

30 

100 

Net Total Suspended 

Solids 

Kg/day Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.05 

2.14 

MR 

22.7 

Effluent Total Suspended 

Solids 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

14.42 

34.2 

MR 

MR 

Intake Total Suspended 

Solids 

Mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

14.23 

32 

MR 

MR 

Acute Toxicity, LC50 % Minimum >100 MR 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

(1) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08. 

(2) Net flow shall be used for calculating loading values only for this outfall. The equation Qnet = Qeffluent – Qheat 

exchanger. 

(3) During periods when the pH of the intake water is less than 6.0, the pH of the effluent shall not be less than that of the 

intake; or, during periods when the pH of the intake water is greater than 9.0, the pH of the effluent shall not be greater than 

that of the intake. 

DSN 005A

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA 

(1) 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

715 

765 

MR 

MR 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

 (1) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 42 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

DSN 007A

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA 

(1) 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Flow GPD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

91 

91 

MR 

MR 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons mg/L Monthly Avg. 

Instant Max. 

-- 

-- 

10 

15 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

 (1) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08. A discharge 

only occurred during the month of 2/08 

DSN 008A

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA 

(1) 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

2.4 

4.4 

MR 

MR 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

 (1) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08. 

DSN 009A

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGING 

PERIOD 

WASTEWATER 

DATA 

(1) 

FINAL 

LIMITS 

 

Flow MGD Monthly Avg. 

Daily Max. 

0.03 

0.23 

MR 

MR 

Footnotes and Abbreviations:

MR Monitor and report only 

 (1) Wastewater data originates from the information submitted on the monitoring report forms from 7/06 to 6/08. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 43 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

15 Contents of the Administrative Record 

The following items are used to establish the basis of the Draft Permit: 

Rules and Regulations: 

1. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., Federal Water Pollution Control Act. [C] 

2. 40 CFR Part 131, Federal Water Quality Standards. [A] [C] 

3. 40 CFR Part 122, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. [C] 

4. N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq., New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act. [A] [B] 

5. N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq., New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations. [A] [B] 

6. N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1 et seq., New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards. [A] [B] 

7. N.J.A.C. 7:9-5.1 et seq., Wastewater Discharge Requirements. [A] [B] 

8. N.J.A.C. 7:15, Statewide Water Quality Management Planning Rules. [A] [B] 

9. N.J.A.C. 7:14C, Sludge Quality Assurance Regulations. [B] 

10. 40 CFR Part 125, Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Subpart H, 

Criteria for Determining Effluent Limitations Under Section 316(a) of the Act. 

11. 40 CFR Part 423, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. 

12. 40 CFR Part 401.2 

Guidance Documents / Reports: 

1. "Field Sampling Procedures Manual", published by the NJDEP. [A] 

2. "Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Instructional Manual", published by the NJDEP. [A] 

3. "EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control", EPA/505/2-90-001, March 

1991. [A] 

4. New Jersey’s 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (include 305(b) Report and 

303(d) List). [A] [B] 

Permits / Applications: 

1. NJPDES/DSW Permit Application dated 6/3/99. [A] 

2. Minor Modification to NJPDES/DSW Permit NJ0005550, issued 1/14/09 and effective 1/5/09. [A] 

3. Draft NJPDES/DSW Permit NJ0005550, issued July 19, 2005. [A] 

4. Existing NJPDES/DSW Permit NJ0005550, issued 10/21/94 and effective 12/1/94. [A] 

5. Major Modification to NJPDES/DSW Permit NJ0005550, issued 4/17/96 and effective on 6/1/96.[A] 

6. Major Modification to NJPDES/DSW Permit NJ0005550, issued 11/27/96 and effective on 12/1/96.[A] 

Correspondence / Reports / Other:

1. Report dated October 29, 2008 to characterize the aquatic resources and impingement and entrainment at 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. 

2. Monitoring Report form data, July 2006 through June 2008. 

3. Correspondence dated December 28, 2007 addressed to Timothy Rausch, AmeGen Energy Company from 

Assistant Commissioner Mark Mauriello, NJDEP finding consistency with the federal Coastal Zone 

Management Act for federal relicensing. 

4. Correspondence dated November 30, 2007 addressed to Commissioner Lisa Jackson from Joseph Dominguez 

of Exelon Generation Company committing to environmental projects related to the Federal Consistency 

Request for License Renewal of OCNGS. 

5. Oyster Creek Generating Station Fishery Data Report dated November 20, 2007. 

6. Second Circuit Court decision regarding Section 316(b) Phase II regulations. Riverkeeper, Inc., v. EPA, No. 

04-6692, (2d Cir. January 25, 2007). 

7. Determination of Cooling Tower Availability” (hereafter “report”) dated March 4, 2006. 

8. Correspondence dated November 7, 2005 formally responding to the Department’s comments on the PIC. 

9. Correspondence dated September 21, 2005 agreeing to the inclusion of four additional target species for 

impingement sampling. 
Fact Sheet 

 Page 44 of 44 

 NJPDES # : NJ0005550

10. Correspondence dated September 9, 2005 granting conditional approval of the PIC addressed to Malcolm 

Browne of AmerGen from Howard Tompkins of the Department’s Bureau of Point Source Permitting – 

Region 1. 

11. Proposal for Information Collection dated June 29, 2005 

12. Plan of Study for Analysis of Alternatives for Dilution Pump Operation at the Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station, May 1995 (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology). 

13. Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure 

Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Revised Final Report, Versar, Inc., 

May 1989. 

14. Technical Review and Evaluation of Thermal Effects Studies and Cooling Water Intake Structure 

Demonstration of Impact for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Advanced Final Report, Versar, 

Inc., 1988 and comments received thereon. 

15. EA 1986 (EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. 1986) Entrainment and impingement studies at 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 1984-1985. Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corporation. 

16. Jersey Central Power & Light Company Section 316 Demonstration for Oyster Creek and Forked River 

Nuclear Generating Stations, May 1978. 

17. 1966 Stipulation of the State of NJ, Department of Public Utilities, Board of Public Utility Commissioners. 

