ML12195A344
| ML12195A344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/2012 |
| From: | Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Riverkeeper |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, State of NY, Dept of Environmental Conservation |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12195A334 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 22996, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASBLP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12195A344 (28) | |
Text
RIV000126 Submitted: July 13, 2012 EXCERPT 3895 Pages 3895-4125 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of:
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC DEC No.:
3-5522-00011/00004 SPDES No.:
NY-0004472 For a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Renewal and Modification Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
DEC App. Nos.
3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2) 3-5522-00105/00031 Joint Application for CWA § 401 Water Quality Certification ARBITRATION BEFORE:
Daniel P. O'Connell, ALJ Maria E. Villa, ALJ NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 625 Broadway, 1st Floor Albany, New York 12233 January 23, 2012, 8:21 a.m.
Reporter: Alan H. Brock, RDR, CRR ------
ahb@fabreporters.com www.fabreporters.com Farmer Arsenault Brock LLC 50 Congress Street, Suite 415, Boston, Mass. 02109 617.728.4404 fax 617.728.4408
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3972 1 examine and determine whether there's an area that 2 would be prone to leakage, to your knowledge, would 3 that be able to be prevented?
4 JUDGE VILLA: Sorry, I didn't 5 understand.
6 MS. BRANCATO: Sorry. I can rephrase.
7 Q. You talked about water chemistry. To your 8 knowledge, are physical or visual inspections of the 9 uninspected portion of the pool liner possible, to 10 your knowledge?
11 A. I can't say they're impossible. I know 12 they haven't been done yet with the technology that 13 currently exists.
14 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask a few questions 15 about the Unit 1 spent-fuel pool, and if I could 16 turn your attention to Entergy Exhibit 33, the GZA 17 site investigation report.
18 A. I have that.
19 Q. In your direct testimony -- I'll take one 20 step back -- on Page 9, Lines 11 and 12, you 21 testified that the Indian Point spent-fuel pools are 22 no longer an active source of radionuclides to the 23 subsurface.
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3973 1 A. Page 9, what lines again?
2 Q. Lines 11 through 12.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In the GZA report, on Page 113 --
5 A. Of Page 113.
6 Q. Now, in the first full paragraph -- the 7 first full paragraph indicates that, quote, "From a 8 contaminant plume perspective, these historic 9 releases still represent an ongoing legacy source of 10 strontium in the groundwater to the south side of 11 Unit 1. This is because strontium partitions from 12 the water phase and adsorbs to solid materials, 13 including subsurface soil and bedrock. The 14 strontium previously adsorbed to these subsurface 15 materials then partitions back to and continues to 16 contaminate the groundwater over time, even after 17 the storm drain releases have been terminated," end 18 quote.
19 To your knowledge, when this paragraph 20 refers to "these historic releases," are those the 21 releases from the Unit 1 spent-fuel pool?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I'd just like to get a better understanding
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3974 1 of this concept of partitioning. Based on this 2 statement in the GZA report, would it be accurate to 3 say that strontium that's leaked from the Unit 1 4 spent-fuel pool that's been retained in the 5 subsurface would continue to be released to the 6 groundwater in the future?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And to your knowledge, is this a phenomenon 9 that would continue during the proposed period of 10 extended operation, meaning for a 20-year period?
11 A. We would expect partitioning would, you 12 know, continue at least into the renewal period.
13 Q. And does GZA or anyone else, to your 14 knowledge, measure how much contamination is 15 partitioned into a solid form at any given time?
16 A. We have not done that.
17 Q. And like wise or similarly, do you monitor 18 when the contamination partitions into liquid and 19 releases to the groundwater?
20 A. We monitor the groundwater and the 21 radionuclide activities in the groundwater, and that 22 gives us an indication that that may be going on.
23 Q. At any given time are you measuring how
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3975 1 much contamination is partitioning to the 2 groundwater?
3 A. We are measuring how much contamination is 4 in the groundwater.
5 Q. Partitioning, as I understand it from this 6 report, relates to the radionuclides collecting on 7 the surface of structures; is that accurate? If 8 not, can you please explain your understanding of 9 what that --
10 A. Solid surfaces in general, they can be, you 11 know, natural or anthropogenic.
12 Q. And can contamination migrate into 13 subsurface structures, to your knowledge?
14 MR. TRACH: I'm going to object. Can 15 contamination migrate into subsurface structures?
16 I'm not sure I understand.
17 JUDGE VILLA: I think we need to break 18 it down a little bit. I don't know what you mean by 19 "subsurface structures" and "contamination." If 20 you're following the same line, I've lost the trail.
