ML16015A175
| ML16015A175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/2016 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-250-LA, 50-251-LA, ASLBP 15-935-02-LA-BD01, NRC-2085, RAS 50857 | |
| Download: ML16015A175 (261) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4 Docket Number: 50-250-LA and 50-251-LA ASLBP Number: 15-935-02-LA-BO01 Location: Homestead, Florida Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 Work Order No.: NRC-2085 Pages 259-513 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
259 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 --------------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
9 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT : 50-250-LA 10 COMPANY : 50-251-LA 11 (Turkey Point Nuclear : ASLBP No.
12 Generating Units 3 and 4) : 15-935-02-LA-BO01 13 --------------------------x 14 Monday, January 11, 2016 15 16 Hampton Inn & Suites 17 Reef Room 18 2855 NE 9th Street 19 20 Homestead, Florida 21 22 BEFORE:
23 MICHAEL M. GIBSON, Chair 24 DR. MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 25 DR. WILLIAM W. SAGER, Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
260 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Florida Power & Light Company:
3 WILLIAM BLAIR, ESQ.
4 ERIN WALKOWIAK, ESQ.
5 of: Florida Power & Light Company 6 700 Universe Blvd.
7 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 8 william.blair@fpl.com 9 Erin.walkowiak@fpl.com 10 and 11 STEVEN C. HAMRICK, ESQ.
12 Florida Power & Light Company 13 801 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 14 Suite 220 15 Washington, DC 20004 16 steven.hamrick@fpl.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
261 1 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
2 BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.
3 DAVID ROTH, ESQ.
4 MATTHEW RING, ESQ.
5 of: Office of the General Counsel 6 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 9 brian.harris@nrc.gov 10 David.roth@nrc.gov 11 Matthew.ring@nrc.gov 12 13 On Behalf of the Intervenor:
14 BARRY J. WHITE 15 MICHAEL HATCHER 16 of: Citizens Allied for Safe Energy 17 10001 SW 129 Terrace 18 Miami, Florida 33176 19 bwtamia@bellsouth.net 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
262 1 CONTENTS 2 EXHIBITS MARK RECD 3 INT-017 Original license for Unit 4 273 4 INT-208 Miami-Dade County's comments to the 5 draft environmental report for the combined 6 operating license for proposed Units 6 and 7 7 at Turkey Point 274 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
263 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 9:31 a.m.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Good morning.
4 ALL: Good morning.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: We are here today on Atomic 6 Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket Nos. 50-250-LA 7 and 50-251-LA concerning the United States Nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission's amendment of Florida Power &
9 Light Company's operating licenses for Turkey Point 10 Units 3 and 4 located near Homestead, Florida.
11 First, let me introduce the Board that 12 will be conducting this evidentiary hearing. Sitting 13 to my right is Judge Michael Kennedy who holds a Ph.D.
14 in nuclear engineering and is a full-time judge with 15 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. Sitting 16 to my left is Judge William Sager who is a professor 17 of geophysics at the University of Houston, as well as 18 a part-time judge with the Atomic Safety and Licensing 19 Board Panel. I'm Michael Gibson. I'm a lawyer and 20 full-time judge with the Atomic Safety and Licensing 21 Board Panel, as well as the Chairman of this Board.
22 Next, I would like to have announcements 23 of counsel beginning first with Florida Power & Light.
24 MR. HAMRICK: Good morning. This is 25 Steven Hamrick, counsel for Florida Power & Light, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
264 1 with me is Erin Walkowiak, co-counsel.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Counsel for the 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff?
4 MR. HARRIS: Good morning. This is Brian 5 Harris, counsel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 and to my immediate right is Mr. David Roth, and to 7 his right is Matthew Ring, counsel for the NRC.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Citizens Allied for Safe 9 Energy?
10 MR. WHITE: Good morning. Barry White, 11 CASE authorized representative. And this is Michael 12 Hatcher, consultant.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Did I miss anyone?
14 (No audible response) 15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Next, I would like 16 to introduce the Board's administrative staff and 17 other support personnel. First, we have two lawyers, 18 Nichole Pepperl, who is in her second and final year 19 as one of our law clerks, and Jennifer Scro, who is in 20 her first year as one of our clerks. Next, our IT 21 coordinator is Mr. Andy Welkie. We also have Joey 22 Ledford, who's with -- hold your hand up there, Joey.
23 He's with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 24 Office of Public Affairs, and he will handle any 25 inquiries from the press or public. Likewise, our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
265 1 court reporter is Brandon Paterson. Officer Becker 2 and Officer Morales are here from the City of 3 Homestead Police Department to provide security for 4 our hearing. And I would also note that all weapons 5 are prohibited from entering this hearing room.
6 One more thing. If you'd please disable 7 your cell phone, we'd appreciate it. If you need to 8 use your phone, please do so outside.
9 This is a brief summary of why we are here 10 today: About seven mile southeast of here Florida 11 Power & Light Company operates two nuclear power 12 reactors called Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The issue 13 in this proceeding concerns the cooling canal system 14 for these two units. Nuclear reactors generate heat 15 and keep those reactors from overheating. Non-contact 16 cooling water is circulated to maintain the proper 17 temperature for the reactors. And at Turkey Point the 18 cooling water is drawn from this cooling canal system.
19 Turkey Point's cooling canal system is 20 known as an ultimate heat sink because it provides a 21 place for excess heat from the plant to be dissipated.
22 Specifically, hot water is discharged from the plant 23 and it flows a long a 13-mile loop, which takes about 24 two days. The cooler water then returns to the plant 25 where it is once again recirculated for cooling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
266 1 purposes.
2 Now in order to operate Turkey Point Units 3 3 and 4 the Atomic Energy Act requires Florida Power 4 & Light to have operating licenses from the U.S.
5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The original licenses 6 for these units were issued in 1972 and 1973 and were 7 later renewed in 2002. The expiration date for the 8 renewed licenses is 2032 for Unit 3 and 2033 for Unit 9 4.
10 Both licenses contain technical 11 specifications that set a maximum water temperature 12 for intake water as it returns to the plant from the 13 cooling canal system. If Florida Power & Light goes 14 over that maximum temperature limit, it is obligated 15 to shut down both units.
16 In July 2014, the cooling canals came 17 close to exceeding the water temperature limit of 100 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and as a result Florida Power &
19 Light sought license amendments to raise the maximum 20 temperature limit from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 21 degrees Fahrenheit.
22 As it is legally obligated to do when it 23 receives such a request, the Nuclear Regulatory 24 Commission staff conducted an environmental 25 assessment. The environmental assessment concluded NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
267 1 that an increase in the intake temperature from 100 2 degrees to 104 degrees would have no significant 3 environmental impact. This environmental assessment 4 was then published in the Federal Register on July 31, 5 2014.
6 Normally the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 waits 60 days before granting a license amendment in 8 order to obtain public comments, as well as to afford 9 interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing 10 to challenge the license amendment. However, in this 11 case the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that 12 there were exigent circumstances that justified 13 granting these amendments without waiting the normal 14 60 days. The specific exigent circumstances here were 15 that Units 3 and 4 would have to shut down if the 16 water intake temperature exceeded the 100-degree 17 temperature limit.
18 Accordingly, on August 8, 2014 the Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commission staff issued the license 20 amendments, published a notice in the Federal 21 Register, affording the public an opportunity to 22 request a hearing to challenge these amendments.
23 In October 2014 Citizens Allied for Safe 24 Energy, which we will simply call CASE, filed a 25 petition to intervene and requested a hearing. After NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
268 1 oral argument here a year ago we determined that CASE 2 had pleaded one admissible contention, which is 3 essentially a legal or factual challenge to the 4 license amendment and that it had standing to raise 5 this challenge.
6 That contention alleges that the NRC's 7 July 2014 environmental assessment does not adequately 8 assess the impact of increased temperature and 9 salinity in the cooling canal system on salt water 10 intrusion arising from: (1) migration out of the 11 cooling canal system or the CCS, which we may refer to 12 it as today; and (2) the withdrawal of fresh water 13 from surrounding aquifers to mitigate conditions 14 within the CCS.
15 Today we're holding this hearing to 16 determine whether there is any merit to this 17 contention.
18 Once this hearing concludes, the Board 19 will evaluate the evidence and issues its decision.
20 The Board certainly could conclude that the NRC staff 21 correctly found in the environmental assessment that 22 the license amendments will not have a significant 23 environmental impact. On the other hand, the Board 24 could conclude that there are environmental impacts 25 not addressed in the environmental assessment that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
269 1 should have been, but that those matters can be 2 addressed by the insertion of additional conditions in 3 the license or that the evidence presented at this 4 hearing itself adequately clarifies any less-5 significant errors.
6 It is even possible if any errors are 7 significant enough that the Board could conclude that 8 the environmental assessment is deficient and that the 9 NRC staff needs to go back to the drawing board to 10 clear up those deficiencies. All of these outcomes 11 are possible depending on the evidence the parties 12 have filed with the Board as well as on the sworn 13 testimony the Board will hear at this hearing through 14 its examination of the parties' witnesses.
15 Now that the witnesses have already 16 provided their direct testimony on paper, we are here 17 today to ask questions of those witnesses with respect 18 to the admitted contentions.
19 The three of us, who are judges with the 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, act for the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in contested proceedings 22 such as this one and make an initial decision as to 23 whether the license amendments should be granted.
24 Those initial decisions can be reviewed by the 25 Commission and can be affirmed, reversed or modified.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
270 1 Although the Atomic Safety and Licensing 2 Board Panel is physically housed within the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission, and although individual judges 4 receive their appointments from the Commissioners of 5 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we are a fully 6 independent entity and are wholly separate and apart 7 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
8 Rather, the NRC staff appears here as one 9 of three parties that will present its side of this 10 contested proceeding. And as three independent judges 11 we will consider the views of the NRC staff, just as 12 we will consider those of Florida Power & Light and of 13 CASE, and I assure we will accord each side equal 14 weight. If one of the parties here does not like the 15 ruling that we ultimately make, after this hearing 16 that party can petition the Commissioners to review 17 our decision.
18 I should emphasize that this hearing is 19 essentially a trial and this Board and the 20 representatives and witnesses for the three parties to 21 this proceeding will be the only folks who have any 22 speaking parts. If you came here to talk about your 23 concerns with Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, I'm sorry, 24 but this is not the forum for that.
25 However, under 10 CFR 2.328 this hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
271 1 is open to the public, and so those of you in the 2 audience are certainly welcome to be here to view 3 these proceedings, and we encourage you to provide 4 this Board with written statements, so-called limited 5 appearance statements, to express your views on the 6 appropriateness of increasing the intake water 7 temperature at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. All such 8 limited appearance statements will be transcribed and 9 placed into the official docket of this proceeding.
10 I hasten to add, however, that limited 11 appearance statements are not evidence, and while they 12 may assist the Board and the parties as this 13 proceeding goes forward, they are not evidence per se.
14 If you have a written appearance statement today or 15 would like to write one up during a break in our 16 proceedings, you can hand that statement to one of our 17 clerks, Nichole Pepperl or Jennifer Scro, and they'll 18 make sure it gets placed in the docket so we will have 19 a chance to review it. If you'd prefer to write up a 20 statement on your computer, you can email it to our 21 clerks using the email address provided in the 22 December 8, 2015 hearing notice, which I believe is on 23 the back table back there, but we need to get those by 24 January 15, which I believe is this Friday.
25 One of the things that we'll be doing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
272 1 today during this proceeding is marking the parties 2 exhibits and possibly the Board's exhibits 3 electronically. This may involve some interchange 4 between the Board and Mr. Welkie, whom we previously 5 introduced as a member of the Panel's IT staff.
6 And we anticipate using some display 7 technology as part of the evidentiary proceedings, and 8 if you have any difficulty with that, Mr. Welkie can 9 help you. You can see the display screen up here.
10 Hopefully this will make the information more 11 accessible and understandable.
12 Once the exhibits are marked, they will be 13 transmitted electronically to the electronic hearing 14 docket at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which 15 will keep our process entirely electronic from start 16 to finish, and that will allow you, the public, with 17 easy access to these documents on the NRC web site.
18 Additionally, as Mr. Paterson's presence 19 indicates, we'll be transcribing this proceeding and 20 at the conclusion of it we will establish a mechanism 21 for the parties to correct the transcript of any 22 errors.
23 Finally, we need to go over just a couple 24 of little housekeeping matters. First of all, we're 25 planning to be able to conclude this proceeding no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
273 1 later than the end of the day tomorrow, which is 2 Tuesday, January 12.
3 Second, the Board and the Board alone will 4 be asking questions of the witnesses. The witnesses 5 are seated here in front of us so we can ask questions 6 back and forth between the parties' witnesses. Once 7 we've completed our examination of the parties' 8 witnesses, we will allow each party to suggest any 9 additional questions it thinks we should have asked 10 but we didn't. Those questions will be submitted 11 privately to the Board. The Board may or may not ask 12 those additional questions, I should add, but the 13 parties certainly will be afforded with the 14 opportunity to suggest those.
15 Finally, the Board left open the question 16 of the admission of two exhibits at its January 4 17 teleconference. The Board has reviewed FPL's 18 objections and they are overruled. The Board admits 19 INT-017, which is the original license for Unit 4, 20 because it is relevant to the background of the 21 cooling canal system, and the Board will have some 22 questions on that matter for the witnesses.
23 (Whereupon, the above-referred to 24 document was marked for identification as 25 INT-017 and was received in evidence.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
274 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Similarly, the Board admits 2 INT-028 because the discussion of salinity in the 3 cooling canal system is relevant to the state 4 groundwater proceedings, which is a topic on which the 5 Board expects to ask some questions as well.
6 (Whereupon, the above-referred to 7 document was marked for identification as 8 INT-028 and was received in evidence.)
9 CHAIR GIBSON: I assume no one has 10 anything further needing the Board's attention, but if 11 there is, please speak now.
12 (No audible response) 13 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. When we will be 14 asking the witnesses questions, be sure to speak into 15 the mic. I may be able to hear you, but it's very 16 important the court reporter get a good copy on his 17 transcript, so we want to be sure and get that done.
18 Mr. Hamrick, are all of FPL's witnesses 19 present in the courtroom?
20 MR. HAMRICK: Yes, Your Honor.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Harris, are all 22 of your witnesses present in the courtroom?