Footnotes:

[A] Denotes items that may be found in the NJPDES/DSW Administrative Record Library located in the NJDEP Central File 

Room, 401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey. 

[B] Denotes items that may be found on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) website located at 

“http://www.state.nj.us/dep/”. 

[C] Denotes items that may be found on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) website at 

“http://www.epa.gov/”. 
dcp_sw.rtf 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NEW JERSEY POLLUTANT 

DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection hereby grants you a NJPDES permit for the facility/activity named in this document. This permit 

is the regulatory mechanism used by the Department to help ensure your discharge will not harm the environment. By complying with the terms and 

conditions specified, you are assuming an important role in protecting New Jersey’s valuable water resources. Your acceptance of this permit is an 

agreement to conform with all of its provisions when constructing, installing, modifying, or operating any facility for the collection, treatment, or discharge 

of pollutants to waters of the state. If you have any questions about this document, please feel free to contact the Department representative listed in the 

permit cover letter. Your cooperation in helping us protect and safeguard our state’s environment is appreciated. 

Permit Number: NJ0005550 

Draft: Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

 

Permittee: Co-Permittee:

Exelon Generation Co.

PO Box 388 - Oyster Creek Generating Station 

Forked River, NJ 08731-0388

 

Property Owner: Location Of Activity:

Exelon Generation Co.

PO Box 388 - Oyster Creek Generating Station 

Forked River, NJ 08731-0388

Oyster Creek Generating Station

Route 9 South

Forked River, NJ 08731-0388

Authorization(s) Covered Under This Approval Issuance Date Effective Date Expiration Date 

B -Industrial Wastewater 

 

By Authority of: 

Commissioner's Office 

 ________________________________ 

DEP AUTHORIZATION 

Pilar Patterson, Chief 

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting 

Division of Water Quality 

(Terms, conditions and provisions attached hereto) 

Division of Water Quality 

Division of Water Quality
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 1

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION Permit No. NJ0005550 

Forked River Discharge to Surface Water 

Surface Water Renewal Permit Action 

 

PART I

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 

NJPDES 

A. General Requirements of all NJPDES Permits 

1. Requirements Incorporated by Reference 

a. The permittee shall comply with all conditions set forth in this permit and with all the applicable 

requirements incorporated into this permit by reference. The permittee is required to comply with the 

regulations, including those cited in paragraphs b. through e. following, which are in effect as of the 

effective date of the final permit. 

b. General Conditions 

Penalties for Violations N.J.A.C. 7:14-8.1 et seq. 

Incorporation by Reference N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.3 

Toxic Pollutants N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)4i 

Duty to Comply N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)1 & 4 

Duty to Mitigate N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)5 & 11 

Inspection and Entry N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.11(e) 

Enforcement Action N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.9 

Duty to Reapply N.J.A.C. 7:14A-4.2(e)3 

Signatory Requirements for Applications and Reports N.J.A.C. 7:14A-4.9 

Effect of Permit/Other Laws N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)6 & 7 & 2.9(c) 

Severability N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.2 

Administrative Continuation of Permits N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.8 

Permit Actions N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.7(c) 

Reopener Clause N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)10 

Permit Duration and Renewal N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.7(a) & (b) 

Consolidation of Permit Process N.J.A.C. 7:14A-15.5 

Confidentiality N.J.A.C. 7:14A-18.2 & 2.11(g) 

Fee Schedule N.J.A.C. 7:14A-3.1 

Treatment Works Approval N.J.A.C. 7:14A-22 & 23 

c. Operation And Maintenance 

Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.9(b) 

Proper Operation and Maintenance N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.12 

d. Monitoring And Records 

Monitoring N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.5 

Recordkeeping N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.6 

Signatory Requirements for Monitoring Reports N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.9 

e. Reporting Requirements 

Planned Changes N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.7 

Reporting of Monitoring Results N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.8 

Noncompliance Reporting N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.10 & 6.8(h) 

 Hotline/Two Hour & Twenty-four Hour Reporting N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.10(c) & (d) 

 Written Reporting N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.10(e) &(f) & 6.8(h) 

Duty to Provide Information N.J.A.C. 7:14A-2.11, 6.2(a)14 & 18.1 

Schedules of Compliance N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.4 

Transfer N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.2(a)8 & 16.2 
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

PART II

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

DISCHARGE CATEGORIES

A. Additional Requirements Incorporated By Reference

1. Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters

a. In addition to conditions in Part I of this permit, the conditions in this section are applicable to

activities at the permitted location and are incorporated by reference. The permittee is required to

comply with the regulations which are in effect as of the effective date of the final permit.

i. Surface Water Quality Standards N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1

ii. Water Quality Management Planning Regulations N.J.A.C. 7:15

B. General Conditions

1. Scope

a. The issuance of this permit shall not be considered as a waiver of any applicable federal, state, and

local rules, regulations and ordinances.

2. Permit Renewal Requirement

a. Permit conditions remain in effect and enforceable until and unless the permit is modified, renewed

or revoked by the Department.

b. Submit a complete permit renewal application: 180 days before the Expiration Date.

3. Notification of Non-Compliance

a. The permittee shall notify the Department of all non-compliance when required in accordance

with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.10 by contacting the DEP HOTLINE at 1-877-WARNDEP

(1-877-927-6337).

b. The permittee shall submit a written report as required by N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.10 within five days.

4. Notification of Changes

a. The permittee shall give written notification to the Department of any planned physical or

operational alterations or additions to the permitted facility when the alteration is expected to result

in a significant change in the permittee's discharge and/or residuals use or disposal practices

including the cessation of discharge in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-6.7.

b. Prior to any change in ownership, the current permittee shall comply with the requirements of

N.J.A.C. 7:14A-16.2, pertaining to the notification of change in ownership.

5. Access to Information

General Discharge Requirements Page 1 of 3
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

a. The permittee shall allow an authorized representative of the Department, upon the presentation of

credentials, to enter upon a person's premises, for purposes of inspection, and to access / copy any

records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit.

6. Operator Certification

a. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:10A-1.1 et seq. every wastewater system not exempt pursuant to N.J.A.C.