21 MS. BRANCATO: Okay.
22 Q. I think you just indicated that 23 radionuclides can partition onto anthropogenic
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3976 1 and/or geological surfaces in the ground; is that 2 correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. So what would be your understanding of 5 anthropogenic sources?
6 A. No, they'd be anthropogenic structures.
7 Q. Anthropogenic substructures. Could you 8 describe what those could be?
9 A. Concrete foundations.
10 Q. Would it include pipes?
11 A. Yes, it would adsorb to the surface of 12 pipes, depending on the type of pipe.
13 Q. What I was trying to gain an understanding 14 of a few moments ago was whether particular 15 radionuclides could migrate through the subsurface 16 structures, like pipes, under the ground. Are those 17 radionuclides, to your knowledge, capable of moving 18 into -- inside of a pipe, for example?
19 A. If you have a solid pipe, I don't believe 20 the radionuclide is going to move through the wall 21 of that pipe.
22 Q. Thank you. This paragraph I read earlier 23 from Page 113 of the GZA report talks about
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3977 1 strontium. Does partitioning occur with other 2 radionuclides that have been released from the Unit 3 1 spent-fuel pool?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And which radionuclides?
6 A. Most radionuclides will partition. And the 7 one that I know has been released to some extent is 8 cesium, which does partition.
9 Q. Thank you. And does nickel 63 partition, 10 to your knowledge?
11 A. I believe it does, but I don't know 12 specifically.
13 Q. On Page 23 of your rebuttal testimony --
14 A. One second.
15 I have it.
16 Q. On this page you discuss the north curtain 17 drain sump and the sphere foundation drain sumps at 18 Indian Point. And on Lines 14 through 17 you 19 indicate that these components still capture 20 residual contamination. Is that accurate?
21 A. Let me read it.
22 Q. Sure.
23 A. Yes, these drains are still capturing
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3978 1 residual radionuclides.
2 Q. So does that mean that the contamination is 3 adsorbing to the structures?
4 A. No. I mean, it can adsorb to the 5 structure, but --
6 I think you need to rephrase the 7 question.
8 Q. Sure. I'm trying to get at whether 9 partitioning applies to these structures. Does the 10 contamination partition to or from the north curtain 11 drain or the sphere foundation drain sump?
12 A. If there are radionuclides in the water, 13 they can partition to the outside or inside of the 14 pipe, depending on where that water ends up.
15 Q. And so will residual contamination that's 16 captured in the north curtain drain and the sphere 17 foundation drain sump continue to be released into 18 the environment in the future?
19 A. Water that enters the drains containing 20 radionuclides will be captured by those drains; and 21 depending on which drain and which radionuclide, 22 some of it will be released through a monitored 23 pathway. Other portions of it are taken out through
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 3979 1 treatment and disposed of -- I guess I don't know 2 exactly where it's disposed of, but it's off-site.
3 Q. Would any of that ever have the opportunity 4 to enter back into the groundwater once it's in the 5 drain or the sump?
6 A. Once it's in the drain or the sump, it most 7 likely goes through process, and then it's either 8 disposed off-site, depending on the process, or it's 9 released into the discharge canal. From that point 10 it's not likely to go into the groundwater.
11 Q. Would contamination that you indicated 12 could partition and adsorb to those structures, 13 could those radionuclides go back into the 14 groundwater?
15 A. If it's radionuclides that are partitioning 16 to the inside of the drain lines, then if it 17 unpartitions -- i.e., comes back off -- it would 18 then move into the water in the drain, and then from 19 there it should move to process and not go to the 20 groundwater.
21 Q. Thank you. If you could turn to Page 74 of 22 the GZA report, Exhibit 33.
23 A. I have 74.
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4040 1 in the groundwater?
2 A. It reduced it during that time period, yes.
3 Q. Was this well pump test -- to your 4 knowledge, this was designed to determine the 5 feasibility of extraction or for some other purpose?
6 A. To determine the feasibility and gather 7 other parameters so that we could better evaluate 8 it.
9 Q. And would you agree that as of the time of 10 the status report in 2006, based on this status 11 report, that at this time extraction had been 12 determined to be feasible?