23 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: And are they all seated up 25 here?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
275 1 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. White, is CASE's 3 witness present?
4 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well. If you 6 all could just stand up and raise your right hand, I'd 7 appreciate it.
8 You do affirm that all the testimony 9 you're about to give in this case now before this 10 Board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 11 but the truth? This you do affirm under the pains and 12 penalties of perjury?
13 ALL: I do.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. We are going to 15 be trying to get all of our questions for Dr. Stoddard 16 out of the way, but I assure you all you should not 17 get your feelings hurt if we don't ask you all 18 questions yet. You'll get your chance.
19 And I believe you got to leave at 11:00, 20 is that correct, sir?
21 DR. STODDARD: That's correct. Please.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So what we'll do is 23 if we have time we may have a few follow-up questions 24 for a few of you on some of the things Dr. Stoddard 25 has raised. We'd like to do those while he's here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
276 1 But in any event, what we're going to be doing is 2 we're going to be recessing at about 10:40, allow you 3 all five minutes to submit any additional questions we 4 need to ask Dr. Stoddard, put him back on and ask him 5 those questions. And we'll finish. To the extent 6 there are questions we may ask the rest of the 7 witnesses during this initial period, you don't need 8 to submit those yet. You can submit those at the end 9 when we'll be doing that for all the witnesses. Does 10 everybody understand that?
11 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well.
13 Okay. Dr. Stoddard, as an initial matter 14 there appears to be some inconsistency in the record 15 in regard to your educational background. An expert 16 declaration you submitted in the Turkey Point combined 17 operating license case states that your doctorate from 18 the University of Washington is in psychology, 19 however, the affidavit you submitted in this case 20 states that your doctorate is in animal behavior and 21 physiology. Could you please clear that up for us?
22 DR. STODDARD: Yes, at the University of 23 Washington the animal behavior program, which is a --
24 a bio-psych program, is housed within the Department 25 of Psychology. So my major was in animal behavior.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
277 1 My minor was in physiology. I took half my courses 2 from the Zoology Department next door. So -- so my --
3 the -- the document that I have somewhere in a drawer 4 says psychology on it. I am a biologist.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So you're more like 6 B. F. Skinner than, is that right, than Sigmund Freud?
7 DR. STODDARD: Yes, I don't -- I don't 8 think I ever took a human psych course.
9 (Laughter) 10 DR. STODDARD: I still don't understand 11 people.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, okay. Very 13 well. In your rebuttal testimony at page 9, you opine 14 that migration of hypersaline water from the cooling 15 canal system through the porous oolithic limestone 16 into the Biscayne Bay will have a negative impact on 17 a variety of aquatic life. Is that correct?
18 DR. STODDARD: That's correct.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Are you familiar with INT-20 028, which is Miami-Dade County's comments to the 21 draft environmental report for the combined operating 22 license for proposed Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point?
23 DR. STODDARD: Not by that name.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
25 DR. STODDARD: I may -- I may have read NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
278 1 the comments, but I couldn't --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Welkie, could 3 you bring up INT-028 at page 8?
4 See if you have any familiarity with this, 5 sir.
6 At the bottom of this page the county 7 discusses tritium being found in a deep-well cluster 8 TPGW-10, which is located on the Biscayne Bay slightly 9 north and east of the Turkey Point plant. Do you see 10 that?
11 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
13 DR. STODDARD: And I am familiar with 14 that.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. You're familiar with 16 the deep-well cluster TPGW-10?
17 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well. Do you 19 know how deep that is and at what depth the data was 20 taken?
21 DR. STODDARD: I do not know the precise 22 depth.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, let me just -- hold 24 on a minute. Is there somebody from Florida Power &
25 Light who knows how deep that well is and what depth NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
279 1 the data was taken?
2 MR. BOLLETER: This is Jim Bolleter. I 3 don't recall the exact, but it's over 100 feet deep.
4 So it's a deep well and it's screened at a very 5 discrete interval of -- and again, at that specific 6 well I don't remember if it's two feet or five foot of 7 screen at that deep interval.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Bolleter.
9 DR. STODDARD: So, Judge Gibson, if I get 10 your drift, is -- is -- are you going -- looking to 11 see whether there's actual evidence that the 12 hypersaline plume is going into the bay itself?
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, we'll get to that.
14 You don't have to anticipate me --
15 DR. STODDARD: Okay.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: -- Dr. Stoddard. We'll 17 just take this one brick at a time. Okay?
18 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: This also states that the 20 increase in tritium concentrations became evident in 21 quarterly monitoring results for the June 2012 22 sampling. Is that correct, Mr. Bolleter?
23 MR. BOLLETER: Yes, that's correct.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, Dr. Stoddard, 25 recognizing that you didn't recall this document NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
280 1 specifically, is this the evidence that you rely on to 2 show that there has been salt water migration from the 3 cooling canal system into Biscayne Bay?
4 DR. STODDARD: No, sir. I rely on -- on 5 data measured by DERM that shows elevations in 6 phosphorous and ammonia recorded above the surface of 7 the -- the bay floor.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
9 DR. STODDARD: And I have -- I have those 10 -- those data here to show you, if you're interested, 11 and they're available. If your IT person has them, he 12 can put them on display, if you'd like to see them.
13 Or -- and I have printouts, if you'd like to see 14 those.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, we definitely want to 16 know what you're relying on. Okay?
17 DR. STODDARD: So these -- these --
18 CHAIR GIBSON: But by virtue of the fact 19 that they haven't even been provided before today, 20 these are not going to be exhibits, Dr. Stoddard, Mr.
21 White. These are just going to be demonstratives for 22 the point you're trying to make.
23 DR. STODDARD: Understood.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: We can look at them for 25 that purpose.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
281 1 DR. STODDARD: Understood.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: And I suspect these 3 technical judges will have some specific questions 4 about that.
5 Okay. You say our Mr. Welkie has this?
6 DR. STODDARD: Yes, he does.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Could we display 8 that and then perhaps you may have some -- well, I'll 9 let Dr. Sager.
10 DR. STODDARD: Okay. So this first 11 figure, the upper portion of it, shows pumping from 12 the L31E canal. And as -- the time scales are the 13 same on these. As the pumping begins; this is fresh 14 water coming from the L31E to the west of the cooling 15 canal system, the canal height begins to respond by 16 going up, as you would expect. So we can go to the 17 next figure.
18 And the upper figure here is rainfall.
19 You see it rains in the summer in Miami, and 20 fortunately, it rained this summer. And the lower 21 figure there is two conductivity metrics, one directly 22 above the other. The gray one that you see dropping 23 is up at the surface. The black one that you see 24 holding steady is down at the bottom. It's above the 25 floor of the bay, so it's in the water. And it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
282 1 holding steady. So the rain seems to be diluting, the 2 -- the surface waters, as you would expect them to do, 3 but the water at the bottom is not.
4 So let's continue on to the next figure.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: And I just want to be sure.
6 Has this been provided to the other parties, this 7 information?
8 DR. STODDARD: I don't know. I have -- I 9 have -- I have printouts of these I can give to 10 everybody.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Have you guys seen this 12 before?
13 DR. STODDARD: These are data from DERM.
14 MR. HARRIS: No, CASE has not provided 15 this information to FPL.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Have you?
17 PARTICIPANT: No, that has not been 18 provided at this time.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Well --
20 DR. STODDARD: And -- and your question 21 for me was how do I know this, so I'm only explaining.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, I understand that, but 23 we need to get copies to these other people.
24 DR. STODDARD: I have -- I have copies.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you have paper copies, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
283 1 you could hand those out?
2 DR. STODDARD: I do.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.
4 DR. STODDARD: Who -- would anybody like 5 them right now?
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Can you hand those out?
7 DR. STODDARD: Here you go.
8 JUDGE SAGER: I just want to get something 9 clarified.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Take it from here.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. This is 12 Judge Sager. Dr. Stoddard, a question here just to 13 make sure everyone knows what we're talking about.
14 This long abbreviation that starts with TP and ends 15 with 7B is a well?
16 DR. STODDARD: It's not a well. It's a 17 monitoring -- it's a monitor. It's a -- in this 18 particular case it's a conductivity monitor that's 19 located just east of the Turkey Point reactor facility 20 in the bay just a few inches above the floor of the --
21 of the bay.
22 JUDGE SAGER: At what depth?
23 DR. STODDARD: Pardon?
24 JUDGE SAGER: Do you know the depth? How 25 deep is the sea floor there?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
284 1 DR. STODDARD: I don't -- I spoke with --
2 with DERM about that and the bay varies in depth.
3 This one I was told was about 30 feet deep. I'm not 4 -- I'm not confident of that. But there is -- there's 5 a -- there are some channels that have been dug, you 6 know, the -- the shipping channels, and it may be down 7 at the bottom of that. That's the only way you get it 8 down that deep. But it is not -- it's in the water 9 column. It's not down in a drill hole below the --
10 below the floor. And I confirmed that this morning 11 just to make sure.
12 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you.
13 DR. STODDARD: Yes. So what we're looking 14 at, you remember that in the previous figure we saw 15 addition of L31E water to the cooling canals. At the 16 time that the water begins -- elevation begins to rise 17 in the cooling canal system, as it ought to given 18 you're adding water, the ammonia begins to appear in 19 the bay and phosphorous begins to appear in the bay 20 and it -- and it begins to elevate significantly. And 21 it's not -- that ammonia and phosphorous almost 22 certainly results from years of accumulated plant 23 growth in the canals that has been consistently 24 removed and stacked up on the berms. And then more 25 recently of course FPL macerated the aquatic plants in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
285 1 the canals and leaving the -- leaving the biomass to 2 -- to decompose.
3 So what we've got here now is a migration 4 of ammonia and phosphorous heading offshore into the 5 water. And I think that's probably the most -- the 6 clearest demonstration we've seen so far of migration, 7 because people -- people had seen the tritium before 8 and there was always the question of whether the 9 tritium was coming from underground migration or 10 whether it was evaporating and coming down as 11 precipitation, which tritium certainly does. It's 12 very volatile. But ammonia phosphate are not 13 particularly likely to be moving in this way. And so 14 I think to me this is the most convincing evidence 15 I've seen to date that we in fact have migration of 16 water from the cooling canals into the bay itself.
17 And that's why I've provided that for you.
18 And the last slide, my wife -- I was 19 trying to explain this to my wife last night. She 20 says, Phil, I need a diagram. So I drew a little 21 picture and she says that's great. And it's just a 22 schematic. It's not to scale. But essentially the 23 water goes from the L31E into the canals. We've known 24 there's a hypersaline blob for some time. We've known 25 it's migrated underground. And the question is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
286 1 whether it's getting into the bay. And so, I believe 2 based on the -- on the ammonia, on the -- and the 3 phosphate we're pretty confident now that -- that it's 4 actually getting into the bay water.
5 And the last slide just shows you where 6 these were located. So the L31E outfall is -- is 7 south of the cooling canal system and the measurement 8 site is north. That's about a -- a 10-mile difference 9 as the water flows or the fish swims. And the 10 currents aren't -- aren't favorable to relocation. In 11 fact, they go the opposite direction. So it was --
12 seems pretty likely that the elevated phosphate and --
13 and ammonia are not coming from the L31E outfall, but 14 in fact are coming from the facility itself.
15 So that's how I -- that's why I'm 16 confident that we're looking at water moving from the 17 i the CCS into the bay.
18 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. I have some 19 questions. Go back to page 2, which is the 20 conductivity. Right. So that's in conductivity 21 units. Can you give me an approximate idea of the 22 difference in salinity and psu or ppt between the 23 upper curve and the lower curve, the surface water and 24 the deep water?
25 DR. STODDARD: You know, that's a great NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
287 1 question and if you want to give me five minutes, I 2 can do that. So maybe during the break -- I have my 3 computer. I can pull those data up for you, but I 4 don't have them off the top of my head.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
6 DR. STODDARD: Let me --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, that would be great to 8 do that, but I suspect a ballpark is going to be good 9 enough for us.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Exactly. Yes, I mean, I 11 just -- I think in terms of psu or ppt and not --
12 (Simultaneous speaking) 13 DR. STODDARD: I could -- I could -- I 14 could pull out my -- I could pull out my iPhone and 15 see if I can find a conversion table, but I can't do 16 it for you off the top of my head.
17 JUDGE SAGER: Well, can you tell me is 18 that within the -- in your sketch you showed brackish 19 water over saline water which would occur because of 20 density.
21 DR. STODDARD: Well, here's -- let's -- we 22 -- we can do an -- we can do a -- a -- an intelligent 23 guess. Okay?
24 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
25 DR. STODDARD: So looking before the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
288 1 pumping begins we see those lines are in the same 2 place, which means the surface waters and the -- and 3 the deep waters are the same in the -- before the 4 pumping begins. And then they diverge when --
5 JUDGE SAGER: That would be --
6 DR. STODDARD: -- when the -- when the 7 summer rains start, etcetera. Okay? So dry season 8 conditions in the bay should be normally somewhere in 9 the range of -- and I'm just checking my notes here.
10 I think they're in the range of 30 to 40 normally in 11 the bay. And again, 12 JUDGE SAGER: So the bay does go 13 hypersaline at some times? I mean, it's open to the 14 ocean quite --
15 DR. STODDARD: During the dry season the 16 bay in the shallow areas in particular often goes 17 hypersaline.
18 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
19 DR. STODDARD: Florida Bay as well.
20 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
21 DR. STODDARD: Not extremely so. Not --
22 nothing like what we see in the canals, but more 23 saline than you would find offshore.
24 JUDGE SAGER: So let's see, the surface is 25 the gray on that goes down as fresh water comes in?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
289 1 DR. STODDARD: That's -- that's --
2 JUDGE SAGER: That's floating on top and 3 the --
4 DR. STODDARD: Well, also it's the rain.
5 As the rains -- as the rains fall, they do -- they 6 dilute the surface. You get -- you get a little bit 7 of freshwater separation when it rains.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So is the difference 9 we're seeing outside the range of sort of natural 10 conditions?
11 DR. STODDARD: No.
12 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. That's 13 all the questions I have.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Dr. Kennedy. I 15 got just one quick question.