7:10A-1.1(b) requires a licensed operator. The operator of a system shall meet the Department's

requirements pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:10A-1.1 and any amendments. The name of the proposed

operator, where required shall be submitted to the Department at the address below, in order that

his/her qualifications may be determined prior to initiating operation of the treatment works.

i. Notifcations shall be submitted to:

NJDEP

Examination and Licensing Unit

P.O. Box 417

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

(609)777-1012

b. The permittee shall notify the Department of any changes in licensed operator within two weeks of

the change.

7. Operation Restrictions

a. The operation of a waste treatment or disposal facility shall at no time create: (a) a discharge,

except as authorized by the Department in the manner and location specified in Part III of this

permit; (b) any discharge to the waters of the state or any standing or ponded condtion for water or

waste, except as specifically authorized by a valid NJPDES permit.

8. Residuals Management

a. The permittee shall comply with land-based sludge management criteria and shall conform with the

requirements for the management of residuals and grit and screenings under N.J.A.C.

7:14A-6.15(a), which includes:

i. Standards for the Use or Disposal of Residual, N.J.A.C. 7:14A-20;

ii. Section 405 of the Federal Act governing the disposal of sludge from treatment works treating

domestic sewage;

iii. The Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq., and the Solid Waste Management

Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26;

iv. The Sludge Quality Assurance Regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:14C;

v. The Statewide Sludge Management Plan promulgated pursuant to the Water Quality Planning

Act, N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq., and the Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1E-1 et seq.;

and

vi. The provisions concerning disposal of sewage sludge and septage in sanitary landfills set forth at

N.J.S.A. 13:1E-42 and the Statewide Sludge Management Plan.

vii. Residual that is disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill unit shall meet the requirements in

40 CFR Part 258 and/or N.J.A.C. 7:26 concerning the quality of residual disposed in a municipal

solid waste landfill unit. (That is, passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and

does not contain "free liquids" as defined at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1.2.)

General Discharge Requirements Page 2 of 3
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

b. If any applicable standard for residual use or disposal is promulgated under section 405(d)of the

Federal Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the State Act and that standard is more stringent than any

limitation on the pollutant or practice in the permit, the Department may modify or revoke and

reissue the permit to conform to the standard for residual use or disposal.

c. The permittee shall make provisions for storage, or some other approved alternative management

strategy, for anticipated downtimes at a primary residual management alternative. The permittee

shall not be permitted to store residual beyond the capacity of the structural treatment and storage

components of the treatment works. N.J.A.C. 7:14A-20.8(a) and N.J.A.C. 7:26 provide for the

temporary storage of residuals for periods not exceeding six months, provided such storage does

not cause pollutants to enter surface or ground waters of the State. The storage of residual for

more than six months is not authorized under this permit. However, this prohibition does not apply

to residual that remains on the land for longer than six months when the person who prepares the

residual demonstrates that the land on which the residual remains is not a surface disposal site or

landfill. The demonstration shall explain why residual must remain on the land for longer than six

months prior to final use or disposal, discuss the approximate time period during which the

residual shall be used or disposed and provide documentation of ultimate residual management

arrangements. Said demonstration shall be in writing, be kept on file by the person who prepares

residual, and submitted to the Department upon request.

d. The permittee shall comply with the appropriate adopted District Solid Waste or Sludge

Management Plan (which by definition in N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1.2 includes Generator Sludge

Management Plans), unless otherwise specifically exempted by the Department.

e. The preparer must notify and provide information necessary to comply with the N.J.A.C. 7:14A-20

land application requirements to the person who applies bulk residual to the land. This shall

include, but not be limited to, the applicable recordkeeping requirements and certification

statements of 40 CFR 503.17 as referenced at N.J.A.C 7:14A-20.7(j).

f. The preparer who provides biosolids to another person who further prepares the biosolids for

application to the land must provide this person with notification and information necessary to

comply with the N.J.A.C. 7:14A-20 land application requirements.

g. Any person who prepares bulk residual in New Jersey that is applied to land in a State other than

New Jersey shall comply with the requirement at N.J.A.C. 7:14A-20.7(b)1.ix and/or 20.7(b)1.x, as

applicable, to provide written notice to the Department and to the permitting authority for the State

in which the bulk residual is proposed to be applied.

General Discharge Requirements Page 3 of 3
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

PART III

LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Oyster Creek Discharge

Canal

001A NCCW Main Condenser SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Sampling for all parameters shall be taken at the discharge into the discharge canal or at the discharge tunnel east of the chlorine monitorDischarge occurs at lat. 39d 48' 40.2" and long. 74d 12' 00.0". Please refer to items A1j and E2f of Part IV for additional information on limits. Please refer to items G2g, G2h and G2i for additional info. on heat and temperature limits.Non-contact Cooling Water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Comments:

Submit a Monthly DMR: within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP).

Monitoring for all parameters is not required when there is no flow and/or heat load across the Station's main condenser (i.e. plant is not 

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - A - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

MGD C

*****

Intake REPORT REPORT 

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

MGD C

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

*****

Effluent Gross 6.5 8.5 SU 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum Maximum

 ***** ***** Monthly ***** Monthly

 January thru December

 pH

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT SU 

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum Maximum

 ***** ***** Monthly ***** Monthly

 January thru December

 pH

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Comments:

Submit a Monthly DMR: within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP).

Monitoring for all parameters is not required when there is no flow and/or heat load across the Station's main condenser (i.e. plant is not 

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - A - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT PERCENT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum

 ***** ***** Report Per ***** *****

 January thru December

 LC50 Statre 96hr Acu Mysid Bahia

Effluent Gross REPORT 41.7 KG/DAY REPORT 0.2 MG/L 

Value

RQL *** *** *** *** 0.1

Average Maximum Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 1 January thru December

 Chlorine Produced Oxidants

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 0.2 MG/L 

Value

RQL *** *** *** *** 0.1

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 2 January thru December

 Chlorine Produced Oxidants

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 41.1 DEG.C C

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 1 January thru December

 Temperature, oC

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 43.3 DEG.C C

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 2 January thru December

 Temperature, oC

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT DEG.C C

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Temperature, oC

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 5420 MBTU/HR 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 1 January thru December

 Net Rate of Addition of Heat

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Comments:

Submit a Monthly DMR: within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP).

