Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-11-05T05:00Z

Site Visit Report

	Salem Generating Station

Alloway Creek Neck Road

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 

January 22, 2008

Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of
developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that
reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing
facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric
generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water
intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the
site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the
selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting
facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or
technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  Salem Generating
Station (Salem) was selected for a site visit due to its use of Ristroph
screens, the source waterbody, and its large intake flows.

Facility Description

Salem is located in Lower Alloways Creek Township, New Jersey and
withdraws cooling water from the Delaware River.  Salem employs
approximately 665 people and is majority owned by PSEG Nuclear LLC
(which is part of a large family of companies operated by Public Service
Enterprise Group) and also by Exelon Generation, LLC.  Hope Creek,
another nuclear plant owned wholly by PSEG Nuclear LLC, is co-located
with Salem.  The facilities were constructed on an artificial island
created from dredged material from the Delaware River.  About 373 acres
of the 740 acre site is in use by the two facilities, with much of the
remainder as wetland or coastal areas.

The Salem Nuclear Power Plant uses two pressurized water reactor units
with a combined capacity of 2275 MW.  Both units were built by
Westinghouse. Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1977, with Unit 2
coming online in 1981. Unit 1 is licensed to operate until August 13,
2016 and Unit 2 is licensed to operate until April 18, 2020.

Salem’s 1994 NJPDES permit (NJ0005622) included 316(a) and (b) permit
conditions.  The permit granted a 316(a) variance due to rapid mixing,
and also required a number of measures to reduce the impacts of the
facility’s impingement and entrainment (I&E), such as modifying its
intake screens, limiting its intake flow, testing behavioral
technologies, and establishing the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP). 
The NJPDES permit was renewed in 2001 with many of the same
determinations and conditions.  The facility’s current permit expired
July 31, 2006; the facility submitted its application (including a
Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS), as required by the
now-suspended Phase II rule) in February 2006.  The permit is currently
under administrative extension.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

Salem is a nuclear generating station with 2 units each capable of
generating approximately 1100 MW.  It is a baseload facility with a
capacity utilization rate (CUR) over 90%.  Approximately every 18 months
(in the spring or fall), one unit is taken offline for routine
maintenance and refueling for approximately 3 weeks.

A parent firm of PSEG owns the switchyard and transmits the electricity
to PJM.

Cooling Water Intake Structure

Salem’s CWIS consists of 12 intake bays, each with one traveling
screen and one intake pump.  The screens are comprised of 2 foot by 10
foot sections of ½” by ¼” Smoothtex mesh panels that rotate
continuously, with the rotation speed determined by the head difference
across the screen.  The facility has invested significant effort in
optimizing the performance of the screens, and the design of the fish
buckets has been altered since the screens were installed.  The
facility’s industry questionnaire indicated that the design intake
velocity at the CWIS is 0.9 feet per second (fps).

Fish and debris are removed by separate low and high pressure spray
washes.  Facility representatives indicated that their studies, however,
show no adverse impacts on aquatic organisms due to the high pressure
wash.  The fish and debris troughs merge just downstream of the
screenhouse and all materials are returned to the Delaware River via a
bi-directional return, which ensures that tidal forces carry the
materials away from the intake.

Salem is testing a Geiger screen in one screenwell, as the facility is
subject to high debris loads.

The facility does periodically dredge the area around the intake
structure, noting that the zone of intake influence extends for up to
150 feet.

Salem uses a once-through cooling system with a design intake flow (DIF)
of 3197 million gallons per day (mgd) and a permit limited flow of 3024
MGD. At the time of its construction, it was the second largest
once-through flow facility in the United States.  This was by design, as
the facility has a lower delta T (15 degrees), thereby requiring higher
flows.

The seven foot diameter cooling water pipes leading to the condensers
were built underground and encased within concrete thrust blocks, with
the condensers and other structures on the surface, complicating any
potential alterations to the cooling water system.  Additionally, there
is no common header between the CWIS and condenser.

Salem also operates a service water intake.  This intake is required by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for safety reasons and is generally a
low flow intake of approximately 45,000 gallons per minute (gpm), with
no discernable intake velocity.

Impingement and Entrainment Information

As noted above, Salem had already submitted its permit application under
the now-suspended Phase II rule.  In the application, the facility
proposed to demonstrate that it was employing the best technology
available in one of three ways: calculate I&E reductions against the
calculation baseline, demonstrate that the costs to comply with the rule
are higher than EPA estimates (the “cost-cost” test), or to request
a site-specific demonstration that showed all other alternatives as
having higher costs than benefits (the “cost-benefit” test). 

Facility representatives stated that most impinged organisms are 25 mm
to 40 mm in length, as larger organisms are able to swim away.  In
general, most species exhibited 80-95% impingement survival, with ranges
of 40-60% for the more fragile species.  Salem used a representative
important species (RIS)-based approach, as this approach (and list of
species) had been previously developed by a technical advisory
committee.  The RIS covers between 85-90% of the species impinged or
entrained at Salem.