16 DR. STODDARD: Well, I'm saying -- when I 17 say "natural conditions," I say natura at that site.
18 So you can get hypersalinity for a variety of reasons.
19 So in Florida Bay, for instance, there's almost --
20 there's very little water exchange between Florida Bay 21 and the gulf. And so it gets hypersaline in there all 22 by itself simply from -- from pooling. So the 23 currents in Little Card Sound, Card Sound, Barnes 24 Sound are not very strong. And certainly in the 25 shallow areas you will get -- the water doesn't move NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
290 1 much. It's very hard to say whether the salinity at 2 that location is going to be that way normally because 3 we have -- we have various alterations in the water 4 systems, less water coming off of the freshwater 5 systems for a variety of reasons we can discuss.
6 JUDGE SAGER: I don't know the currents in 7 Biscayne Bay. Are they strong? Does it flush out the 8 bay?
9 DR. STODDARD: You get a -- a -- you get 10 a little bit of a southward current along the shore 11 there, but not -- not a lot.
12 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Dr. Kennedy. Just 14 help me understand the top line. I guess the bay 15 conductivity.
16 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the dark line, the 18 black line.
19 DR. STODDARD: The black line.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Should I expect to see an 21 increase in conductivity when the pumping started?
22 And I'm not sure I see one, but should I have expected 23 to see one? You said ammonia phosphorous are coming 24 out, but why not additional salt communicating to the 25 bay?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
291 1 DR. STODDARD: What could be happening --
2 and here again we're not -- we can't see underground.
3 We're not omniscient. What looks like is happening is 4 that we're displacing -- we've been displacing the 5 saltwater plume for some time into the bay.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
7 DR. STODDARD: And what's happening now 8 with the additional pumping is it's pushing a 9 relatively new -- new pulse of nutrients downwards and 10 out. We're seeing it in a -- probably an increase in 11 the speed of water -- of water dislocation.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Let me try a couple 13 questions just to make sure I understand the point 14 here. (A), we don't see an increase in salinity on 15 this curve --
16 DR. STODDARD: What --
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- at the deep --
18 (Simultaneous speaking) 19 DR. STODDARD: That's correct, which 20 suggests that -- I mean, you could interpret that one 21 of two ways: You could say, well, there's no water 22 coming from -- from the canal system in there, or you 23 can say it's been a chronic condition.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
25 DR. STODDARD: And we're not seeing a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
292 1 change in the salinity, but we're getting that's new 2 is a change in -- in nitrogen and phosphorous. And I 3 believe the latter is the case. And what I think 4 we're seeing is -- is a -- is a new downward flush of 5 water. Some -- you're stacking up -- you're stacking 6 up water in the cooling canal system and so you're 7 going to start -- you're going to enhance the speed of 8 dislocation. So nutrients that have accumulated in 9 that water recently, past couple years from -- from 10 the plants are going to be -- are going to be flushing 11 along with salt that's already down there.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: And just one last follow-13 up question. This is Dr. Kennedy. I have no feel for 14 the time frame, so pumping begins and then there's 15 data being displayed here that you contend exhibits 16 communication between a canal and the bay. Is it 17 consistent with your sense of what the time frame 18 would be? In other words, is this consistent with 19 your understanding of the communication time frame 20 between the canal and the bay?
21 DR. STODDARD: I believe -- I believe it 22 makes sense. If you look at -- at the first figure --
23 and let's go ahead and skip up to the first one there.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Is this the first figure, 25 the one that's pumping?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
293 1 DR. STODDARD: Yes, that's correct. So if 2 you look, the pumping begins in earnest. The date is 3 August -- about August 27th or so is when -- is when 4 you get the big peak. They've -- they've done a 5 little bit of pumping. Three days it looks like.
6 Significant pumping begins around then. You see a --
7 very quickly, within a couple days you see an 8 elevation in the -- in the cooling canals. That's --
9 that's consistent.
10 Now when does the -- when does the 11 nitrogen and phosphorous appear? So that's -- that's 12 our question. And the first elevated measurement 13 appears in the beginning of September. Maybe -- maybe 14 a little bit earlier. Actually it looks like it's 15 sort of mid -- mid-August. And then -- and then we 16 start seeing in September it starts rising and rises 17 from there. So we're looking at a -- at a -- about a 18 -- really a -- a lag of a -- a couple weeks.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let me just clarify. This 20 is Dr. Kennedy. You said mid-August. Is that what 21 you meant?
22 DR. STODDARD: So the -- so the pumping 23 begins --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Late August, looks like.
25 DR. STODDARD: Actually -- sorry, August NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
294 1 -- beg your pardon. It's August 26th to 27th. Yes.
2 So that's late August, not mid-August. Thank you 3 for -- thank you for observing that.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the phosphorous --
5 maybe --
6 DR. STODDARD: And the phosphorous begins 7 -- you start seeing the phosphorous really start to 8 break out of -- of where it was on the -- around the 9 1st of September. So really it's --
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So about five days?
11 DR. STODDARD: It's about five days or so.
12 And then it continues up from there. So it looks like 13 it's just -- it's just beginning to -- to appear in 14 August. There's a -- a tiny little elevation around 15 the 10th of August. And if you look back over, you'll 16 see there's a little bit of pumping that goes on 17 around the same date.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right.
19 DR. STODDARD: So there -- it does -- if 20 you were to do a -- a cross-correlation of these two, 21 I think you'd probably see a very nice alignment 22 between the two.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Are you aware of any 25 negative impacts to wildlife in the Biscayne Bay from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
295 1 the presence of hypersaline groundwater within or 2 underneath the bay?
3 DR. STODDARD: We have seen significant 4 evidence of hypersalinity problems in Florida Bay in 5 the past. It's one of the things that we watch for 6 and we try to avoid. And we have no control of it in 7 Florida Bay except for trying to get more water back 8 into the Everglades Restoration System. People have 9 been very concerned about possible increases in -- in 10 damage to Biscayne Bay. I have heard biologists 11 speaking about damage to seagrass beds that are now 12 occurring in -- in the lower end of Biscayne Bay.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, as an expert 14 you're certainly entitled to rely on other people's 15 hearsay, but those people aren't around. Have you 16 personally --
17 DR. STODDARD: I have not personally 18 witnessed it, no. I don't study seagrass.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
20 DR. STODDARD: My colleague at FIU, Jim 21 Fourqurean, studies seagrass. His students study 22 seagrass. I also teach his students in -- in courses 23 and they write review papers for me. And so, I read 24 those every -- every autumn. And so, I stay up on the 25 literature.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
296 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Is there some 2 specific literature that you can point us to for that 3 specific proposition with respect to Biscayne Bay?
4 DR. STODDARD: At this -- on the seagrass 5 beds at this time, no, sir.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. On page 8 of your 7 rebuttal testimony you state that the literature 8 suggests that elevated temperatures in the cooling 9 canal system have produced thermal and hypersaline 10 conditions that are hostile to American crocodiles and 11 other aquatic vertebrates, correct?
12 DR. STODDARD: Correct.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: To what specific literature 14 are you referring for this testimony?
15 DR. STODDARD: So, I'm referring to the 16 literature cited in my -- in my written testimony.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
18 DR. STODDARD: You have copies of that, I 19 believe.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: We do. We do. Could you 21 tell us specifically what that literature is, because 22 it was not apparent to me, sir.
23 DR. STODDARD: Okay. So Cherkiss et al, 24 the American -- 2011, The American Crocodile in 25 Biscayne Bay; Gaby et al, 1981, Population of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
297 1 American Crocodile at the Turkey Point Power Plant 2 Site; Hutton and Child, Crocodile Management in 3 Zimbabwe, 1989, which addresses thermal maxima there; 4 Kim et al, 2013, Heat Stress Response in Male Germ 5 Cells; Kinne and Kinne, 1962, Rates of Development in 6 Embryos of a Cyprindont Fish; Mazzotti, 1983, a Ph.D.
7 thesis; Moatani and Wainright, 2015, How Warm is Too 8 Warm for the Life-Cycle of Actinopterygian Fishes; 9 Shrode and Gerking, 1977, Effects of Constant and 10 Fluctuating Temperatures on Reproductive Performance 11 of Desert Pupfish, Cyprinodon nevadensis; and this is 12 a great one to try to pronounce, Thorbjarnarson, 1989, 13 Ecology of the American Crocodile. And I believe 14 that's --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you, sir.
16 DR. STODDARD: -- sufficient.
17 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 18 Harris for the staff. I'd like to renew our 19 objection. A lot of these literatures that he's 20 reading off are documents that weren't provided as 21 part of discovery.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: They were not, the specific 23 documents. They were cited in his testimony, though.
24 Correct?
25 MR. HARRIS: They were cited in his NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
298 1 testimony, but they were never disclosed, they were 2 never provided to the other parties.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Your 4 objection is noted, counsel.
5 MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: You stated that according 7 to FPL the crocodile population at Turkey Point 8 crashed in 2015, is that correct?
9 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: What document from Florida 11 Power & Light did you rely on for this statement that 12 the crocodile population at Turkey Point crashed in 13 2015?
14 DR. STODDARD: This was a document that 15 was -- a report that was provided to DERM by FPL.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So you believe that 17 you've seen a document in DERM's possession that was 18 provided by FPL, and that was the basis for the 19 statement, is that correct?
20 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Assuming you're 22 correct that hypersaline water is harmful to the 23 American crocodile and hypersaline is migrating from 24 the cooling canal system into Biscayne Bay, does it 25 follow that there would be a decline in the crocodile NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
299 1 population surrounding Biscayne Bay?
2 DR. STODDARD: Surrounding the bay? So is 3 that to say outside the bay?
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Well --
5 DR. STODDARD: You mean in the bay?
6 Surrounding --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: I don't know.
8 DR. STODDARD: We could say -- I mean, do 9 you mean surrounding --
10 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm --
11 DR. STODDARD: -- the cooling canal system 12 in the bay?
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Let's not quibble with 14 words.
15 DR. STODDARD: I'm just trying --
16 CHAIR GIBSON: My point is I'm trying to 17 figure out if there is this --
18 DR. STODDARD: Is it going to harm the --
19 (Simultaneous speaking) 20 CHAIR GIBSON: -- problem, and if there's 21 this connection, have we seen a decline?
22 DR. STODDARD: There has been a decline in 23 -- in breeding overall. The crocs are -- are -- have 24 been breeding less in the CCS, which has been a major 25 crocodile factory for the past -- every since the --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
300 1 the cooling canal system was -- was created. FPL's 2 been very proud of this. It appears as a point of --
3 a point of pride in their -- in their literature, in 4 their environment impact assessments. They even have 5 an American crocodile coloring book that you can get 6 online for your -- for the grandkids. And so, what 7 this now means is this six-mile-long estuarine are is 8 pretty much a dead zone, whereas it used to be 9 biologically productive.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: All right. When you say 11 it's a dead zone, I mean, is there a specific data 12 that you've symboled that would show this decline --
13 DR. STODDARD: Well --
14 CHAIR GIBSON: -- or is there --
15 DR. STODDARD: -- well, the crocodiles 16 themselves are -- you know, they're an apex predator.
17 And so they're at the top of the food chain.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
19 DR. STODDARD: And so, they're -- they're 20 -- the inability of the crocs, or the refusal of the 21 crocs to use this facility for reproduction --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
23 DR. STODDARD: -- the decline of the 24 number of nets and hatchlings is a pretty good 25 indicator that something's amiss.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
301 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I mean, do you go 2 out and count crocodiles like people go out and count 3 birds or something? I mean, do you do that?
4 DR. STODDARD: I do not.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: You do not?
6 DR. STODDARD: No, I rely on the -- on the 7 written reports of -- you know, for one thing I'm not 8 allowed on that facility.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
10 DR. STODDARD: That's -- you know, FPL has 11 -- has contractors. They do a lot of environment 12 monitoring. They have for a very long time.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
14 DR. STODDARD: People who know this --
15 know this stuff very well, they know where all the 16 nests are. They tag the nestlings -- the hatchlings, 17 rather. Keep very good track of them. They have for 18 a long time. It's a wonderful data set.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. With respect to the 20 original demonstratives to which you've referred and 21 about which you were examined by Judges Kennedy and 22 Sager, I'm curious, you say the data for that came 23 from DERM?
24 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: And is that assembled in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
302 1 some document at DERM? Is that just some data in 2 different places here and there that you looked at and 3 then you included it? I'm just curious if there's 4 like a report --
5 DR. STODDARD: How did I --
6 CHAIR GIBSON: -- that refers to these 7 specific parameters and --
8 DR. STODDARD: I -- I think those data are 9 probably too new to be in a report.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: They're too new to be in a 11 report? Do you know when those data came about?
12 DR. STODDARD: The -- the data here appear 13 to be -- go up through late November.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
15 DR. STODDARD: So that tells you about how 16 -- how recent they are.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I guess I'm a little 18 confused --
19 DR. STODDARD: And just -- and just --
20 just to state, I mean, as you noted, on my written 21 testimony I didn't refer to these data.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
23 DR. STODDARD: And the reason I went and 24 looked them up was because I, like you, was interested 25 in -- in this assertion that water is migrating into NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
303 1 the bay.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
3 DR. STODDARD: And like you, I question 4 that.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
6 DR. STODDARD: I think it's a good -- you 7 know, it's a reasonable set of questions. How do we 8 know this? Because we know it's under -- it's down in 9 the wells. We can see it there. But what's our 10 evidence that something's getting into the bay?
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
12 DR. STODDARD: And so, I've -- I've 13 puzzled that as -- like you have today. And that's 14 why I sought out these data, just to confirm for 15 myself that there was a -- a scientific rationale for 16 -- for these assertions.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Go ahead.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Stoddard, this is 19 Judge Kennedy. I'm just curious: It appears that 20 you've been talking quite a bit about the conditions 21 in the canal, and a good portion of this contention 22 deals with migration outside of the CCS.