Monitoring for all parameters is not required when there is no flow and/or heat load across the Station's main condenser (i.e. plant is not 

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - A - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 5700 MBTU/HR 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 2 January thru December

 Net Rate of Addition of Heat

*****

Effluent Net REPORT 12.8 DEG.C 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 1 January thru December

 Temp. Diff. between Intake and Discharge

*****

Effluent Net REPORT 18.3 DEG.C 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 Option 2 January thru December

 Temp. Diff. between Intake and Discharge

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 2.2 FPS 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Velocity of Intake

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

002A NCCW from Rad. System Forked River Intake Canal SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Sampling shall take place at the discharge to the intake canal or alternatively at the Radwaste Heat Exchanger Room. Discharge is to the Latitude 39d 48' 52.9" and Longitude 74d 12' 28.2". Please refer to item A.1.h. of Part IV for additional information on pH. Please refer for additional information on temperature limits.Non-contact Cooling Water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - B - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

MGD 2

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

*****

Effluent Gross 6.5 8.5 SU 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum Maximum

 ***** ***** Report Per ***** Report Per

 January thru December

 pH

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT SU 

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum Maximum

 ***** ***** Daily ***** Daily

 January thru December

 pH

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT PERCENT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum

 ***** ***** Daily ***** *****

 January thru December

 LC50 Statre 96hr Acu Mysid Bahia

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - B - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 0.2 MG/L 2

Value

MDL *** *** *** 0.1 0.1

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Chlorine Produced Oxidants

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 45 DEG.C 2

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Temperature, oC

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT DEG.C 2

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Temperature, oC

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 790 MBTU/HR 2

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Net Rate of Addition of Heat

*****

Effluent Net REPORT 18.3 DEG.C 2

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Temp. Diff. between Intake and Discharge

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Oyster Creek Discharge

Canal

004A Combined Wastewater SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Sampling shall take place at the sample pipe located inside the fence near the terminus of the 30 inch header or at the outfall of DSN 004

upon on-site conditions. Effluent net flow values shall be used for calculating loading values. Net flow is equal to effluent flow - heat exHeat exchanger flow shall be reported as "internal monitoring". Please refer to item A.1.h. and G.1.h. for addtional information on pH anrespectively.Process Water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - C - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

MGD 

*****

Internal REPORT REPORT 

Monitoring 

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

MGD 

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

MGD 

*****

Effluent Net REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

*****

Effluent Gross 6.0 9.0 SU 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum Maximum

 ***** ***** Daily ***** Daily

 January thru December

 pH

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - C - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT SU 

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum Maximum

 ***** ***** Daily ***** Daily

 January thru December

 pH

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT MG/L 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Solids, Total Suspended

Effluent Net REPORT 22.7 KG/DAY 30 100 MG/L 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Solids, Total Suspended

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT REPORT MG/L 

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Solids, Total Suspended

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT PERCENT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum

 ***** ***** Daily ***** *****

 January thru December

 LC50 Statre 96hr Acu Mysid Bahia

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 0.2 MG/L 

Value

MDL *** *** *** 0.1 0.1

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Chlorine Produced Oxidants

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 37.2 DEG.C 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Temperature, oC

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - C - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT MG/L 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Effluent Net REPORT 4.54 KG/DAY 10 15 MG/L 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

*****

Intake From REPORT REPORT MG/L 

Stream

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT 50 MG/L 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Carbon, Tot Organic (TOC)

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Oyster Creek Discharge

Canal

005A Dilution Pump Discharge SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Outfall discharges into the discharge canal at Latitude 39d 48' 48.9" and Longitude 74d 12' 28.2"Process Water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - D - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

MGD C

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

007A Dilution Pump Seal Water Oyster Creek Intake Canal SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Sampling shall take place at the north side of the dilution pump structure at Latitude 39d 48' 50.9" and Longitude 74d 12' 55.1".

Process Water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - E - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

GPD 

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

*****

Effluent Gross 10 15 MG/L 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

 ***** ***** ***** Monthly Daily

 January thru December

 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

Oyster Creek Discharge

Canal

008A Screen Water Discharge SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Sampling shall take place at the outfall of DSN 008A at Latitude 39d 48' 48.8" and Longitude 74d 12' 27.5".Unprocessed water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - F - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

MGD 

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
DSW00

OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River

009A Fish Sampling Pool Disch. Forked River Intake Canal SE1(C2) B - Industrial 

MONITORED LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM: STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DISCHARGE CAT

Sampling shall take place at the outfall of DSN 009A at Latitude 39d 48' 48.6" and Longitude 74d 12' 27.9".Unprocessed water

Location DescriptionContributing Waste Types

Surface Water DMR Reporting Requirements:

Submit a Monthly DMR: Within twenty-five days after the end of every month beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP)..

PHASE: PHASE Start Date: PHASE End Date:

Table III - G - 1: Surface Water DMR Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Final

Parameter Sample Point Limit Units Sample Point Limit Units Limit Limit Limit Limit Units F

F

MGD 

*****

Effluent Gross REPORT REPORT 

Value

QL *** *** *** *** ***

Average Maximum

Monthly Daily ***** ***** *****

 January thru December

 Flow, In Conduit or Thru Treatment Plant

Limits And Monitoring Requirements 
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

PART IV

SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: NARRATIVE

Industrial Wastewater

A. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

1. Standard Monitoring Requirements

a. Each analysis required by this permit shall be performed by a New Jersey Certified Laboratory that

is certified to perform that analysis.

b. The Permittee shall perform all water/wastewater analyses in accordance with the analytical test

procedures specified in 40 CFR 136 unless other test procedures have been approved by the

Department in writing or as otherwise specified in the permit.

c. The permittee shall utilize analytical methods that will ensure compliance with the Quantification

Levels (QLs) listed in PART III. QLs include, but are not limited to, Recommended