13 JUDGE VILLA: I'm sorry, when you say 14 "at this time," do you mean at the time that 15 exhibit --
16 MS. BRANCATO: At the time of the status 17 report, which was December 2006.
18 A. It's feasible, but it has pros and cons.
19 Q. I'm just trying to get a sense of when GZA 20 determined that it could be done. Would you agree 21 that it was around this time frame?
22 A. At this point -- by this point in time, we 23 would be able to say that extraction of some type is
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4041 1 feasible.
2 Q. Thank you. And would extraction of the 3 radiological contamination at Indian Point, would 4 that result in less contamination existing in the 5 groundwater?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And would extraction of the radiological 8 contamination result in less contamination going 9 into the Hudson River?
10 A. Not necessarily.
11 Q. Could extraction prevent contamination from 12 reaching the river?
13 A. It could prevent it from reaching the river 14 through the groundwater pathway.
15 Q. You testify on Page 38 of the rebuttal, 16 Lines 8 to 9, that MNA is a correct strategy.
17 MR. TRACH: What page?
18 MS. BRANCATO: Page 38 of the rebuttal.
19 A. Page 38?
20 Q. Lines 8 to 9. And here you testify that 21 MNA is the correct strategy because active and 22 identified sources of groundwater contamination have 23 been eliminated or controlled.
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4087 1 rapid or not. Obviously, some things are much more 2 difficult and take longer, and, you know....
3 Q. Thank you. I'd like to turn to a few 4 questions about extraction at Indian Point.
5 A. Which document are we going to?
6 Q. I think right now it's to your testimony, 7 on Page 41 of your rebuttal testimony.
8 A. Okay, I have it.
9 Q. As we discussed earlier, you would agree 10 that pump tests were performed around the time 11 period of 2006 to determine whether extraction would 12 be feasible; is that correct?
13 A. A pump test, yes.
14 Q. Were there not tiered pump tests that 15 occurred?
16 A. There were multiple phases to the single 17 overall pump test.
18 Q. And you may have already testified to this, 19 and if you did, you don't have to answer. But you 20 agree that extraction is feasible at Indian Point?
21 A. Some level of extraction in certain 22 locations is feasible.
23 Q. To your knowledge, was there a particular
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4088 1 reason why extraction was not chosen as the remedial 2 technology to apply to the site?
3 A. There are lots of reasons. We looked at 4 multiple, you know, potential remedial technologies, 5 and we balanced, you know, the advantages of the 6 technology against the disadvantages. And 7 effectively we did that in this case, and we then, 8 you know -- we presented the advantages and 9 disadvantages as we saw them from a geohydrologic 10 standpoint. We presented that to Entergy as well as 11 NRC, DEC. And then those parties came to the 12 conclusion of what was the appropriate remedial 13 response.
14 Q. But there was no technical reason why 15 extraction could not have been implemented at Indian 16 Point?
17 A. It could have been implemented in that 18 particular well; but in fact, there were some 19 significant disadvantages, like it would move 20 strontium from Unit 1 to Unit 2, which we did not 21 think was something that we wanted to do.
22 Q. And in your rebuttal testimony you indicate 23 that a certain number of groundwater extraction
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4089 1 wells could be installed. Would those be at 2 different locations to account for that potential 3 issue that you just identified about commingling?
4 A. I'm not sure we specified in here how many 5 wells. But there are other -- in here we looked at 6 different places where you could put in wells, wells 7 could be put in. And again, there would be a set of 8 advantages and disadvantages that may be different 9 depending on where these wells were put in.
10 So we did not have a formal proposal 11 here. We were just looking at is it feasible to put 12 in wells and, you know, what are the pros and cons 13 of those. You know, we did not get as far, you 14 know, in this location. And here we're talking 15 actually farther downgradient. So we didn't get as 16 far in that analysis. But wells could be put in.
17 Q. And you indicated there were concerns about 18 drawing the contamination plumes together. Did the 19 plumes as they exist now commingle anyway?
20 A. The plumes commingle in a specific area 21 down near the river, but the previous questions were 22 with respect to the pumping test that we ran, which 23 was farther up, and there the plumes are not
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4090 1 commingled.