23 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do you have any data that 25 you can offer that would -- I mean, we've talked about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
304 1 the phosphorous and the ammonia, but is there any 2 let's say crocodile data -- I don't even know if 3 that's a -- they're not in the parking lot, but I'm 4 just curious if there's --
5 DR. STODDARD: They might be.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm just curious. We're 7 trying to get our hands around whether this migration 8 has an impact. And there's lots of questions later on 9 about the assessment of these impacts. And we're 10 giving you the opportunity to offer to the Board any 11 particular evidence that you could provide, other than 12 your demonstratives, that you would point the Board to 13 that hopefully is within the exhibits or have been 14 disclosed that would give us some view as to this 15 hypersaline migration outside the canals and its 16 impact on the environment. And I guess your specialty 17 is crocodiles, so I'm looking for crocodile data, I 18 guess.
19 DR. STODDARD: So I am a zoologist. My --
20 how am I going to address that? So there was -- there 21 was -- there was two issues of concern in -- in Mr.
22 White's contention that he asked me to -- to speak to.
23 One was the effect of taking water from the L31E and 24 the other was migration of saline from the hypersaline 25 waters. So I focused on -- on what was readily NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
305 1 available. And the most -- most obvious thing was two 2 things: One is the temperatures within the canals are 3 elevated. And the other is that the water in the 4 canal system is hypersaline and is leaking out.
5 I think we have reason at this point to be 6 concerned about the -- the water leaking out because 7 we know what it can do. What we don't have -- at 8 least what I have not yet seen is strong evidence that 9 hypersaline water is having a widespread effect in the 10 bay. What anybody can see from the aerials is that 11 the area of the bay on the west shore, Biscayne Bay 12 and the northern edge of -- of Card Sound there is 13 degraded. And whether that's from hypersalinity, 14 whether it's from lack of fresh water -- I mean, 15 they're -- they're very similar things.
16 But the whole system necessarily 17 intercepts water. It was designed to do that. The 18 very idea of the interceptor ditches -- the whole 19 principle is to -- is to redirect water. And so, 20 there is significant degradation of the bay. It's 21 evident to anybody who looks at it. And the only 22 thing that can happen from migration of hypersaline 23 water out is further degradation.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: However you --
25 DR. STODDARD: It's -- it's -- it's a --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
306 1 it's a difficult system because you're -- you're 2 looking at -- I mean, as -- as scientists we want to 3 see experiments, right? And experiments you want to 4 see controls. We can't do those experiments. We 5 can't -- we don't have a parallel system immediately 6 there that we can -- that we can test. What you can 7 do is you can look at areas to the north and south 8 which are, you know, more -- looking for correlations.
9 And you'll see worse conditions immediately adjacent 10 to the cooling canal system.
11 Now dissecting out whether that's 12 hypersaline migration or whether it's -- it's a cut-13 off in freshwater sheet flow is a -- is a difficult 14 thing to do. And it's probably a combination of the 15 two. Now probably may not be good enough for you in 16 this case.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I don't want to be 18 harsh, but I'm going to take that as a no --
19 (Laughter) 20 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- that you don't have any 21 anecdotal evidence that would lead us to understand 22 the environmental impacts. Yes, I mean, I think 23 you've been very straight with an assessment here and 24 I --
25 DR. STODDARD: I try -- I try to be -- you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
307 1 know, I try not to over --
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
3 DR. STODDARD: -- you know, overstate what 4 I can. So the -- I'll -- I'll tell you, the -- those 5 -- those phosphate data and the nitrate and the -- and 6 the ammonia data were the first data I have seen in 7 100 percent made me confident that I was actually 8 seeing migration into the water column. Like you all, 9 I'd been convinced of migration into the underground 10 strata, but I wasn't -- I hadn't seen the real -- the 11 real good evidence that there was -- that there was 12 saline migration into the bay itself. I think the 13 appearance of ammonia and nitrate now convince me that 14 there is.
15 So it's -- so the degradation that's been 16 seen may in fact be attributable to some of the 17 hypersaline migration, but these are -- you know, 18 we're on the edge of -- of really understanding what's 19 going on here and I think that that may be the broader 20 point, that -- and I have to say, you know, my 21 colleagues at FPL don't regard me as particularly 22 sympathetic to their situation, but on this one I have 23 to say I have a certain amount of sympathy. They've 24 got a very complex hydrogeological system and 25 biological system and they're doing a lot of work NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
308 1 trying to manage it. You do one thing, something else 2 happens. It's -- it's very complex. And they would 3 love to everything isolated and separable, and we were 4 just not given that geology to work in.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
6 You got anything else on this?
7 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, I wanted to ask one 8 question, not be combative or anything, but you say 9 that it's the nitrogen and the phosphorous, the 10 nutrients that are convincing you the water is 11 migrating out, but don't those things also come from 12 lawn fertilizer? Is there any other source? What 13 convinced you that they're coming from the cooling 14 canals?
15 DR. STODDARD: That was -- that's an 16 excellent question, Judge. And the fact that the L31E 17 outfall and the C111 outfalls are 10 miles south of 18 the -- of the monitoring site, and also that the 19 currents tend to -- tend to drift southwards rather 20 than northwards.
21 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
22 DR. STODDARD: And I would -- I would 23 be --
24 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
25 DR. STODDARD: Rather than lawn NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
309 1 fertilizer, I'd be more inclined to -- inclined to 2 think about agricultural run-off.
3 JUDGE SAGER: Right.
4 DR. STODDARD: But agricultural run-off 5 likewise is not going to be so much ammonia as 6 nitrate. And this is ammonia, which is going to be 7 produced under -- under more anaerobic conditions.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Right. Thank you.
9 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Since we still got 11 a little time, I've got a few questions for the staff 12 and FPL witnesses. We should be able to get through 13 by 10:40. Then we can recess and you all can put your 14 questions together for Dr. Stoddard.
15 I don't know which person on the staff 16 wants to take this, but I want to look at this issue 17 of the cooling canal system water possibly migrating 18 into Biscayne Bay. And regardless of whether the 19 migration is actually happened to date, it seems that 20 there could be substantial harm if there were 21 migration. You all agree with that?
22 MR. FORD: Well, you're talking about for 23 biological harm?
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, let's just say 25 environmental, and that encompasses a whole lot of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
310 1 things.
2 MR. FORD: To my knowledge, is what I know 3 about it --
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
5 MR. FORD: -- that the hypersaline plume; 6 that means higher than sea water --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
8 MR. FORD: -- is moving under the bay, but 9 it's -- it's staying in the deeper parts of the 10 Biscayne Aquifer because of its higher density.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
12 MR. FORD: So the higher salinities are 13 found at depth. I personally am not aware of where 14 it's coming up in the bay to change water quality at 15 this time.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Really my question 17 does not go so much toward whether it is actually 18 happening or not. My question really has to go to the 19 question of whether or not it is plausible because I 20 didn't see anything in the environmental assessment 21 about it, this possibility. And it seems to me that 22 it's plausible that it could happen. And so, did I 23 miss something in the EA? Is there something in there 24 that addresses this possibility?
25 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
311 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
2 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor, we did not 3 address migration into the bay because the staff's 4 understanding for FPL's post-up-rate monitoring 5 reports are that they have not found any indication 6 that there is migration into the bay.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And essentially you 8 based it on what you were told by FPL then? Is that 9 a fair statement?
10 MS. GRANGE: We -- yes, we -- we based it 11 on our review of their reports.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. Okay. Thank you.
13 Mr. Bolleter, maybe you can help clear 14 this up. In your written testimony on page 29 you 15 state that there was a notable increase in tritium and 16 other saltwater parameters indicating the presence of 17 cooling canal system water in TPGW-10 prior to 18 beginning of the post-up-rate period. Did I read that 19 correctly?
20 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Is this 22 notable increase in tritium in TPGW-10 that you 23 discussed in your testimony the same 2012 increase in 24 tritium that is discussed in INT-028?
25 MR. BOLLETER: I don't have INT-028.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
312 1 CHAIR GIBSON: INT-028 I believe is what 2 we just mentioned. It was the Miami-Dade County's 3 comments to the draft environmental report for the COL 4 for Units 6 and 7.
5 MR. BOLLETER: Yes. And that's a deep 6 well. That's the 100-plus-foot deep well.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. But I just wanted to 8 make sure the notable increase in tritium that you 9 discussed in your testimony is the same increases 10 discussed in --
11 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: -- this 2012 report.
13 MR. BOLLETER: Right.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: That's the source, correct?
15 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. On page 17 8 of INT-028; Mr. Welkie, if we could get that back 18 up, it states that TPGW-10 is a monitoring well 19 cluster located on the Biscayne Bay. You see that?
20 Is that right? Located on the Biscayne Bay slightly 21 north and east of the Turkey Point plant and within 22 the cone of influence of the proposed RCW. Do you see 23 that?
24 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now this well NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
313 1 cluster does not monitor the water in the bay itself, 2 but rather the groundwater under the bay, is that 3 correct?
4 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. You further 6 testified on page 30 of your written testimony that 7 there is no indication that any cooling canal system 8 water of significant consequence has reached the bay 9 because it is not detected in Biscayne Bay monitoring 10 stations BBSW-1, BBSW-2, BBSW-3, BBSW-4 or BBSW-5.
11 Did I read that correctly?
12 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. How do you know that 14 no cooling canal system water was detected in the 15 Biscayne Bay monitoring stations?
16 MR. BOLLETER: We have been monitoring 17 those stations since 2010. And these are automated 18 probes that are placed in Biscayne Bay and they take 19 readings every hour. So we have salinity -- or 20 actually it measures specific conductance, converts 21 the salinity. We also record temperature. And some 22 of the stations we also record water level. So we 23 have quite a bit of data. Also, we go out quarterly 24 and collect water quality samples. We also collect 25 semiannually nutrient samples. And also we collect NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
314 1 tritium samples when we go out.
2 And just based on looking at all the data 3 that we have, one is we don't see any -- the stations 4 that we -- the specific conductance or salinity at 5 those stations are really no different than what you 6 see in other stations in Biscayne Bay, which indicate 7 there's an effect at those locations. The tritium 8 values are all what we would -- might expect to see.
9 We don't see the very high levels of tritium that 10 would be indication that there's cooling canal water.
11 So out in the Biscayne Bay proper we don't see, you 12 know, any effects.
13 Now, the -- the -- the information that 14 was presented a little earlier, I don't know whether 15 that could be from the cooling canal, could not be.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
17 MR. BOLLETER: There is -- we had noted 18 that there was -- I think it was in our -- the 19 testimony that provided that on the south end of the 20 cooling canal there is a fairly narrow berm and there 21 we have a monitoring station, SWC-5, and another 22 monitoring station, SWC-4. Those are in canals that 23 are immediately adjacent to the cooling canal.
24 We have seen a little bit higher levels of 25 tritium coupled with higher specific conductance that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
315 1 may suggest that there is some seepage that is going 2 through the berm. We're not seeing that it's, you 3 know, groundwater pathway, that it's -- the water 4 wants to come up. Whether the -- the other location 5 -- it is a very deep location that was talked about.
6 It is very possible that the specific conductance that 7 you're seeing is just typical specific conductance in 8 the bay. The bay gets above 60,000 microsiemens per 9 centimeter. And just -- I don't have the exact number 10 for you, but this -- you know, if you want to kind of 11 estimate salinity for -- to specific conductance to 12 say 54,000 microsiemens per centimeter, plus or minus, 13 it is probably what might be equivalent to 35 14 practical salinity units.
15 But Biscayne Bay, we see specific 16 conductance values over 60,000. So what you see in 17 this artificially deep hole, typically Biscayne Bay, 18 is -- I mean, it's -- in a lot of that area you have 19 to get a -- you can only get access at high tide. So 20 this is a 18 to 20-foot dredged canal.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 DR. STODDARD: So much deeper. So it's 23 not a typical, you know, location. The high 24 nutrients, we see manatees in that area. And that 25 specific location was actually moved halfway through NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
316 1 the monitoring. We started monitoring at that 2 location in June -- or actually, I don't remember when 3 we put the station out. Maybe it was July or August.
4 But that station was moved halfway through the 5 monitoring effort, to move it right close to the 6 cooling canal.
7 So again, we're not seeing out in Biscayne 8 Bay proper any effects. Could there be a little bit 9 of seepage that we're seeing? We maybe a little bit 10 of seepage possibly.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
12 MR. BOLLETER: But also I would say, too, 13 at our wells, that TPGW-10 well, we have a cluster of 14 three wells: a deep well, a intermediate depth well, 15 and a shallow well. We don't see anything in the 16 shallow wells that indicate there's upwelling or 17 anything like that, that basically that salt water 18 wants to sink and go down.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I'm good.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: So let me try -- get the 21 whole drift of all of this. Going back to the 22 question before about the deeper well, which I guess 23 goes up below the bay --
24 MR. BOLLETER: right.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- that TG-10.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
317 1 MR. BOLLETER: Ten. Ten deep.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that's an indication 3 that there is communication from the canals to deep 4 below the bay, but you haven't seen any data to 5 indicate that you're getting communication between the 6 canals and the bay actually in the contents of the bay 7 proper?
8 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Just one more thing I 11 believe in that regard. When you conclude that 12 there's no cooling canal system water of significant 13 consequence detected in the Biscayne Bay monitoring 14 station, you're looking at data, I take it, not just 15 related to the 2012 increase in tritium at TPGW-10, 16 but you're looking at later data as well, is that 17 correct?
18 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. Do you 20 have anything else, Judge Sager?
21 JUDGE SAGER:
22 (No audible response) 23 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you have anything else?
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: I do not.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
318 1 DR. STODDARD: Judge Gibson, you asked 2 about how to convert the microsiemens into --
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Actually Judge --
4 DR. STODDARD: Judge --
5 CHAIR GIBSON: One of these guys.
6 DR. STODDARD: I think somebody did.
7 Anyway, so if you're looking at -- I -- I -- thank you 8 -- thank you, Jim, here. So he's given us the -- the 9 Rosetta Stone to do the translation. So that solid 10 line along the top here is at about 38, you know, 11 standard units, psu.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Is that okay? Does that 13 help?
14 PARTICIPANT: That's good.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: You got anything else?
16 PARTICIPANT: No.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: You got anything?
18 (No audible response) 19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. This is what we'll 20 do. We will stand in recess for -- can you all do 21 this in five minutes? You all need 10 to prepare --
22 PARTICIPANT: Seven.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Seven? Okay. Seven 24 minutes. All right.
25 MR. HARRIS: Can we do 10, sir?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
319 1 CHAIR GIBSON: We'll do 10. All right.