Quantification Levels (RQLs) and Method Detection Levels (MDLs). If the permittee and/or

contract laboratory determines that the QLs achieved for any pollutant(s) generally will not be as

sensitive as the QLs specified in PART III, the permittee must submit a justification of such to the

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting. For limited parameters with no QL specified, the sample

analysis shall use a detection level at least as sensitive as the effluent limit.

d. All sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the Department's Field Sampling Procedures

Manual, or an alternate method approved by the Department in writing.

e. All monitoring shall be conducted as specified in Part III.

f. All sample frequencies expressed in Part III are minimum requirements. Any additional samples

taken consistent with the monitoring and reporting requirements contained herein shall be reported

on the Monitoring Report Forms.

g. Annual and semi-annual wastewater testing shall be conducted in a different quarter of each year

so that tests are conducted in each of the four permit quarters of the permit cycle. Testing may be

conducted during any month of the permit quarters.

h. The permittee shall perform all residual analyses in accordance with the analytical test procedures

specified in 40 CFR 503.8 and the Sludge Quality Assurance Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:14C) unless

other test procedures have been approved by the Department in writing or as otherwise specified in

the permit.

i. Flow shall be measured using a calculated sample type for all outfalls.

Industrial Wastewater Page 1 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

j. pH: For DSN 001A and 002A - the effluent pH shall be in the range of 6.5 standard units (S.U.) to

8.5 S.U. However, if the intake pH is less than 6.5 S.U., the pH of the effluent shall not be

considered a violation of the permit if it is less than the intake pH. Likewise, if the intake pH is

greater than 8.5 S.U., the pH of the effluent shall not be considered a violation of the permit if it is

greater than 8.5 S.U.

For DSN 004A - the effluent pH shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. However, if the intake pH

is less than 6.0 S.U., the pH of the effluent shall not be considered a violation of the permit if it is

less than the intake pH. Likewise, if the intake pH is greater than 9.0 S.U., the pH of the effluent

shall not be considered a violation of the permit if it is greater than 9.0 S.U.

When reporting of the intake water pH is required, it shall be reported as the intake pH on the

Monitoring Report Form.

For DSN 007A - the pH of the effluent shall not be less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than 9.0 S.U.; or,

during periods when the pH of the intake water is less than 6.0, the pH of the effluent shall not be

less than that of the intake; or, during periods when the pH of the intake water is greater than 9.0,

the pH shall not be greater than that of the intake. However, no monitoring or reporting for pH is

required at this time.

k. The net amount of heat per unit time shall be calculated by multiplying heat capacity, discharge

flow, and discharge-intake temperature difference.

l. Net values shall be calculated by using the following formula: [(gross effluent

concentration)*(gross effluent flow) - (intake concentration)*(intake flow)] / [gross effluent flow].

m. Monitoring for temperature shall only be conducted when cooling water is discharged during the

monitoring period (i.e. the facility is generating power).

B. RECORDKEEPING

1. Standard Recordkeeping Requirements

a. The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including 1) all calibration and

maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring

instrumentation (if applicable), 2) copies of all reports required by this NJPDES permit, 3) all data

used to complete the application for a NJPDES permit, and 4) monitoring information required by

the permit related to the permittee's residual use and/or disposal practices, for a period of at least 5

years, or longer as required by N.J.A.C. 7:14A-20, from the date of the sample, measurement,

report, application or record.

b. Records of monitoring information shall include 1) the date, locations, and time of sampling or

measurements, 2) the individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements, 3) the date(s)

the analyses were performed, 4) the individual(s) who performed the analyses, 5) the analytical

techniques or methods used, and 6) the results of such analyses.

C. REPORTING

1. Standard Reporting Requirements

a. The permittee shall submit all required monitoring results to the Department on the forms provided

to them. The Monitoring Report Forms (MRFs) may be provided to the permittee in either a paper

format or in an electronic file format. Unless otherwise noted, all requirements below pertain to

both paper and electronic formats.

Industrial Wastewater Page 2 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

b. Any MRFs in paper format shall be submitted to the following addresses:

i. NJDEP

Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Permit Management

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0029

ii. (if requested by the Water Compliance and Enforcement Bureau)

NJDEP: Central Bureau of Water Compliance and Enforcement

P.O. Box 407

Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0407

c. Any electronic data submission shall be in accordance with the guidelines and provisions outlined

in the Department's Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) agreement with the permittee. Paper copies

must be available for on-site inspection by DEP personnel or provided to the DEP upon written

request.

d. All monitoring report forms shall be certified by the highest ranking official having day-to-day

managerial and operational responsibilities for the discharging facility.

e. The highest ranking official may delegate responsibility to certify the monitoring report forms in

his or her absence. Authorizations for other individuals to sign shall be made in accordance with

N.J.A.C. 7:14A-4.9(b).

f. Monitoring results shall be submitted in accordance with the current Discharge Monitoring Report

Manual and any updates thereof.

g. If monitoring for a parameter is not required in a monitoring period, the permittee must report

"CODE=N" for that parameter.

h. For intermittent discharges, the permittee shall obtain a sample during at least one of the discharge

events occurring during a monitoring period.

i. If there are no discharge events during an entire monitoring period, the permittee must notify the

Department when submitting the monitoring results. This is accomplished by placing a check

mark in the "No Discharge this monitoring period" box on the paper or electronic version of the

monitoring report submittal form.

D. SUBMITTALS

1. Standard Submittal Requirements

a. The permittee shall amend the Operation & Maintenance Manual whenever there is a change in the

treatment works design, construction, operations or maintenance which substantially changes the

treatment works operations and maintenance procedures.

E. FACILITY MANAGEMENT

1. Discharge Requirements

a. The permittee shall discharge at the location(s) specified in PART III of this permit.

b. The permittee shall not discharge foam or cause foaming of the receiving water that: 1) Forms

objectionable deposits on the receiving water, 2) Forms floating masses producing a nuisance, or

3) Interferes with a designated use of the waterbody.