2 Q. If the plumes toward the source of the 3 contamination did commingle, how does that affect 4 how extraction could be conducted? Does it make it 5 more dangerous? Are there limitations? I'm just 6 trying to understand what the concern was.
7 A. The major concern was you're going to move 8 strontium to a place where it doesn't currently 9 exist, and that means it's going to partition to 10 those natural materials, and now you have it 11 someplace where it otherwise wouldn't exist. And 12 that's certainly not one of the things you want to 13 do.
14 Q. But would you be withdrawing it from the 15 environment at the same time?
16 A. You would withdraw some of it, but other 17 parts of it, large parts, would partition to the 18 environment. You have the solid materials where it 19 wasn't before.
20 Q. And would you be drawing it away from areas 21 where it was and now it would not exist if you --
22 A. It's unlikely that you would be able to 23 move it from one place and then put it here. What
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4091 1 would happen is, you would still have it in the 2 original place, Unit 1, and you would pull it toward 3 Unit 2, and then you would smear strontium through 4 partitioning on all the geologic materials between 5 Unit 1 and Unit 2. And now you have a bigger area 6 that's contaminated with strontium adsorbed to the 7 solid materials -- which, again, is a disadvantage.
8 Q. And if and when a full remediation of the 9 Indian Point site ever occurs at the time of 10 decommissioning the plant, if the strontium was 11 drawn into different locations, as you've indicated, 12 does that affect the way the cleanup is conducted?
13 I'm just trying to understand the disadvantages of 14 drawing the contamination such that you could 15 extract it, when, as you've indicated, the 16 groundwater is not used for any purpose anyway.
17 MR. TRACH: I'm going to object to 18 questions about what is going to happen at 19 decommissioning of the site.
20 JUDGE VILLA: What's the relevance of 21 that, Ms. Brancato?
22 MS. BRANCATO: I'm just trying to 23 understand the implications of employing an
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4092 1 extraction well where the pilot test took place, to 2 get an understanding of how the strontium exists at 3 the site and just how -- it just goes to the 4 efficacy of extraction and feasibility.
5 JUDGE VILLA: Let's move on.
6 Q. And if extraction were to be implemented at 7 Indian Point, do you have a position on where those 8 wells would be sited?
9 A. There are lots of different positions. We 10 have not investigated to come up with the optimal 11 positions. It depends on what the objectives are.
12 Q. And could extraction wells be sited 13 directly over the strontium plume such that it 14 wouldn't have to shift and move and partition to 15 other subsurface structures?
16 A. That's potential. We'd have to look at it.
17 But, you know, there may be structures in the way, 18 et cetera.
19 Q. And would you agree that siting extraction 20 wells as close to a source of contamination is more 21 effective than siting wells further away to a 22 source?
23 MR. TRACH: I'm going to object.
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4093 1 Effective at what?
2 MS. BRANCATO: Effective at extracting 3 contamination.
4 A. I have trouble with the word "effective."
5 It depends what the objective is. It absolutely may 6 not be the right place.
7 Q. And to your knowledge, would siting 8 extraction wells -- do you have a sense of where the 9 optimal location would be in order to prevent 10 migration to the Hudson River? Would it be closest 11 to the source of the contamination or closer to the 12 river?
13 A. With the specific objective of preventing 14 radionuclides from getting to the river, it would be 15 closer to the river.
16 Q. And if extraction wells were sited closer 17 to the river, that wouldn't draw the contamination 18 closer to the river?
19 A. In fact, that could be a downside, a 20 disadvantage.
21 Q. When you say "disadvantage," does that mean 22 that that location could result in radionuclides 23 still reaching the river?
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4094 1 A. No, no. You could put extraction wells in 2 near the river to stop them from reaching the river; 3 but that means you will still then potentially pull 4 radionuclides that are farther upgradient down 5 towards that area, depending on where the wells 6 are -- which I think is what your question was.
7 Q. Thank you. As we've discussed and as 8 you've testified to in your written testimony, the 9 leaks -- the plumes were investigated in 2005; is 10 that correct?
11 A. That's when we started the investigation.
12 Q. And it's now 2012. Do you have an opinion 13 about whether, given the fact that seven years have 14 passed, would that affect the ability at all of 15 extraction wells to completely prevent migration of 16 contamination to the Hudson River?