2 We'll do 10. I just didn't want this gentleman to be 3 late for his class. So I'm sure that will give you 4 plenty of time. Oliver Wendell Holmes once started a 5 letter saying "I'm sorry I didn't have more time to 6 write a shorter letter." So I'm sure giving you 10 7 instead of 5 minutes will make sure that your 8 questions are to the point and short.
9 So, okay. We will come back on the record 10 in 10 minutes. You all need to hand those -- actually 11 we'll come back on in about 12 minutes. You'll hand 12 those as soon as you get them done to our clerks. We 13 can come back on the record. Okay? Thank you. Or 14 are you going to email them?
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 10:40 a.m. and resumed at 10:59 17 a.m.)
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Dr. Stoddard, we're going 19 to do our best to get you out of here a little bit 20 late, but hopefully you'll still be able to make your 21 class. We've got a few questions we want to ask you 22 as follow up and then you can take off. Okay?
23 Judge Sager's going to ask them.
24 JUDGE SAGER: Looks like I got to be the 25 designated question asker. Should I tell them who the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
320 1 question is from?
2 CHAIR GIBSON: No. No, just --
3 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: No.
5 (Laughter) 6 JUDGE SAGER: All right. No, I can't tell 7 you, but you'll know.
8 (Laughter) 9 JUDGE SAGER: So to Dr. Stoddard here, 10 what is the -- let's see. I have to read it and then 11 try to translate it into my own -- so we talked 12 specifically about the migration of hypersaline water 13 near Biscayne Bay to the east. Is there any other 14 evidence of migration outside the CCS on the perimeter 15 or on the vicinity elsewhere?
16 DR. STODDARD: Well, to the west at this 17 point I believe one of the freshwater drinking wells 18 has recently been closed to the west. And we know 19 from work of Rene Price and others that the tritium 20 signature out there indicates that that's because of 21 hypersaline migration from the industrial waste 22 facility at Turkey Point.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Other questions from 24 the other Judges?
25 (No audible response)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
321 1 JUDGE SAGER: Let me move on then.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: To follow up --
3 JUDGE SAGER: You have any follow up, 4 Kennedy?
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, do you have a source 6 for that? Is there anything in the record that we 7 could point to? The closure of the well, I'm 8 thinking --
9 DR. STODDARD: The closure of the well?
10 No, I've only heard that recently, but I do have the 11 -- I do have the original scientific paper here on my 12 computer on the -- on the migration looking at --
13 looking at various tracers, trace elements.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thanks.
15 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So the next two 16 questions have to do with the ammonia and phosphorous 17 data that you presented. I believe the graph showed 18 a period after the L31 canal water was pumped in. And 19 then not long after you saw a rise in ammonia and 20 phosphorous in Biscayne Bay.
21 DR. STODDARD: That's right. And there's 22 -- there's other -- I mean, the tritium samples have 23 been recorded. They take about half a year to 24 analyze. So in -- within half a year we'll have those 25 data as well. So maybe by the time you're doing your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
322 1 ruling those data will be available for you.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So the question was 3 your assumption is that that is coming from the CCS.
4 Is there any data from the CCS that show elevated 5 phosphorous and ammonia?
6 DR. STODDARD: I don't have those data.
7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
8 DR. STODDARD: They may exist, but I don't 9 have them.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
11 DR. STODDARD: And -- and the reason for 12 that is that the data I got were from DERM --
13 JUDGE SAGER: Right.
14 DR. STODDARD: -- RER. And I don't 15 believe they do measurements within the CCS, so you'd 16 have to ask FPL if they have those data.
17 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. And the 18 next question is follow up on that. Are the readings 19 that you saw outside the normal seasonal variation of 20 those nutrients?
21 CHAIR GIBSON: When you say "those 22 nutrients," we're referring to ammonia and 23 phosphorous.
24 JUDGE SAGER: And phosphorous. Sorry.
25 DR. STODDARD: To the best of my knowledge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
323 1 they are.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Any follow up?
3 DR. STODDARD: In fact -- in fact, the --
4 the -- if you look -- if you look at them, they --
5 they spike very dramatically. You're not seeing a --
6 a 10-percent or a 15-percent elevation. You're seeing 7 an elevation of -- you know, in the hundred -- in --
8 in two or three orders of magnitude. It's -- it's 9 very striking. It's not what you would expect with 10 seasonal variation.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. And I 12 think the last one on here is not really a question.
13 It's to ask you to provide the DERM data.
14 To whom, Judge Gibson?
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, the DERM data that you 16 referred to on which you based these demonstratives 17 that you showed us, if you could get us that data, 18 that would be very helpful. And what I would like you 19 to do is to give it to Mr. White and he will get it to 20 all of us. Okay? I don't think we can get that done 21 post-haste, so but if you --
22 DR. STODDARD: I could --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: -- do that within --
24 DR. STODDARD: I could -- I could put them 25 on a flash drive and give them to your IT assistant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
324 1 before I leave today and --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: That would be --
3 DR. STODDARD: -- and he could --
4 (Simultaneous speaking) 5 CHAIR GIBSON: -- fantastic --
6 DR. STODDARD: They're --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: -- if you could do that.
8 DR. STODDARD: -- they're massive files, 9 but I could -- I'd be happy to do that.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. White can get you the 11 flash drive later. Is that okay?
12 DR. STODDARD: I have --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Or do you want him to put 14 him on a hard drive and then you take the flash drive?
15 DR. STODDARD: I can -- I can transfer 16 from my hard drive to a flash drive to your -- your 17 assistant right here.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Let's do that. Okay?
19 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: When we recess, when you 21 finish, we'll do that. Okay? Thank you.
22 DR. STODDARD: Happy to.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Now I've got one other 24 thing I want to ask you. I asked you a bunch of 25 questions about the source of the -- you gave me a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
325 1 whole bunch of crocodile studies that you referenced 2 in your testimony. I just want to ask are there any 3 of those studies that are not readily available? I 4 mean, like if you did a Google search or whatever, 5 could you get those studies right off the bat, or are 6 some of these obscure and difficult to obtain?
7 DR. STODDARD: I -- I -- they're either 8 available online free or through any university 9 library. I have access to the FIU library 10 collections, and so I -- I collected them from home, 11 but I may have logged into my university account in 12 order to get -- use my university's license. But --
13 and then I think most of them came up from Google 14 Scholar searches.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Are there any that 16 you think would not be readily accessible like that?
17 I'm just curious.
18 DR. STODDARD: Mr. Mazzotti's Ph.D.
19 dissertation --
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
21 DR. STODDARD: -- you might have to look 22 for, but I'm sure he'd be happy to provide it. Or you 23 can get it from -- from Penn State.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
25 Okay. Anything else?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
326 1 (No audible response) 2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. We didn't get you 3 out of here at 11:00, but 11:05.
4 DR. STODDARD: Very good. No -- no 5 further questions for me?
6 CHAIR GIBSON: No, I think we're okay on 7 that. If you can just work with Mr. Welkie on getting 8 your flash drive.
9 DR. STODDARD: I could do that.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: We'll take a five-minute 11 recess and we'll get back started on some other 12 things.
13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 14 off the record at 11:06 a.m. and resumed at 11:12 15 a.m.)
16 CHAIR GIBSON: I believe we're all 17 assembled now and we can go back on the record.
18 Ms. Klett, you oversaw the development of 19 the July 2014 environmental assessment, is that 20 correct?
21 MS. KLETT: That's correct.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: On page 44468 of the 23 environmental assessment it concludes, "Because the 24 cooling canal system is a manmade closed-cycle cooling 25 system, aquifer withdrawals are not likely to have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
327 1 significant cumulative effect on surface water 2 resources." Did I read that correctly?
3 MS. KLETT: I believe so.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
5 MS. KLETT: Give me a moment. I can pull 6 up the EA reference to verify.
7 (Pause) 8 MS. KLETT: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Great. So it 10 appears to me that one of the major assumptions you 11 made in the 2014 environmental assessment is that the 12 cooling canal system is a closed system. You wouldn't 13 dispute that, would you?
14 MS. KLETT: No, Your Honor, it -- but when 15 we say "closed," we mean that it's not directly 16 connected to Card Sound or Biscayne Bay.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Get to that in a 18 second. Because I looked up "closed system" in the 19 dictionary and a closed system typically means that 20 the system does not interact with the system's 21 surroundings. Do you think the dictionary definition 22 is incorrect?
23 MS. KLETT: I'm going to defer to Ms.
24 Grange.
25 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
328 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes?
2 MS. GRANGE: So we use the term "closed-3 cycle system" in this case to mean something 4 different. And -- and we are only indicating -- I'm 5 sorry. I don't know why this is making that noise.
6 By using closed-cycle system for the CCS we only are 7 referring to surface water connections, not to 8 groundwater connections. And we're doing that because 9 that's what the state had used. It used that term.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And that's indicated 11 in page 17 of the testimony that you all submitted in 12 this case, I believe, that you the term "closed" to 13 refer to the fact that the cooling canals no longer 14 discharge directly to Biscayne Bay. Is that right?
15 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Dr. Kennedy. Ms.
18 Grange, maybe at this point you could, or someone from 19 the staff could describe to the Panel what you mean by 20 "surface water resources." What would that encompass 21 for this particular license amendment request?
22 MS. GRANGE: Surface water resources would 23 encompass Card Sound and Biscayne Bay.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's all?
25 MS. GRANGE: I mean, and those flowing to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
329 1 the ocean. So that would also be included.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Does that include the 3 Biscayne Aquifer?
4 MS. GRANGE: No, sir, that's groundwater.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: So it would be fair to 7 consider the cooling canal system to be closed even 8 though it is not closed to groundwater, correct?
9 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I realize that this 11 is what you all said in the testimony at page 17, but 12 I looked through the EA to find where "closed system" 13 was defined, and I couldn't turn anything up. Did I 14 miss something?
15 MS. GRANGE: I don't believe so. I don't 16 recall specifically defining it in the EA.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: So recognizing that you all 18 used a different definition than one in the dictionary 19 and didn't define it specifically in the EA, it would 20 seem to me that a reasonable person reading the 21 environmental assessment would not understand that 22 distinction. Would you dispute that?
23 MS. GRANGE: I could see that that would 24 be a reasonable conclusion. We -- we do reference 25 several other previous NRC assessments, and those do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
330 1 go into more detail on the cooling canal system, and 2 those describe the connections to groundwater.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Did any 4 hydrologists or hydrogeologists work on the 5 environmental assessment?
6 MS. GRANGE: A hydrogeologist was 7 consulted during the preparation of the EA.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And who was the 9 hydrogeologist who was consulted?
10 MS. GRANGE: Kevin Folk. So I was 11 actually the preparer of the EA, and so I had a 12 conversation with him about the proposed action.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Could you spell his 14 last name?
15 MR. FOLK: F-O-L-K.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Mr.
17 Ford, you're a geologist with hydrological experience, 18 correct, sir?
19 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: In your professional 21 experience is the term "closed system" typically used 22 for water systems that interact with groundwater?
23 MR. FORD: I'm having trouble with the 24 question. Let me think about it just a second.
25 So the question is in terms of groundwater NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
331 1 -- is closed system things that interact with 2 groundwater? Usually the term "closed system," I 3 think would be that it's isolated.
4 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 5 Harris. Just for --
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Harris?
7 MR. HARRIS: -- a point of reference, in 8 the EA it doesn't use "closed system." It uses 9 "closed-cycle cooling system." So we may be getting 10 a little confusion as to the question, what you're 11 asking them to answer about a closed system versus a 12 closed-cycle cooling system versus an open-cycle 13 cooling system.
14 JUDGE SAGER: So, let me ask that.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, please.
16 JUDGE SAGER: So I think what you're 17 saying is that that is a technical term that refers to 18 a style of cooling system as opposed to a geological 19 term that defines the interaction with the 20 groundwater.
21 MR. HARRIS: I can't testify to that, but 22 that's --
23 JUDGE SAGER: No, you --
24 (Simultaneous speaking) 25 MR. HARRIS: -- I think that would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
332 1 worthwhile to delve into that sort of a little I think 2 confusion on the record.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: But basically that's a 4 technical term for the type of cooling system that's 5 used?
6 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: That's his point. I don't 9 know if this goes to you, Ms. Klett, or one of your 10 colleagues there, but in the July 2014 environmental 11 assessment you were focused on whether there was any 12 reasonably foreseeable environment impact of 13 increasing the maximum water temperature limit from 14 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Is 15 that correct?
16 MS. KLETT: That is correct.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: In A-42 and A-43 of your 18 testimony you stated that the staff considered the 19 impact of changes potentially resulting from the 2012 20 power up-rate, which we will discuss in greater depth 21 later.
22 Did the staff consider any potential 23 changes from 2012 other than the amount of heat being 24 discharged to the cooling canal system as discussed in 25 A-43?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
333 1 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. Yes, 2 sir, we did.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And what was that, 4 ma'am?
5 MS. GRANGE: We considered changes that 6 would happen in the cooling canal system such as the 7 algae growth, environment conditions such as lower 8 rainfall. And we also considered water withdrawals 9 that FPL had requested or were contemplating from 10 groundwater sources.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So when you looked 12 into your environmental assessment crystal ball in 13 2014, you could see that aquifer withdrawals would 14 likely be needed as mitigation measures in order to 15 reduce cooling canal temperatures, correct?
16 MS. GRANGE: My understanding of the 17 withdrawals were that they were part of a larger 18 action to mitigate cooling canal system conditions, 19 which included salinity as well as temperature and 20 that they would have happened regardless of the 21 proposed action. Or --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: They would have occurred --
23 MS. KLETT: -- I should say --
24 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm sorry. What do you 25 mean they would have occurred independent of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
334 1 action? I'm sorry.
2 MS. GRANGE: Well, the -- so FPL was 3 seeking out authorizations to withdraw cooling water 4 as part of their fifth supplemental agreement, and 5 that was a separate action from the license amendment 6 that they came to NRC with.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Okay.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Ms. Grange, so to the list 9 of things that the staff considered in addition to the 10 license amendment action you listed algae growth, 11 aquifer withdrawals. But now did you look at 12 increased salinity, increased CCS temperatures, 13 average temperatures within the canal?