Industrial Wastewater Page 3 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

c. The permittee's discharge shall not produce objectionable color or odor in the receiving stream.

d. The discharge shall not exhibit a visible sheen.

e. When quantification levels (QL) and effluent limits are both specified for a given parameter in Part

III, and the QL is less stringent than the effluent limit, effluent compliance will be determined by

comparing the reported value against the QL.

f. The Permittee is authorized to use the following corrosion inhibitors, biocides, or other cooling

water additives: DSN 001A - Sodium hypochlorite; DSN 002A - Chlorine gas; DSN 004A Sodium

hypochlorite, Bioguard Tabguard Pucks (trichloro-s-triazinetrione).

Chlorine Produced Oxidants (CPO) shall not be discharged from any single generating unit for

more than two hours per day. Samples for CPO shall be taken once during each two hour period

of chlorination. Option 1 CPO limits apply to DSN 001A during normal operations. Option 2

CPO limits apply to DSN 001A during periods of chlorination of the turbine building closed CW

heat exchanger.

2. Applicability of Discharge Limitations and Effective Dates

a. Surface Water Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form Requirements

i. The final effluent limitations and monitoring conditions contained in PART III apply for the full

term of this permit action.

3. Operation, Maintenance and Emergency conditions

a. The permittee shall operate and maintain treatment works and facilities which are installed or used

by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit as specified in

the Operation & Maintenance Manual.

b. The permittee shall develop emergency procedures to ensure effective operation of the treatment

works under emergency conditions in accordance with NJAC 7:14A-6.12(d).

4. Toxicity Testing Requirements - Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity (DSNs 001A, 002A and 004A)

a. The permittee shall conduct toxicity tests on its wastewater discharge in accordance with the

provisions in this section. Such testing will determine if appropriately selected effluent

concentrations adversely affect the test species.

b. Acute toxicity tests shall be conducted using the test species and method identified in Part III of

this permit.

c. Any test that does not meet the specifications of N.J.A.C. 7:18, laboratory certification regulations,

must be repeated within 30 days of the completion of the initial test. The repeat test shall not

replace subsequent testing required in Part III.

d. The permittee shall resubmit an Acute Methodology Questionnaire within 60 days of any change in

laboratory.

e. Submit an acute whole effluent toxicity test report: within twenty-five days after the end of every

12 month monitoring period beginning from the effective date of the permit (EDP). The permittee

shall submit toxicity test results on appropriate forms.

f. Test reports shall be submitted to:

Industrial Wastewater Page 4 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

i. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

F. CONDITIONS FOR MODIFICATION

1. Notification requirements

a. The permittee may request a minor modification for a reduction in monitoring frequency for a

non-limited parameter when four consecutive test results of "not detected" have occurred using the

specified QL.

2. Causes for modification

a. The Department may modify or revoke and reissue any permit to incorporate 1) any applicable

effluent standard or any effluent limitation, including any effluent standards or effluent limitations

to control the discharge of toxic pollutants or pollutant parameters such as acute or chronic whole

effluent toxicity and chemical specific toxic parameters, 2) toxicity reduction requirements, or 3)

the implementation of a TMDL or watershed management plan adopted in accordance with

N.J.A.C. 7:15-7.

b. The permittee may request a minor modification to eliminate the monitoring requirements

associated with a discharge authorized by this permit when the discharge ceases due to changes at

the facility.

G. Custom Requirement

1. Section 316(a) Determination

a. The Department is hereby granting a Section 316(a) variance for the existing once-through cooling

system. This determination is based on the fact that the facility's operations have not changed

appreciably since the time that the 1994 NJPDES permit was issued and based on the fact that

cooling water intake flow rates have remained relatively constant.

b. While the implementation of closed-cycle cooling is not being required under Section 316(a), the

Department would be remiss if it did not recognize the benefits of closed-cycle cooling on thermal

impacts. According to the information presented in the report entitled "Determination of Cooling

Tower Availability" dated March 4, 2006, closed-cycle cooling will result in a reduction of flow

volume at DSN 001A from 460,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of once-through cooling water to

10,000 gpm of cooling tower blowdown. This is a 98% reduction in the flow volume for the

heated discharge from DSN 001A.

c. Once a closed loop system is installed, the permittee shall comply with a daily maximum

temperature limitation of 41.4 degrees Celsius for the cooling tower blowdown. In order for the

Department to consider an alternate limit, the permittee shall conduct thermal modeling for the

cooling tower blowdown. The purpose of this modeling is to appropriately define any heat

dissipation area for consideration as part of any Section 316(a) determination.

2. Requirements to Monitor and/or Minimize Thermal Effects while the Once-Through Cooling

System is Operational

Industrial Wastewater Page 5 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

a. Temperature Monitoring in Oyster Creek - The permittee shall continuously measure the

temperature four (4) feet below the surface of Oyster Creek at the Route 9 bridge. Any results

have a bearing on whether or not the permittee has to perform an Effluent Temperature Evaluation

Study (ETES) as described in b. below.

b. Criteria for Having to Conduct an Effluent Temperature Evaluation Study (ETES).

i. Except as provided in ii below, the permittee shall conduct an ETES if any maximum daily

temperature readings at the Route 9 bridge monitoring location exceed the temperature action

level of 97 degrees Fahrenheit. The ETES is intended to determine what caused the exceedances

and to identify mitigation measures for meeting the action level for effluent water temperature

within Oyster Creek at the Route 9 bridge.

ii. When an exceedance occurs, the permittee shall:

a) Evaluate whether the exceedance of the temperature action level occured solely as a result of

any, or a combination of, the following factors: unusually high intake temperature (i.e. any intake

temperature in excess of 85 degrees Fahrenheit); operation of the dilution pumps in accordance

with item d. below; implementation of the alternate effluent limitations in accordance with a

Maximum Emergency Generation event as defined in G.2.g.; during condenser backwashing;

during intake components maintenance; or when fewer than four circulating water pumps are

operating.

b) If the evaluation shows that any of the above factors caused the exceedance, the permittee is

not required to conduct an ETES. However, the permittee shall submit a report to the

Department within ten business days of the exceedance, which specifies the relationship of the

exceedance to items noted in a) above. The report shall be submitted to the following address:

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting

401 East State Street, P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625

c) When the temperature monitoring action level exceedance occurs and the cause cannot be

attributed to the factors described in a) above, then the permittee shall conduct an ETES where

the conditions are defined in c. below.

