The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a final renewal permit to PSEG on June 29, 2001 to use water from the Delaware River to operate the cooling system at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station.

"After very careful analysis, we have determined that at this time the applicant has complied with the terms and special conditions in its existing permit," said DEP Assistant Commissioner of Environmental Regulation Dennis Hart. "However, we are imposing additional measures in this renewal. Our main objectives are to minimize fish losses associated with the water intakes and to maximize opportunities to increase fish populations in the Delaware Estuary to further offset these losses."

The June 2001 permit continues the wetlands restoration requirement set forth in the July 1994 permit which requires the company to restore, enhance or preserve 14,500 acres of wetlands in and around the Delaware Estuary. This requirement has provided and continues to provide fish breeding and nursery areas, thereby increasing ecological productivity. The required wetlands restoration work is on-going at eight sites: Alloways Creek, Cohansey River, Maurice River Township, Commercial Township, Dennis Township, the Bayside Tract, Cedar Swamp and The Rocks. To implement these permit requirements, PSEG created the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP). To date the EEP has restored and/or preserved over 20,500 acres of land in and around the Delaware Estuary making this the largest privately funded wetlands restoration program in the nation.

The restoration sites have 12 years to become successful, and so far all are on track with acceptable levels of vegetative growth recorded and verified in aerial photos and field inspections. Four of the eight sites were dominated by Phragmites and the reduction of Phragmites is progressing at all four sites. Phragmites is a tall, widespread marsh plant that chokes out other plant life and raises ground elevation thus reducing fish habitat and productivity. Phragmites reduction is progressing through the use of various eradication methods, including a limited use of herbicides.

During the public comment period, the DEP received extensive written comments as well as public testimony at the two public hearings. Many parties commented on the EEP and the wetland restoration requirements. While many commentors praised the environmental benefits of the wetlands restoration program, some commentors expressed specific concern regarding the continued need to use herbicides to meet restoration goals for portions of the Alloways Creek site.

Given this concern, on June 8, 2001, PSEG informed the DEP of its decision to revise its restoration program for the Alloways Creek site. Specifically, PSEG will cease utilizing herbicides for the management of approximately 1,000 acres of the western portion of the Alloways Creek site; retain these Phragmites-dominated wetlands; and purchase approximately 1,000 additional acres to ensure compliance with the permit conditions. The DEP intends to pursue implementation of this decision by PSEG with appropriate refinements, as necessary.

In response to comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PSEG has agreed to construct two additional fish ladders in NJ, provide suitable sites are available. In addition, PSEG has agreed to fund construction of an artificial reef in New Jersey. These new commitments are included as conditions of the June 2001 permit.

Other new conditions in the final permit include a requirement to study the use of light in combination with the sound system, to deter fish from entering the facility. The use of sound alone has not shown promise for being effective for all species, so a combination of deterrents is being explored. DEP is also requiring study and potential enhancements to the fish return system associated with the intake traveling screens so that the water is less turbulent and therefore less stressful to the fish. In addition, the final permit requires PSEG to continue to operate and maintain eight fish ladders; continue the review process by the estuary enhancement advisory committee; and refine its biological monitoring program to obtain more accurate data on the plant's impact on fish populations as well as on the effectiveness of the wetlands enhancements and fish ladders. The company must also refine its plant-related sampling and analyses and update its study of the hydrodynamics at the intakes.

The permit renewal replaces the permit issued in July 1994. The DEP hired an independent consultant, ESSA Technologies of Toronto, to assist in analyzing parts of the application. DEP held public hearings on the draft permit at the Pennsville Memorial High School on January 23, 2001 and at Cumberland County Community College on January 25, 2001.

The permit issued in 1994 included several special conditions to reduce fish mortality and increase fish propagation. Some were required under the Clean Water Act and others were voluntarily proposed by PSEG. Some of the special conditions include improved intake screens and fish buckets to reduce the number of fish entering the plant, a restriction on intake flow, the study of sounding devices to deter fish from entering the intakes, installation of fish ladders, a major wetlands restoration project to enhance habitat for fish propagation; and the conduct of a bay-wide biological monitoring program.

Biological monitoring data on fish populations in the Delaware Estuary and/or River are obtained in accordance with a DEP approved workplan. The biological monitoring data collected by PSEG compliments the long-term and on-going data collected by the State of Delaware and DEP. This data was used in reviewing and analyzing the permit application. The analyses show the populations for more species studied are increasing.

In its June 2001 permit and in its July 1994 permit, DEP determined that retrofitting the facility with new cooling towers would have involved a complicated and wide-scale construction project entailing substantial costs disproportionate to the environmental benefits. While the Clean Water Act does not call for this type of economic analysis, there was legal precedent for such a cost/benefit analysis and EPA concurred with DEP in this matter.

The final permit continues to allow the withdrawal of 3.024 billion gallons of water a day, as a monthly average, as once through cooling water. This water withdrawal rate represents no change from the prior permit conditions. It should be noted that at no time does the cooling water come into direct contact with the two nuclear reactors.

For more information on this permit, please visit http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/hot.htm.