14 MS. GRANGE: Yes, we considered the CCS 15 conditions as they were when the amendment was 16 submitted to us.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: But you really didn't have 19 any doubt that aquifer withdrawals would be needed, 20 did you? Because you were looking forward, you knew 21 aquifer withdrawals were going to be required, 22 correct?
23 MS. GRANGE: Correct. And we also knew 24 that FPL had -- had already sought authorization for 25 some of those withdrawals.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
335 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct. Correct. I was 2 able to locate only one mention in the environmental 3 assessment of aquifer withdrawals, and that was on 4 page 44468 of the environmental assessment. I was 5 unable to locate any discussion of the effects of 6 these withdrawals on the aquifers themselves. Did I 7 miss anything?
8 MS. GRANGE: No, sir, that's the only 9 mention.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So in your 11 professional opinion the NRC staff didn't need to 12 examine any environmental impacts on the aquifer, 13 correct? Had you needed to, you wouldn't have done 14 it, I assume.
15 MS. GRANGE: We did consider impacts of --
16 of the aquifer. We didn't write a detailed 17 discussion.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: You didn't write any 19 discussion, did you? I mean, I couldn't locate any 20 discussion in the EA.
21 MS. GRANGE: No, we did not write --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
23 MS. GRANGE: -- a discussion.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So where is this 25 discussion memorialized? Is it in some document NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
336 1 somewhere?
2 MS. GRANGE: No, sir, it's not written 3 down.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Is it your position 5 that ongoing and projected future groundwater 6 withdrawals would have an insignificant effect on the 7 aquifers?
8 I'm sorry. I guess that's for you, sir.
9 I'm sorry. She looked over at you.
10 MR. FORD: So, William Ford.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, sir.
12 MR. FORD: Yes, we don't think that --
13 that -- you know, the aquifer withdrawals were 14 discussed in the EA, which was a snapshot in time, 15 that these aquifer withdrawals were from the Floridan 16 Aquifer. That was proposed and hadn't been approved 17 yet. And that was going to be from brackish water 18 quality.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
20 MR. FORD: And the other ones I -- as I 21 remember were from the Biscayne Aquifer, which was 22 salt water. So we didn't believe that there would be 23 any impact from those withdrawals on water --
24 freshwater supplies.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. But my point is you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
337 1 came to that conclusion, but you didn't put it in the 2 EA anywhere?
3 MR. FORD: Yes, that's correct.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: And you concluded it would 6 have no impact -- this is Judge Kennedy, sorry -- on 7 just freshwater supplies? Is that the only parameter 8 that was considered when you looked at aquifer 9 impacts?
10 MR. FORD: I think you can also -- when I 11 did my testimony, I based it on what the staff knew at 12 the time and the documents they referenced. And I 13 believe you also can conclude that the water quality 14 in the Biscayne Aquifer wasn't going to be changing as 15 a result of this brief temperature increase, this 16 small temperature increase for small periods of time.
17 So we looked at the water quality of the Biscayne 18 Aquifer.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: And did you just say that 20 the briefness of this temperature change was an 21 important consideration in your evaluation of the 22 aquifer impacts?
23 MR. FORD: Yes, that the -- it's difficult 24 for the -- for the CCS to, you know, hold a constant 25 temperature because there's a wide temperature range NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
338 1 of about 20 degrees. So you have a four-degree change 2 proposed, but you can't just hold it at four degrees.
3 So the other one is that there -- we knew 4 there was the same amount of energy going in the canal 5 system. So based on that you would assume that the 6 basic physics of the energy going in haven't changed, 7 but something else has changed within the CCS, which 8 was documented in the EA. But the groundwater system 9 itself, which is slower to change, it's reasonable to 10 assume that since the last time we looked at the CCS, 11 which was the power up-rate, that there wouldn't be 12 any significant changes in groundwater quality in the 13 Biscayne Aquifer.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: That seems to me to 15 presume an understanding that the conditions in the 16 canal would look like the conditions in the canal at 17 the power up-rate time. I mean, it seems to me 18 there's too many things that are being held constant 19 here when in fact this is a very temporal problem.
20 Conditions in that canal have changed, and at least at 21 the time of the EA were continuing to change.
22 MR. FORD: Yes, and we --
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's hard --
24 MR. FORD: -- we document in the EA that 25 the conditions in the canal had changed, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
339 1 since the power up-rate, but the assumption of the --
2 the conclusion was that the groundwater system hadn't 3 been affected by that change, hadn't significantly 4 changed since the last time we did an environmental 5 assessment.
6 JUDGE SAGER: Judge Kennedy, let me follow 7 up.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Please.
9 JUDGE SAGER: This is something that may 10 come up.
11 You mentioned this was a snapshot in time, 12 and I understand you had to work with the data you had 13 at hand. Can you tell me approximately when that was?
14 It was say second quarter of 2014 or something like 15 that?
16 MS. GRANGE: I just want to clarify.
17 You're asking when the staff prepared the EA?
18 JUDGE SAGER: Right. You had to --
19 MS. GRANGE: What timeline that was?
20 JUDGE SAGER: -- make the judgment at some 21 time. I'm asking kind of -- you made these judgments.
22 Then you had to write them down. Then you had to 23 publish them in the Federal Register. So I'm asking 24 about what time you had this information, what time 25 you were making decisions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
340 1 MS. GRANGE: Okay. I understand. We 2 received the license amendment in July, and we also 3 published the EA later that month. So all the 4 information we had was as of July 2014.
5 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess it's my turn.
7 I've got a number of questions here about the 8 categorical exclusion and the impacts of not taking a 9 categorical exclusion. Whether it's appropriate or 10 not, I've directed the question to Ms. Grange.
11 Certainly any staff witness is free to answer.
12 In this proceeding the staff determined 13 that the criteria for categorical exclusion were not 14 met. Is that correct?
15 MS. GRANGE: Correct, sir.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Specifically, the staff 17 determined that possible impacts on the endangered 18 American crocodile and its critical habitat were 19 special circumstances under 10 CFR 51.22(b) that 20 required a NEPA review. Is that correct?
21 MS. GRANGE: That's correct.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: If the water temperature 23 and the salinity got too high, might that endanger the 24 species?
25 MS. GRANGE: Yes, that could affect the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
341 1 species.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: And is that the basis for 3 not being able to take a categorical exclusion?
4 MS. GRANGE: Exactly. That was something 5 that we were concerned about, and so that's why we 6 felt an EA was appropriate.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So you then went 8 down the path of an environmental assessment?
9 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: If the proposed action met 11 the criteria in 10 CFR 51.20, the staff would have 12 gone ahead and prepared an environmental impact 13 statement?
14 MS. GRANGE: That's correct.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the staff concluded 16 that the proposed action did not meet that criteria?
17 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. On page 36 of your 19 testimony, Ms. Grange, you testified that the staff 20 determined that the most appropriate type of 21 environmental analysis for this action would be an EA.
22 I think you've just answered that, so I'll take that 23 previous answer.
24 And then depending on the results of this 25 EA an EIS could have been warranted, is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
342 1 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Once the staff determined 3 to perform an environmental assessment -- are all 4 environmental assessments fundamentally conducted in 5 the same manner?
6 MS. GRANGE: We follow the same process 7 for each environmental assessment, which is written 8 down in LIC-203 of the staff's guidance for preparing 9 EAs and -- and performing environmental reviews.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the initial scope of 11 the environmental assessment when you start is the 12 same once you walk down the environmental assessment 13 path?
14 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And NRC Exhibit 028 16 is the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's 17 procedural guidance for preparing categorical 18 exclusions, environmental assessments, and considering 19 environmental issues. Is that true?
20 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: And Section (b)(3) of this 22 document provides an analysis and checklist that can 23 be performed to determine if categorical exclusion is 24 appropriate, is that correct?
25 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
343 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Welkie, could you put 2 up NRC 028 and then hopefully page 42? I guess you're 3 doing it already.
4 So this page shows the categorical 5 exclusion checklist, is that correct? At least I --
6 yes. It appears to show that. Is that correct, Ms.
7 Grange?
8 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thanks. One of the 10 questions to be examined on this checklist; and I'm 11 not exactly sure where on this page it is, states, 12 "Would the project significantly impact water quality 13 to groundwater, surface water bodies, public water 14 supply systems or violate federal, state or tribal 15 water standards?"
16 Is that contained in this checklist? And 17 Mr. Welkie is going to look for it. There's one under 18 two, water resources. I think that's it.
19 So it would be item 2 on this checklist?
20 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So on page 7, 22 paragraph 2 of INT-006 it states that, "In a letter 23 dated April 16th, 2013, the South Florida Water 24 Management District notified FP&L of their 25 determination that saline water from the CCS had moved NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
344 1 westward of the L31E canal in excess of the amounts 2 that would have occurred without the existence of the 3 CCS, and pursuant to those provisions of the fifth 4 supplement agreement initiated consultation with FPL 5 for the mitigation, abatement or remediation of the 6 saline water movement."
7 Are you aware of that, or was the staff 8 aware of that?
9 MS. GRANGE: Can you repeat the exhibit 10 number, please?
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's the Intervenor's 12 Exhibit 006. And we could display it if you --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Page 7?
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's page 7, paragraph 2.
15 We could display it, if you would like. Yes, and Mr.
16 Welkie is doing so.
17 MS. GRANGE: This document appears to be 18 a 2015 document. Is that -- do I have the right one 19 open?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's see.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: You have to go all the way 22 at the end.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Go to the end? Yes.
24 Okay. Thank you for pointing that out.
25 So at the time you prepared the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
345 1 environmental assessment you weren't -- go ahead.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Could we get to page 7, 3 paragraph 2? I think this was a 2015 document, but I 4 believe there was a reference here to a April 16, 2013 5 letter somewhere in there. Right.
6 Okay. Could you search for a 2013 letter?
7 I think it's in here. Maybe it's not. Is 2013 not in 8 there?
9 MR. WELKIE: It's not a searchable 10 document.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: What?
12 MR. WELKIE: It's not a searchable 13 document.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, okay. We can't search 15 it. Okay. I tell you what we'll do, let's hold this 16 question and we'll come back to it. Okay? Because I 17 think that's an important point, but we've got to find 18 it.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. Apologize. We'll 20 look a little deeper and we'll discuss this later.
21 Thank you for your patience.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, good.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: We have a number of 24 follow-on questions to this April 13th letter, so 25 we're going to park those for now and I'm going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
346 1 move on to some groundwater bases questions.
2 MR. FORD: I --
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Go ahead.
4 MS. GRANGE: -- I actually found the 5 reference, if you --
6 (Simultaneous speaking) 7 CHAIR GIBSON: You did find the reference?
8 MS. GRANGE: It's on page 2. It's No. 7, 9 paragraph No. 7.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So we're dyslexic, I 11 guess.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Page 2, paragraph 7?
13 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: So now that I've found it, 16 I'm assuming we read it correctly. Did you highlight 17 it, Mr. Welkie?
18 I think this is the paragraph we're 19 talking about. And I guess what the Board is 20 interested in understanding is whether FP&L notified 21 the staff of this letter. In other words, was the 22 staff aware of this document?
23 So I don't know, FP&L, do you know if you 24 notified the staff of the existence of this document, 25 or the April --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
347 1 CHAIR GIBSON: The April 16, 2013 letter.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: The '13 letter.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
4 MR. SCROGGS: This is Steve Scroggs. I 5 don't have direct knowledge of notification, but this 6 is a very visible part of an ongoing CCS monitoring 7 program that was related to the up-rate. And this was 8 the logical conclusion of Water Management District's 9 review of that monitoring data. So I'm not able to 10 answer your specific question, but it's a very public 11 document and I would -- I would expect it was 12 available.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Were you all aware of the 14 April 16, 2013 letter when you all did the EA?
15 MS. GRANGE: I'd have to go back and look 16 at what that --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
18 MS. GRANGE: -- letter specifically is.
19 The -- in the context of this paragraph we were aware 20 that there was a saltwater plume --
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 MS. GRANGE: -- attributable to the CCS --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
24 MS. GRANGE: -- under the CCS.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So whether you were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
348 1 aware of the letter or not, you were aware of the 2 issue and you were aware of the -- as Mr. Scroggs just 3 testified, you were aware that this was an issue that 4 was being bandied about between the District and FPL, 5 correct?
6 MS. GRANGE: Correct, Your Honor.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: So it would be fair to say 8 that you knew about this, even if you hadn't seen the 9 actual letter?
10 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: So I guess really, again 13 following the same line, the Board is interested in 14 understanding if the staff ever considered the 15 requested higher temperature impact on saltwater 16 migration as requiring an EA rather than a categorical 17 exclusion?
18 MS. GRANGE: We -- we didn't look at that 19 before going down the path of the EA, and -- and that 20 was simply because we had identified the American 21 crocodile as an issue that might require the staff to 22 do an EA first. And once we determined that that was 23 enough to warrant an EA, we then, you know, looked at 24 all the other environmental resources that would be 25 affected in the context of the EA rather than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
349 1 determining whether groundwater issues would -- would 2 require an EA on their own.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. So again, we're 4 back to the same question: Once you go down the path 5 of the EA, the scope of the environmental assessment 6 has the same scope and foundation and basis. So you 7 walk down that road. But what you've helped us here 8 is understand maybe in the timeline that the staff was 9 aware of potential hypersaline conditions underneath 10 the plant and migrating outside the confines of the 11 CCS region. Right?
12 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: That's not a misstatement, 14 is it?
15 MS. GRANGE: No, that's not.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you. Because 17 the next thing we want to talk about -- I mean, I 18 think that the purpose of a lot of these questions is 19 the lack of any discussion within the environmental 20 assessment of groundwater resources and the impacts on 21 groundwater resources. So we've got another whole 22 series of questions that try to probe the staff's 23 understanding of what they understood about the 24 groundwater conditions and how they evaluated those 25 impacts.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
350 1 Again, this question is directed to Mr.
2 Klett, but the staff's free to provide a different 3 witness.
4 In your testimony on page 45 you provide 5 four reasons for concluding that the license 6 amendments are not likely to impact groundwater 7 resources near Turkey Point, is that correct? And 8 we'll give you a chance to check.