c. Effluent Temperature Evaluation Study (ETES).

i. The permittee shall evaluate the relationship of the following factors to the exceedance of the

temperature action level of 97 degrees Fahrenheit: circulating water pump operation, dilution

pump operation, plant power levels, heat rejection, effluent temperature at DSN 001A,

temperature at the Route 9 bridge, and the temperature differential across the main condenser for

the date of the exceedance of the temperature action level as well as relevant periods prior to and

following the exceedance.

ii. A written report shall be prepared documenting the evaluation conducted in accordance with Part

IV G.2.c.i. The report shall include tabular and graphical presentation of daily maximum and

average intake temperatures, effluent temperatures at DSN 001A, Route 9 bridge monitoring

location temperatures, and the temperature differential across the main condenser. The report

shall include an analysis and discussion of the cause of the exceedance and shall include

recommended mitigation measures.

Industrial Wastewater Page 6 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

iii. If mitigation measures are identified that can be implemented while maintaining compliance with

all other permit conditions, then the permittee is not required to obtain Department approval

prior to implementation. Otherwise, Department approval will be required prior to

implementation of mitigation measures or modification of the permit.

iv. Two copies of all written submissions required above shall be sent to:

NJDEP

Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting

401 East State Street, P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-029

.

d. Dilution Pump Operations.

i. When the intake water temperature is at or above 60 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature as

measured four feet below the surface at the Route 9 bridge over Oyster Creek is at or less than 87

degrees Fahrenheit, no dilution pump operation is required.

ii. When the temperature in Oyster Creek exceeds 87 degrees Fahrenheit, as measured four feet

below the surface at the Route 9 bridge over Oyster Creek, one dilution pump will be put into

operation. If, after one dilution pump has been in operation for at least two hours, the

temperature measured at such point continues to exceed 87 degrees Fahrenheit, a second dilution

pump will be put into operation.

iii. When the intake water temperature is less than 60 degrees Fahrenheit, two dilution pumps will be

put into operation.

iv. A third dilution pump shall be held in reserve at the Station and must be put into operation within

40 minutes after one of the other two dilution pumps becomes inoperable and the operation of

two dilution pumps is required by ii. or iii. above.

v. During periods of dilution pump and/or dilution pump component maintenance, a sufficient

number of dilution pumps may not be available to meet the requirements of ii., iii., and iv. above.

In that event, the Station may be operated for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) days in order

to make necessary repairs, provided at least one dilution pump is available for operation. As

soon as a second dilution pump is available for operation, it shall be placed into service as

required under ii., iii., and iv. When the Station has operated under this paragraph for 14 days

and continues to lack sufficient pumps to comply with ii., iii., and iv., the Station shall become

subject to vi. below instead of this paragraph.

vi. If dilution pump operation is required under ii., iii., and iv., and if one pump operation under v.

above continues for 14 days, remedial action will be taken within 24 hours to bring the plant into

compliance with ii., iii., and iv. If the remedial action taken involves reduction of Station power

output, power will be reduced as necessary to achieve the same effects as operating the proper

number of dilution pumps as required by paragraphs ii., iii., and iv.

vii. Paragraphs ii. through vi. above do not apply during Station shutdowns. Any dilution pump(s)

will be operated, however, in a manner that will minimize the adverse impact of Station

shutdown on marine and estuarine life in Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay.

Industrial Wastewater Page 7 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

viii. Paragraphs ii. through vi. do not apply in the event of a hazardous substance spill into the intake

or discharge canals. In such cases, the dilution pumps will be operated in a manner which will

minimize the environmental impact of the spill, while taking into consideration the need to

minimize the possibility of thermal shock mortality of organisms residing in the discharge canal.

e. Thermal Discharge.

i. The rate of temperature change from the Station shall not cause mortality to fish or shellfish.

f. Plant Shutdowns During Operation of Once-through Cooling System.

i. The permittee shall not schedule routine shutdowns during the months of December, January,

February, and/or March.

ii. The permittee shall not schedule routine intake component (e.g. circulating water pumps and

appurtenant equipment, traveling screens and appurtenant equipment, intake ports, etc.)

maintenance which may cause violation of thermal limitations or intake velocity limitations

during the months of June, July, August, and/or September. The Department acknowledges that

the NJPDES Regulations require the permittee to maintain its plant in good working order and

efficient operation and, therefore, some intake component maintenance may be required.

iii. In the event that shutdown or power reduction is required in December, January, February and/or

March (i.e. in the event of an emergency), it is suggested that the permittee institute the following

measures: lower reactor power slowly so the rate of change in the discharge canal water

temperature is approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit per hour; provide a thermal refuge for the fish

in the discharge canal by providing temporary portable boilers; and ensure that the temperture

maintained in the discharge canal is at a level biologically appropriate for those fish present to

prevent cold shock. It is not the Department's intent to jeopardize the safe operation of the plant;

however, if these measures can be deployed and the safe operation of the plant can be

maintained, it is recommended that the permittee do so in order to ensure compliance with item

G.2.e.i.

g. Maximum Emergency Generation Event.

i. The permittee is permitted to increase its net rate of heat addition, effluent temperature and

temperature difference between intake and discharge limitations for outfall DSN 001A during a

Maximum Emergency Generation Event as ordered by the PJM Interconnection Office of

Information Dispatcher in accordance with Section 2 (Capacity Conditions) of the PJM

Interconnection Emergency Operations Manual M-13, dated October 10, 1998 and any

subsequent revisions thereto. If a Maximum Emergency Generation Event occurs, the permittee

shall comply with "Option 2" limits for these parameters. Within eight hours of the permittee

being advised that Maximum Emergency Generation has been ordered, the permittee must notify

the Department's Central Bureau of Water Compliance and Enforcement by telephone declaring

that the Station has invoked the use of the alternate thermal limits of the permit. During

non-business hours and weekends, the permittee shall notify the NJDEP Hotline at

1-877-WARNDEP. The Station must follow-up the telephone notification within five working

days with a written report setting forth the following: the time and date of the telephone

notification to the Department, the time and date the Station actually invoked relief under this

permit condition, and the time and date it terminated such relief.

h. Temperature Limits - For the purposes of the Administrative Record, the Department recognizes

that the following temperature limits apply to the facility in units of both Celsius and Fahrenheit:.