17 A. No.
18 Q. And is it your position that extraction 19 wells could completely prevent the migration of 20 radionuclides to the Hudson River?
21 A. Through the groundwater pathway, yes.
22 Q. And could multiple extraction wells at 23 different locations be effective at extracting the
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- CROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4095 1 radioactive elements from the groundwater?
2 A. They could be effective.
3 Q. And how much volume could an extraction 4 well actually extract?
5 A. It totally depends on the formation it's 6 in, how the well's designed, how deep it is. It 7 could be any number -- there are too many variables.
8 Q. On Pages 35 and 36 of your prefiled 9 rebuttal --
10 A. I have Page 35.
11 Q. And here, on Pages 35 and 36, you testify 12 about the adequacy of Entergy's aging management 13 program for buried and underground piping and tanks 14 for detecting and preventing future leaks at Indian 15 Point. Both you and Dr. Esselman are attributed to 16 the testimony that's provided on these pages. I 17 would just like to understand the extent to which 18 you informed this particular testimony.
19 A. I think I've already addressed that, 20 haven't I?
21 Q. I'm trying to get a sense of it in 22 particular relation to this testimony.
23 A. Basically, Dr. Esselman and I do work
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- REDIRECT ENTERGY) 4097 1 don't. So it's an added line of protection.
2 Q. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr.
3 Barvenik.
4 JUDGE VILLA: Redirect?
5 MR. TRACH: If we could have a brief 6 moment with the witness.
7 JUDGE VILLA: How about until 10 after.
8 MR. TRACH: Thank you.
9 (Recess taken.)
10 JUDGE VILLA: Let's go back on the 11 record. Before you start any redirect, Mr. Trach, I 12 apologize: Ms. Rotini, I always forget, any cross 13 for this witness?
14 MS. ROTINI: No, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE VILLA: Judge O'Connell, any 16 questions?
17 JUDGE O'CONNELL: No, thank you.
18 JUDGE VILLA: Mr. Trach.
19 MR. TRACH: Thank you.
20 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. TRACH:
22 Q. Mr. Barvenik, you were asked some questions 23 about the north curtain drain associated with Unit
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- REDIRECT ENTERGY) 4098 1 1.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Can you just describe for the ALJ's what 4 exactly the north curtain drain is?
5 A. Certainly. If I can maybe use this 6 exhibit.
7 Q. That's Entergy Exhibit 124?
8 A. It's not on here. Is it 124?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Okay. Effectively, this is Unit 1 here.
11 This is the containment building, pool here, and 12 then the chemical systems building is here.
13 Q. Can you just -- sorry, we have to keep 14 indicating here, because we won't be able to see you 15 point in the transcript.
16 A. I can actually draw a line where the north 17 curtain drain goes. I can draw it on the figure.
18 It's around the nuclear service building to the 19 north and east. Then it runs east along the north 20 side of the vapor -- or the containment building, 21 until it gets to the fuel pools. And then it runs 22 along the north side of the fuel pools proceeding 23 east, until it gets to the east side of the chemical
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- REDIRECT ENTERGY) 4099 1 systems building, and then runs along the east side 2 of the chemical systems building, proceeding south, 3 until it gets about to the middle of that building.
4 And then the south curtain drain does 5 exactly the same thing, except on the other side.
6 JUDGE VILLA: Can you just mark it with 7 NCD?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. Done.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. So that is the location of the north 11 curtain drain. And the north curtain drain is 12 termed a foundation drain. It has corrugated --
13 perforated pipe with crushed stone around it. It's 14 laid at the very bottom of the foundation. It's 15 meant to collect water that comes in from, you know, 16 outside the foundation. And if water leaks through 17 the foundation, it can also collect that.
18 And then it basically picks that water 19 up, transports it to the nuclear service building, 20 where it then moves inside, proceeding east. And 21 then it gets into the containment building at that 22 point by pipe. Then it goes to a treatment system 23 that is located inside the containment building,
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- REDIRECT ENTERGY) 4100 1 where that water is treated. And then from there it 2 goes to discharge in the discharge canal.
3 JUDGE VILLA: So it's a French drain, 4 essentially, on the outside?
5 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't use the word 6 "French drain," but you could use that. It's really 7 a foundation drain. It's built a little 8 differently, but effectively does the same thing.
9 It collects all the water around here at that 10 elevation or above, and then it directs it towards 11 treatment and then discharges as a monitored 12 discharge.