9 MS. KLETT: Yes, that is correct.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. So given that 11 understanding, let's start with the last reason. You 12 testify at page 45 that, "The state was already 13 directing the licensee to address the salinity within 14 the CCS." Did I read your testimony correct?
15 MS. KLETT: Yes.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it the position of the 17 staff that the staff is not obligated to consider the 18 impact of increased salinity in the CCS because of the 19 state's administrative order? In other words, FP&L 20 was already ordered to mitigate the salinity in the 21 canal?
22 MS. KLETT: I believe the environmental 23 assessment for the EPU had discussed the monitoring 24 effort going on with the state and FPL, and we did 25 reference that EA in our 2014 EA.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
351 1 CHAIR GIBSON: You referenced what in the 2 2014 EA? I'm sorry.
3 MS. KLETT: The -- the -- the 4 environmental assessment we did for the EPU.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Recognizing you referenced 6 it, did you reference it in conjunction with this 7 specific point?
8 MS. GRANGE: No, sir.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. That's what I 10 thought. So no tabula rasa reader would see it and 11 know what you were talking about unless they went back 12 and read the EA in terms of this groundwater issue.
13 That's all I'm trying to plumb. Okay. Sorry.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess, Mr. Ford, let's 15 turn to you for a minute. In your testimony on page 16 56 you testified that, "FP&L's pumping will reduce the 17 amount of salt available to be transferred from the 18 CCS to the Biscayne Aquifer." Did I read your 19 testimony correctly?
20 MR. FORD: Absolutely.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's page 56 of NRC-22 001.
23 MR. FORD: Just a minute. We'll get 24 there. Question 92? Could you repeat the question 25 again?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
352 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess I'm curious.
2 You testified that FP&L's pumping will reduce the 3 amount of salt available to be transferred from the 4 CCS to the Biscayne Aquifer. And I should have 5 written down instead of page 56 the particular 6 question. Maybe it's a little further --
7 MR. FORD: Yes, I see --
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
9 MR. FORD: -- where it is. Ninety --
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Ninety-one.
11 MR. FORD: -- ninety-one. Yes, that means 12 that reducing the salinities in the CCS -- the salt in 13 the CCS comes from Biscayne Bay via the Biscayne Bay 14 Aquifer or the Floridan Aquifer, and the loss of water 15 in the CCS can increase the concentrations of the salt 16 in the CCS water and -- some of that water and then 17 move out into the Biscayne -- back into the Biscayne 18 Aquifer. So if you reduce the salinity in the CCS, 19 that basically dropping it to a lower level such as 20 Biscayne Bay water quality, I mean, salinity values, 21 that that would mean lower salinity water would leak 22 out the bottom of the CCS back into the Biscayne Bay 23 Aquifer.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I think that's part 25 of where I get confused in this argument. From my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
353 1 perspective pumping more water into the canal doesn't 2 reduce the amount of salt in the canal, does it?
3 MR. FORD: Adding fresher water, water of 4 lower salt content into the CCS, which has a higher 5 salt content, you basically can think of it as 6 diluting the amount of salt. So now you have got more 7 water given the amount of salt, and so the 8 concentrations in the CCS of salt would go down.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess when I look 10 at the picture, it just seems to me you're adding 11 fresher water on top and the salt's all sitting in the 12 bottom. And maybe what you've changed is the gradient 13 through the canal, but you haven't taken salt out.
14 You've just diluted it. And to the extent that the 15 dilution's on the surface and not on the bottom, it's 16 not clear to me that this effect is very --
17 MR. FORD: So this --
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- a strong effect, if you 19 will. And I guess I'm looking for some --
20 MR. FORD: The statement here is if you 21 took all the water in the CCS and -- the salinity of 22 the -- you know, reduce the salinity in it. Now, I 23 can address -- these -- these canals are only --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess how would you 25 do that, though?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
354 1 MR. FORD: These canals are only two-and-2 a-half-feet deep, I think.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
4 MR. FORD: And so, I don't know much 5 stratification you get. And so, it might mix pretty 6 well, you know? And so, but basically this statement 7 says that if you could reduce the salinity in the 8 Biscayne -- I mean, the CCS, that you would reduce the 9 salinity of water leaking into the Biscayne Aquifer 10 many -- it's not like you've got a really deep 11 swimming pool.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. Yes, I think I'm 13 going to have to think about -- I hear you. I'm going 14 to have to think about it. Maybe -- I see Judge 15 Sager's looking at me.
16 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, I want to ask a 17 question here.
18 So, yes, if you don't mind, that brought 19 up a point that I hadn't really thought about before.
20 So how does salt get out of the CCS? Evaporation will 21 take the fresh water out and leave the salt behind.
22 You can add more water, but the salt -- where does the 23 salt go? How does it leave the canal system?
24 MR. FORD: Okay. Water can enter the --
25 the -- the system and it can leave by -- leave by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
355 1 evaporation, or it can leave by moving into the 2 Biscayne Aquifer. Salt tends to -- will move in, but 3 when water is evaporated, it's left behind. So there 4 is -- that accounts for the incretion -- the increase 5 in concentration in the CCS.
6 The if salt's going to move out of the 7 CCS, it's going to move out into the Biscayne Aquifer.
8 I don't know to what extent it might precipitate and 9 stay in the -- in the CCS.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, that's what I was 11 thinking. So thanks for confirming that.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I guess maybe 13 go back to Ms. Klett. Another reason you give for 14 concluding that there was no significant impact on 15 groundwater resources is that the increase in the 16 temperature limit reduces the plant's need to consume 17 additional water. That again is on page 45 of NRC-18 001. And I guess I'm first asking for confirmation 19 that that's what you testified.
20 MS. KLETT: Yes.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the follow-up question; 22 I mean, we're going to get back to salinity in the 23 canals, is there no downside of increased salinity in 24 the CCS with increased temperatures? I mean, we're 25 going to get into this later, and I don't know who's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
356 1 the right witness. This is the question of whether 2 increased temperature which reduces density or 3 increased temperature which increases evaporation 4 which increases the amount of salinity in the canal --
5 and the Board's got lots of questions here, and I 6 don't know when is the right time to have it.
7 Maybe this is the wrong time. Maybe we 8 need a break. But we're going to go back and forth on 9 this. Both FP&L witnesses and staff witnesses have 10 gone down the same path of trying to separate 11 temperature and density. And I don't know how we're 12 going to get to the bottom of this. And that's what 13 I'm trying to get to here. This may be too early, but 14 I'll --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: It's too early.
16 (Laughter) 17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Judge Gibson says it's too 18 early. I'm probably not making this clear. I mean, 19 people keep using these individual temperature density 20 arguments, and I never think of them as separable like 21 that. And I'm trying to figure out if someone --
22 maybe you can think about this.
23 What I'd be looking for is there a 24 competing effect? If you increase the temperature, 25 you get more evaporation, you get more density, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
357 1 I'm really -- none of these, either FP&L's argument 2 nor the staff's argument is compelling to me, but I 3 think all of you are passionately trying to tell me 4 something important. And I'm looking for some clarity 5 here. This is one point. Yes, I agree, if you heat 6 the water up, the density goes done, the driving force 7 is less. But as soon as you start heating it up, it's 8 going to start evaporating and the density is going to 9 go up.
10 Mr. Ford wants to help me. I can see it.
11 MR. FORD: I'll see what I can do. So let 12 me -- I'll -- I'll try and step through it as my 13 understanding, that basically salt water has a higher 14 density than -- than fresh water. So if you -- if you 15 -- if, you know, it goes in where it tends to mix or 16 comes together that the denser water, the water will 17 tend go underneath the less-dense water. So as 18 salinities increase in the CCS due to evaporation, the 19 density of the water as the salts increase should also 20 increase. So as the salt goes up, the water content 21 in the CCS, the density should go up.
22 Now, if evaporation increases due to 23 higher temperatures or more -- you know, for whatever 24 reason the evaporation increases, let's say a higher 25 temperature, then that would create more salt. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
358 1 there's a competing phenomena, and that is as the 2 temperature goes up, even with salty water, the 3 density goes up. So if you didn't have this phenomena 4 of the temperature -- you know, the density going down 5 a little bit due to the increase in temperature, that 6 you would get more higher denser water on the bottom 7 of the CCS moving into the Biscayne Aquifer.
8 So the increase in temperature doesn't 9 stop the movement of saline water. It slows it down 10 some. And if these temperatures aren't going to be 11 for very long periods of time, then you're not going 12 to see that effect. You know, much -- much change.
13 By that I mean much change in terms of the -- the 14 salinities moving into the Biscayne Aquifer.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, I think we'll take 16 a break --
17 MR. FORD: And it slows -- it basically 18 for a short of period of time you're not going to get 19 as much.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. And this is the 21 same short duration that's referred to in the 22 temperature variation?
23 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: That there's a presumption 25 here that this is a short temporal event?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
359 1 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Maybe just while 3 you're speaking, what came to mind when you started 4 talking about the competing differences was your 5 discussion just a few minutes ago about the 6 shallowness of this canal and the expectation that 7 there wouldn't be a large gradient through this canal.
8 So I guess that -- again, I'm sort of stuck here. I 9 mean, I'm --
10 MR. FORD: No, the explanation was it 11 wouldn't be a lot of difference -- stratification.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Stratification.
13 MR. FORD: Stratification I think --
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
15 MR. FORD: -- was the word.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, but I thought I was 17 hearing you say that you need to think in terms of a 18 stratification or a gradient --
19 MR. FORD: Well --
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- through the canal.
21 MR. FORD: What I meant was in a broader 22 sense if you were in an -- an -- an aquifer that had 23 different water densities and salinities, that the 24 higher density water would tend to be at the bottom of 25 the aquifer --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
360 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, okay.
2 MR. FORD: -- rather than at the top.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: I think we'll take a break 4 for a little while and I'll think about this. And I 5 don't know if this is the appropriate time to come 6 back to FP&L, because I think FP&L uses the same 7 argument. So I don't know. We'll discuss among 8 ourselves if we want to keep going down this path.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: We're going to be in recess 10 for 10 minutes. We'll come back on the record and 11 then we'll take a lunch break in about an hour.
12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 13 off the record at 11:54 a.m. and resumed at 12:06 14 p.m.)
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Just for planning purposes 16 I think probably about 45 to an hour we'll take a 17 lunch break. Do you all need an hour? Do you all 18 need 45 minutes? What do you all need?
19 MR. HARRIS: An hour, Your Honor.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Hour?
21 JUDGE SAGER: I agree.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. We'll do that then.
23 Very well. Judge Kennedy? Judge Sager? Do you guys 24 have any more questions about this --
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: About temperature and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
361 1 salinity.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Density?
3 JUDGE SAGER: Could I try something just 4 to cut to the chase a little bit to Mr. Ford? I think 5 what he was trying to get at was the competing effects 6 of temperature and salinity on density. So increased 7 temperature makes the water less dense. Increased 8 salinity makes it greater density. I think he was 9 trying to get at some sort of picture of which is 10 dominant.
11 I think perhaps you refer to that in one 12 of your comments that the temperature makes it less 13 likely to sink. So given that there are infinite 14 number of combinations of increased temperature and 15 increased salinity, is the temperature a smaller 16 factor than the salinity on density?
17 MR. FORD: From the USGS report that I 18 referenced in my testimony the -- the -- the study 19 showed that -- you know, this is not looking at the 20 100, 104, this is the long-term operation CCS -- that 21 this it slowed the rate of movement, but it eventually 22 did move through. Groundwater still continued to move 23 into the CCS.
24 I might add that the temperature increases 25 in the CCS vary quite a bit from day to day, and so --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
362 1 and also seasonally. And so, we don't expect that 2 there would be a big increase in salinity for a long 3 time. These would be kind of shorter events.
4 MS. KLETT: If I -- if I may, Judge 5 Kennedy, you had asked me before the break about the 6 meaning behind the staff's testimony where we state 7 the increase in temperature limit reduces the plant's 8 need to consume additional water. If I may add --
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. Sure, please.
10 MS. KLETT: -- add to that? The -- the 11 concept behind is from an operational standpoint and 12 just purely from a temperature standpoint that the 13 additional water withdrawals would be needed to keep 14 the CCS at a cooler temperature; for example, at the 15 previous limit of 100 degrees. So if there was no 16 temperature limit, they wouldn't have a need to inject 17 water for the purposes of cooling to stay within a 18 tech spec limit. However, per the -- the state's COC 19 and their mitigation plan they are injecting water to 20 reduce salinity. But from the temperature standpoint 21 the amendment offered relief by not driving them --
22 for the -- to the need to inject water for the 23 purposes of staying within the temperature limit.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: So by raising the limit 25 you allowed them to run the canals hotter before they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
363 1 would have the need to inject water to bring the 2 temperature down?
3 MS. KLETT: Correct.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
5 MS. KLETT: Well --
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Oh, go ahead.
7 MS. KLETT: -- to continue -- yes, to 8 continue operation above 100 degrees.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: To continue operation, 10 right.
11 MS. KLETT: Yes.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Are you finished with 14 your --
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, I'm done. I'm passing 16 it on.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Judge Sager?
18 JUDGE SAGER: On to me? Okay. So I think 19 this question probably could go to anyone, but I think 20 Mr. Bolleter, it's probably in your wheelhouse.
21 In the documents that are referenced about 22 in -- well, in the documents that are provided there 23 are many citations of water being pumped out of 24 various groundwater resources and surface water 25 resources. Can you give me a snapshot of what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
364 1 sort of budget of water coming in and from what 2 sources? We've heard the Upper Floridan Aquifer, 3 Biscayne Aquifer, the L31E canal are all various 4 sources. And I gather some of them are intermittent 5 and some of them may not even be online yet. Can you 6 kind of give me a picture of the water that is being 7 pumped into the canal?
8 MR. BOLLETER: I can, but let me first 9 defer to -- to Pete Andersen. Pete's been handling 10 the water budget and can talk first about it. And 11 then if there's any other input I can certainly 12 provide as far as what currently is being pumped in, 13 or Mr. Scroggs.
14 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, this is Pete Andersen.