The largest numerical losses at the facility result from entrainment of
eggs and larvae.  Salem has developed site-specific estimates of
entrainment survival based on biological monitoring, literature values,
and the time-temperature profile of the cooling water circuit.  Facility
representatives stated that the change in installed screen mesh from 3/8
in square to ¼ by ½ mesh resulted in a three percent reduction in
entrainment, but that the Estuary Enhancement Program, the facility’s
wetland restoration project, offsets nearly 200% of the facility’s
entrainment.

Salem has also conducted I&E monitoring as part of its NJPDES permit
since 1981.  Impingement samples are collected as often as three times
per week.

During the visit, Salem representatives discussed a number of
alternative technologies discussed in the CDS: 

In 1994 and 2001, Salem tested sound, light, and air bubble deterrent
technologies.  Despite showing some promising results in laboratory and
in situ studies, Salem determined the sound deterrent technologies did
not appear to be cost-effective and further, while the technologies
deter some species, they appeared to attract other species.  Light and
bubble technologies are not applicable at Salem due to the extremely
high Delaware Bay turbidity and the varying tidal currents.

Flow reduction and variable speed pumps (VSPs) are not optimal
solutions, since the facility would have to reduce generating operations
to compensate for the less available heat exchange capacity.

PSEG’s biological modeling of alternate intake technologies show lower
impingement survival rates for some early lifestage organisms than
entrainment survival.

Ultimately, Salem concluded that the already installed intake
modifications plus the extensive wetland restoration implemented by PSEG
is the most cost-effective alternative, and provides the greatest
benefit to the Delaware Estuary ecosystem.  To support this conclusion,
PSEG’s 2006 NPDES Renewal Application included a comprehensive
analysis of the potential for adverse environmental impact resulting
from cooling system operation using methodology consistent with
USEPA’s 1977 draft guidance for implementing Section 316(b).  Three
benchmarks were examined: whether adverse changes in the balance of the
biotic community have occurred; whether continuing declines in the
abundance of aquatic species potentially attributable to Salem have
occurred, and whether the levels of mortality caused by plant operations
are sufficient to jeopardize the sustainability of fish stocks.
Evaluations of all three benchmarks show that the continued operation of
Salem has had no adverse impacts on populations and communities
inhabiting the Delaware Estuary.

Cooling Tower Feasibility

In its CDS, Salem evaluated closed-cycle cooling, finding that initial
designs for cooling towers for Salem would require 12,000 feet of piping
to bypass and integrate with existing infrastructure. It also stated
that tie-in would require demolition and reconstruction of significant
portions of the plant that are currently buried or located under ground
level, including replacement of the existing single-pass condensers with
double-pass condensers.  As noted above, the facility concluded that
other alternatives were more appropriate.

Additional Information

Salem’s EEP encompasses 20,000 acres of wetlands at 7 sites.  The
restoration activities include re-establishing wetland hydrology and
removing invasive plant species such as Phragmites.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees

Attachment B		Aerial Photos

Attachment C		Slideshow Presentation

Attachment D		Executive Summary, 2006 NJPDES Permit Renewal Application

Attachment E		Closed Cycle Cooling at Salem Generating Station and
Impacts

Attachment F		Estuary Enhancement Program: Tour Guide 2005-2006

Attachment G		Enriching Nature: Estuary Enhancement Program

Attachment H		Site Visit Photos

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA

Jan Matuszko, EPA

Ron Jordan, EPA

Shari Goodwin, Tetra Tech

Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

Ken Strait, PSEG EH&S

Mike Hornsby, PSEG EH&S

Brenda Evans, PSEG EH&S

Cliff Gibson, PSEG Nuclear

Attachment B— Aerial Photos

Please see DCN 10-6513F accompanying this document.

Attachment C— Slideshow Presentation

Please see DCN 10-6513A accompanying this document.

Attachment D--Executive Summary, 2006 NJPDES Permit Renewal Application

Please see DCN 10-6513B accompanying this document.  A full copy of the
2006 permit renewal application was also provided on CD and is available
at the Water Docket.

Attachment E--Closed Cycle Cooling at Salem Generating Station and
Impacts

Please see DCN 10-6513C accompanying this document.

Attachment F--Estuary Enhancement Program: Tour Guide 2005-2006

Please see DCN 10-6513D accompanying this document.

Attachment G--Enriching Nature: Estuary Enhancement Program

Please see DCN 10-6513E accompanying this document.

Attachment H--Site Visit Photos

Please see DCNs 10-6513G-V accompanying this document.

 Hope Creek has one generating unit and uses a natural draft cooling
tower.  The facility was originally intended to be located further
upriver, where smaller waterbody flows required the use of closed-cycle
cooling.  Permitting issues led to the facility being constructed onsite
with Salem using the original cooling tower design.

 The complete 2006 permit renewal application, including the CDS, was
provided to EPA on CD during the visit.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   7