13 JUDGE VILLA: Thanks.
14 MR. SANZA: Your Honor, could we be 15 furnished with a copy of that?
16 JUDGE VILLA: I'm going to make color 17 copies for everybody and send them out.
18 MR. SANZA: Thank you.
19 Q. So is it safe to say that the water that's 20 collected in the north curtain drain and then sent 21 to processing, that's not water that's discharged to 22 groundwater?
23 A. No. That water is taken from groundwater
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- REDIRECT ENTERGY) 4101 1 and discharged through process to the discharge 2 canal.
3 Q. A couple of the exhibits that you were 4 shown earlier, including the exhibit referencing the 5 levels of tritium found in Storm Drain A 2 from 6 wash-out, referred to elevated levels of tritium.
7 When you see reference to an elevated level of 8 tritium, either in your report or in an Entergy 9 document, what does that term "elevated levels" mean 10 to you?
11 A. "Elevated" primarily means levels that are 12 bigger than we expect, and typically that would then 13 be bigger than trigger levels that we've set based 14 on past experience with the site. So that we look 15 at those trigger levels -- we have a very good 16 understanding of the site, and when we see a level 17 above those trigger levels set based on that 18 understanding, then it causes us to take a look and 19 see why that is, quote-unquote, "elevated."
20 Q. And there was a lot of discussion about 21 those elevated levels of tritium in storm drains.
22 Now, do the storm drains release to groundwater?
23 A. Generally no, the storm drains release to
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- REDIRECT ENTERGY) 4102 1 the discharge canal in general.
2 Q. And those are monitored releases?
3 A. And those are monitored releases.
4 Q. You were asked some questions at the 5 beginning of your testimony about some of the 6 quality control on the radionuclide testing.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you recall that?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Are there any processes in place that give 11 you -- other than the QA/QC that GZA does that you 12 described earlier, that give you confidence in the 13 accuracy of the testing results?
14 A. Absolutely. The most important one is that 15 there are split samples taken by both the New York 16 DEC and the NRC, and those samples are tested in 17 different labs, and then we compare the results of 18 the lab that we use versus the lab that DEC uses 19 versus the lab that NRC uses, and we find that those 20 levels all match. And that gives us an extremely 21 high degree of confidence that the levels are 22 correct.
23 Q. Now, you were asked some questions about
(MATTHEW BARVENIK -- RECROSS RIVERKEEPER) 4106 1 Q. You indicate in addition the water that's 2 collected in the north curtain drain is sent for 3 treatment, or goes to be treated?
4 A. Yes, it does.
5 Q. So does that mean that strontium is removed 6 from it?
7 A. It removes some of the strontium, yeah.
8 Q. But not all of the strontium?
9 A. No treatment technologies typically remove 10 all of the material that you're trying to take out.
11 There are various levels of efficiency that you can 12 achieve.
13 Q. And does the water that's collected in the 14 north curtain drain contain tritium?
15 A. It has some tritium -- not very much, but 16 it has some.
17 Q. And is it your understanding that tritium 18 can't be removed from water?
19 A. It's not typically removed. It's very 20 difficult.
21 Q. And you indicated that after treatment, the 22 water is then discharged to the discharge canal?
23 A. As a monitored discharge, yes.
PROCEEDINGS 4107 1 Q. So the radionuclides that collected and 2 were not able to be removed through treatment go to 3 the discharge canal and then to the Hudson River?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Nothing further. Thank you.
6 JUDGE VILLA: Anything else for this 7 witness? Judge O'Connell, anything?
8 JUDGE O'CONNELL: No, thank you.
9 JUDGE VILLA: Thank you very much, sir.
10 You're excused.
11 We need to take up a couple of exhibits.
12 And also, Mr. Little kindly pointed out there's an 13 issue --
14 Sir, you better stay there, because you 15 may have to make a correction in your testimony.
16 Looking at Page 17 of the direct, 17 there's a reference to Exhibit 46 that's on Line 22.
18 Mr. Little pointed out that either the date is wrong 19 or the correct reference would be to Exhibit 8.
20 Exhibit 46 is a document that's dated May 9th of 21 2008. I don't know if you need a minute, Mr. Trach, 22 to take a look.
23 MR. TRACH: No, Your Honor. We put in