Industrial Wastewater Page 8 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

i. DSN 001A

Temperature Difference between Intake and Discharge (Option 1) - 12.8 degrees Celsius (23

degrees Fahrenheit)

Temperature Difference between Intake and Discharge (Option 2) - 18.3 degrees Celsius (33

degrees Fahrenheit)

Effluent Temperature (Option 1) - 41.1 degrees Celsius (106 degrees Fahrenheit)

Effluent Temperature (Option 2) - 43.3 degrees Celsius (110 degrees Fahrenheit).

ii. DSN 002A

Temperature Difference between Intake and Discharge - 18.3 degrees Celsius (33 degrees

Fahrenheit)

Effluent Temperature - 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit).

iii. DSN 004A

Effluent Temperature - 37.2 degrees Celsius (99 degrees Fahrenheit).

i. Option 1 and Option 2 Heat and Temperature Limits - The Department has specified effluent

limitations for effluent temperature, temperature difference between intake and discharge, and net

rate of addition of heat under two scenarios that are identified in this permit as Option 1 and

Option 2 limits. These limits are applicable as follows:.

i. Option 1 limits are applicable when four circulating water pumps are operating for condenser

cooling.

ii. Option 2 limits shall be applicable when fewer than four circulating water pumps are operating,

during periods of condenser backwash, during intake component maintenance, or during a

Maximum Emergency Generation Event as defined in item G.2.g.

3. Section 316(b) Determination

a. The Department is hereby making a determination that closed-cycle cooling constitutes best

technology available for this facility in accordance with Best Professional Judgment. This

determination is based upon the following factors:.

i. Significant impingement and entrainment losses are documented in both historic and current

data. The magnitude of these losses is due primarily to the location of the facility in a marine

environment. Closed-cycle cooling will reduce water intake usage significantly thereby

decreasing impingement and entrainment effects. Closed-cycle cooling is one of the few

technologies available to target entrainment effects.

ii. Based on the Department's review of the report entitled "Determination of Cooling Tower

Availability" dated March 4, 2006, the Department remains unconvinced that closed-cycle

cooling is unavailable for this site.

iii. The permittee has received from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission a renewal of

its operating license at the facility for twenty years. As a result, any costs incurred from

closed-cycle cooling can be ammortized over a longer time frame thereby contributing to

cost-effectiveness.

b. The compliance schedule for implementation of a closed-cycle cooling system is as follows:.

i. Apply for all necessary permits and approvals by the effective date of the permit (EDP) + 12

months.

ii. Finalize design and award construction contracts by EDP + 48 months.

Industrial Wastewater Page 9 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

iii. Operate closed-cycle cooling system within three years of finalizing design and awarding

construction contracts as specified above.

4. Requirements to Minimize Impingement and Entrainment Effects While the Once-Through

Cooling System is Operational

a. Intake Velocity.

i. When one circulating water pump is in operation, or when one circulating water pump is in

operation in each half of the intake structure, or when there is no flow through the main

condenser, the permittee is not required to measure intake velocity.

ii. The intake velocity shall not exceed 2.2 feet per second (fps) averaged over one minute at any

point at the midplane of each port and the average of the average readings taken at 5 foot

intervals from the top to the bottom of the water column of the individual port shall not exceed 1

fps during 6 port, 6 screen operation. In the event that any screen must be removed from service

due to intake component maintenance, then the 1 fps limitation shall apply as an average over the

effective intake face.

5. Biological Monitoring Program

a. Shallow Water Survey of Estuarine Organisms - A Barnegat Bay-wide beach seining survey shall

be conducted year round to identify and assess all estuarine organisms that inhabit shallow water

environments. This survey will serve to better assess the impacts that the facility is having on

Barnegat Bay and to monitor any effects from the implementation of any closed-cycle cooling

technology. This survey shall be designed to include the following components:.

i. Identify and quantify any forage finfish species, young-of-year, yearlings, early life stages of

predator finfish species, macroinvertebrates, and other life forms encountered within the shallow

water habitats of Barnegat Bay.

ii. Develop relative abundance indices (number of organisms caught per sampling effort) for the

major forage species identified in recent plant-related impingement and entrainment samples.

iii. Perform a trends analysis of those species impacted by the impingement and entrainment

operations at the facility to be used as indicator organisms to conduct a statistically robust trend

analysis of their relative abundance indices over an extended time period once sufficient data

becomes available.

iv. The shallow water surveys should be conducted at a minimum frequency of once per month or at

a frequency set forth in any Biological Monitoring Program Work Plan approved by the

Department.

b. The permittee shall submit to the Department for approval a Biological Monitoring Program Work

Plan, which addresses the study components described above. The Work Plan shall be submitted

by EDP + 6 months.

c. Not later than sixty days after receipt of the Department's written approval of the Work Plan, the

permittee shall implement the Work Plan.

6. Plant Related Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring During Operation of Once-Through

Cooling System

a. In order to ensure that recent impingement and entrainment monitoring is conducted thereby

allowing a long term assessment of plant related intake effects, continued impingement and

entrainment monitoring shall be conducted as follows:.

Industrial Wastewater Page 10 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action

i. The permittee shall conduct ongoing impingement sampling at the circulating water intake during

normal Station operations at a minimum frequency of twice per month on a year round basis.

Sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the June 29, 2005

Proposal for Information Collection or as specified in a Department approved work plan.

ii. The permittee shall conduct ongoing entrainment sampling at the circulating water intake during

normal Station operations at a minimum frequency of twice per month from May through

October and once per month from November through April, weather and operational conditions

permitting. Sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the June

29, 2005 Proposal for Information Collection or as specified in a Department approved work

plan.

Industrial Wastewater Page 11 of 11
OYSTER CREEK GENERATING STATION, Forked River Permit No.NJ0005550

DSW000002 Surface Water Renewal Permit Action