15 As a part of our studies and in looking at the --
16 primarily responding to the state's needs in terms of 17 reduction of salinity, we have taken the information 18 that is being generated under this monitoring plan 19 that -- that Jim is very familiar with and developed 20 a water and salt balance model, which is essentially 21 a spreadsheet model that looks at all the inflows and 22 outflows to the system and looks at them using 23 basically scientific principles and -- and physical 24 relationships.
25 And so, it -- it does some of the things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
365 1 with looking at how the different components interact 2 with one another, rather than some of the kind of 3 speculation that we tend to do as to if you do this, 4 what happens? This -- this is actually a 5 comprehensive water balance that affects -- that --
6 that looks at everything.
7 So I guess in terms of your question, you 8 know, there are kind of these -- these natural or 9 background effects such as, you know, you're adding 10 water through precipitation, which is the primary 11 input. You also have the Biscayne Bay input, which is 12 primarily up by the intake where you're pulling water.
13 So that's a Biscayne Aquifer pulling of water. You 14 have some water which is coming in from the west, some 15 groundwater seepage coming in from the west.
16 And in terms of the discharges, the 17 primary discharge is evaporation, which is pretty much 18 the -- the purpose of the cooling canal system. You 19 also have water flowing out of the cooling canal 20 system into the aquifer, into the Biscayne Aquifer as 21 a discharge, and that is -- that's -- that's something 22 that's expected and necessary in order to essentially 23 remove some of the salt.
24 So we have that -- that primary inputs and 25 outputs. And our model looks at a four-year period, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
366 1 and you can see how it's calibrated to temperature 2 changes, it's calibrated to stage changes in the 3 cooling canal system. So I think we have a pretty 4 good understanding of how it's operated in the past.
5 So what -- what we're able to do with that 6 model then is to look at a changed system; that is, 7 what happens if you add water? What happens if you 8 take water out? And we've looked at all those 9 components of -- of flow. So and -- and those -- I --
10 I have a memorandum that -- the exhibit number escapes 11 me on that, but we talk about the different sources.
12 I think right now the main source is that there was --
13 or it's actually ended now, but the L31E addition of 14 water. There is proposed and will take place a 14-15 million-gallon-a-day Floridan Aquifer addition. And 16 then there were some interim measures that took place 17 which were pumping out of some wells on Turkey Point 18 proper, which was the Biscayne saline source that was 19 added.
20 And so, there's -- it -- it -- it's --
21 it's no wonder that it's a little confusing, because 22 there are a number of different sources that have been 23 added and some -- some of which -- most of them are 24 actually not being added at the present time.
25 So -- so does that answer your question as far as the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
367 1 additions and subtractions are concerned?
2 JUDGE SAGER: Well, sort of. I mean, I'm 3 trying to get a picture. It seems like a lot of water 4 is being pumped in. And just thinking about the 5 system has -- well, instead of me making a statement, 6 let me ask you to be sure. It sounds like probably 7 precipitation and say groundwater exchange from the 8 outside in has never really been enough to offset the 9 evaporation and there's always been a need to add 10 water from the outside, pump some water from somewhere 11 into the canal. Is that correct?
12 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, there's a deficit 13 between evaporation and precipitation. There's more 14 evaporation than there is precipitation. That's made 15 up by that Biscayne Bay source that comes in, but 16 that's saline water, whereas the precipitation is --
17 is fresh water.
18 JUDGE SAGER: Right. So I'm just trying 19 to get a picture of the magnitude. Also often these 20 are quoted in rates. Fourteen million gallons per day 21 for five minutes doesn't mean much, but for a year 22 means a lot. So I was trying to get a picture for how 23 big that is that you have to pump other water in. And 24 I'm not sure that there's actually a simple answer to 25 that question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
368 1 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, I think that off the 2 kind of -- from memory I think that the evaporation is 3 on the order of about 35 million gallons a day.
4 JUDGE SAGER: Really? Okay.
5 MR. ANDERSEN: And then the precipitation 6 would be something less than that, probably in the 20s 7 or so.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So that does give us 9 a good idea of what you have to have in there to make 10 up for the difference? Okay. I think that's good 11 enough.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Good. Thank you.
13 Mr. Ford, I take you are familiar with 14 INT-004, which is the Florida Department of 15 Environmental Protection's administrative order to 16 FPL.
17 MR. FORD: I think I've seen it. I need 18 to look at the screen, though.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Okay. I believe 20 that's an email. The administrative order. There we 21 go. I think that's it. There you go. That's our 22 administrative order. You're familiar with this, sir?
23 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Good. Now this 25 administrative order requires Florida Power & Light to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
369 1 pump water into the cooling canal system in order to 2 reduce the salinity in the cooling canal system, is 3 that correct?
4 MR. FORD: Yes, it is.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: When the environmental 6 assessment looked at the fact that Turkey Point Units 7 3 and 4 would need to use additional water, it did not 8 take into account the net effect of the state's 9 requirement for more pumping to reduce salinity, did 10 it? You can -- oh, you're the one to answer that?
11 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. The 12 environmental assessment did take into account that we 13 -- that FPL was anticipating an administrative 14 order --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
16 MS. GRANGE: -- from the state to 17 authorize additional withdrawals from the Floridan 18 Aquifer.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: And where is that discussed 20 in the environmental assessment?
21 MS. GRANGE: Let me take a look at that 22 and I'll give you a reference.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Please do.
24 MS. GRANGE: That would be on page 44468 25 of the environmental assessment, which is NRC-009.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
370 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
2 MS. GRANGE: So the center column is 3 titled, "Aquifer Withdrawals." And if you look down 4 to the second paragraph under --
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you hold on a second?
6 Let me see if we can get that here.
7 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Where is this column now?
9 Its' 44468? Keep going, Mr. Welkie. Two more pages.
10 Keep going. We're looking for a table.
11 MS. GRANGE: It's -- it's right -- the 12 center column of text.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Center column? Okay.
14 MS. GRANGE: So --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: It's not in a table?
16 MS. GRANGE: Correct. The paragraph 17 starts, "FPL also anticipates the FDEP --
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
19 MS. GRANGE: -- "to issue an 20 administrative order."
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: And again, there's nothing 23 mentioned there about any potential impacts on 24 groundwater? It talks about surface water resources, 25 aquatic resources and crocodiles?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
371 1 MS. GRANGE: So the question is that 2 there's no --
3 (Simultaneous speaking) 4 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, I guess --
5 MS. GRANGE: -- discussed about 6 groundwater specifically?
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. So I guess the 8 question is was the impact of aquifer withdrawals on 9 groundwater resources looked at? And if so, where?
10 And if so, how? Maybe how and then where?
11 MS. GRANGE: Since -- maybe I should back 12 up and say in the context of this discussion, which is 13 within the cumulative impact discussion --
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
15 MS. GRANGE: -- we only addressed the 16 environmental resources that we -- or we only 17 specifically addressed the environmental resources 18 that we found there may be impacts in.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: And those were?
20 MR. FORD: And those were aquatic 21 resources, surface water resources, and the 22 crocodiles, I believe.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: And groundwater was not one 24 of them?
25 MS. GRANGE: No, groundwater was not. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
372 1 had concluded earlier in the EA that we didn't 2 anticipate significant environmental impacts, so it 3 would follow that we would also not anticipate 4 significant cumulative impacts to groundwater.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, I guess that 6 assessment of how the environmental resources were 7 limited to those three -- is there discussion in the 8 environmental assessment that talks about how you went 9 from a laundry list of say 11 or 12 potential 10 environmental resources down to focusing on those 11 three? Is there a discussion in the EA of how you got 12 to that?
13 MS. GRANGE: We do describe that briefly.
14 I -- I can give you a reference. Let me take a look 15 and let you know.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
17 MR. FORD: So the reference is page 44466.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Can we go back to 19 44466, Mr. Welkie?
20 Okay. Now we're on 44466. Is this it, 21 ma'am?
22 MS. GRANGE: And so, if you scroll down on 23 the first column of text under "Environmental Impacts 24 of the Proposed Action" --
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
373 1 MS. GRANGE: -- the very last paragraph 2 there that starts, "As previously discussed" --
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Right.
4 MS. GRANGE: -- we describe the proposed 5 action and then we list a number of resources there 6 that we have determined would not have significant 7 environmental impacts as a result of the proposed 8 action.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
10 MS. GRANGE: And then we exclude those 11 from --
12 CHAIR GIBSON: And that would be coming 13 over into the next column?
14 MS. GRANGE: Exactly.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
16 MS. GRANGE: And so there that's where we 17 -- we exclude a number of resources from further 18 consideration. And groundwater is one of those 19 resources.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Got it. Okay. Thank you.
21 You got anything else on that point?
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: No.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: You got anything else on 24 that point?
25 (No audible response)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
374 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. As a practical 2 matter whether or not FPL would need to pump more 3 groundwater under the license amendment depends on how 4 much water the plant would need to pump to reduce 5 temperature minus how much water the plant needs to 6 pump to reduce salinity, is that correct?
7 MS. GRANGE: Directly related to the 8 proposed action NRC only has a temperature 9 requirement.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: I recognize that.
11 MS. GRANGE: Okay.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: I recognize that. I'm just 13 asking a question. Whether they would need to pump 14 more groundwater under the license amendment depends 15 on how much water the plant would need to pump to 16 reduce temperature minus how much the plant needs to 17 reduce salinity, correct?
18 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
20 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. I heard it wrong 21 the first time.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: That's okay. That's okay.
23 The net pumping effect would also need to consider the 24 extent to which Florida Power & Light would need to 25 add more water to reduce salinity caused by increased NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
375 1 temperature, correct?
2 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: So it's possible that FPL 4 would need to consume additional water as a result of 5 the increased temperature to reduce salinity in line 6 with the state's order that we just discussed, 7 correct?
8 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: It's also possible that FPL 10 will need to pump so much water to reduce salinity 11 that FPL would not actually need to pump any more 12 water to reduce temperature irrespective of the 13 license amendment, correct?
14 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: I searched the EA and the 16 NRC staff testimony for any discussion of this net 17 pumping comparison between reducing temperature and 18 reducing salinity and I couldn't find anything. Did 19 I miss anything?
20 MR. FORD: Let's see. So --
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, it's --
22 MR. FORD: -- I'm not sure, but we'll --
23 we'll give it a shot. This is Bill Ford.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: In the EA or the testimony 25 that addresses this? I'm not asking you what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
376 1 answer is. I'm saying --
2 MR. FORD: Yes.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: -- there's no discussion in 4 the EA or your testimony about this net pumping 5 effect, is there?
6 MR. FORD: It's -- it's mixed, because the 7 discussion is that they're going to pump to reduce 8 salinity and they could also -- you know, and reduce 9 temperature.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
11 MR. FORD: But -- but it's logical to 12 assume that if you're having to pump to reduce 13 salinity, that that would also have the impact of 14 reducing the temperature.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, in your 16 testimony where the staff says that the increase in 17 the temperature limit reduces the plant's need to 18 consume additional water, that is limited to a 19 scenario in which Florida Power & Light does not need 20 to pump water to reduce salinity, correct?
21 MR. HOBBS: Correct. That answer was 22 primarily focused on temperature.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, sir. And yet we 24 know that Florida Power & Light has to pump water to 25 reduce salinity pursuant to the state's order. So the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
377 1 statement in the testimony that the increase in the 2 temperature limit reduces the plant's need to consume 3 additional water is really purely theoretical, isn't 4 it, because of Florida Power & Light's obligation to 5 pump groundwater to reduce salinity?
6 MR. HOBBS: Yes, the answer is mostly in 7 a hypothetical sense that if the temperature were to 8 possibly increase that high.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, sir. Mike?
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: You're read for heat load, 11 right?
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Hobbs, since you've 14 started testifying, we have additional questions for 15 you. So welcome to the proceeding.
16 (Laughter) 17 JUDGE KENNEDY: We have a bunch of 18 questions about the heat load, and I think we're 19 trying to get our arms around the specific license 20 amendment request that relates to the temperature 21 increase.
22 Mr. Hobbs, your conclusion that raising 23 the water temperature limit reduces the need to 24 consume additional water is based on the assumption 25 that FP&L would address high temperatures by adding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
378 1 additional water. Is that correct? I know you just 2 answered that, but yes.
3 MR. HOBBS: Yes, that's --
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. On page 53 of your 5 testimony the other alternative to increasing intake 6 temperature limit for Turkey Point 3 and 4 you 7 mentioned is to shut down the plant. Is that correct?
8 Is that another potential outcome?
9 MR. HOBBS: Yes, if the temperature were 10 to increase above the limit, then they would have to 11 shut down.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: So did the staff examine 13 whether Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 could have reduced 14 the intake temperature by down-rating the units? Did 15 you look at that at all?
16 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. I'll 17 answer that. Yes, we did. We considered that in the 18 no-action alternative.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Where is that mentioned in 21 the no-action alternative? I'm just curious. Is it 22 just a passing reference or is there some examination 23 of the actual effect of down-rating the units would be 24 in the no-action alternative?
25 MS. GRANGE: I'm looking for that page NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
379 1 reference for you now.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.
3 MS. GRANGE: That page reference is page 4 44469.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Would you call that up, 6 please, Mr. Welkie? Whoop, went too far.
7 MS. GRANGE: And it's the center column of 8 text. And scroll down until you see "Alternatives to 9 the Proposed Action."
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the answer is impacts 11 to grid reliability? Is that what you're pointing us 12 to?
13 MS. GRANGE: I was pointing you to a 14 discussion of a situation where FPL might need to shut 15 down. I think maybe you had an additional question, 16 if you could restate it, if that would be helpful.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So what was the basis for 18 rejecting the no-action alternative?
19 MS. KLETT: This is Audrey Klett. During 20 the processing of the amendment Turkey Point did come 21 in with the request for enforcement discretion. And 22 one -- one of the reasons behind that was the impact 23 of shutting the plants down on grid reliability. So 24 that was primarily the basis for granting the Notice 25 of Enforcement Discretion.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
380 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So if the question 2 was what's the basis for the no-action alternative, is 3 it the same basis that you just quoted for the 4 enforcement discretion?
5 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. Yes, 6 sir.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
8 Just out of curiosity, did I understand you to say you 9 granted the requested discretion?
10 MS. KLETT: Yes. Yes, we did.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is a question much 12 later in the testimony, but at this point it brings me 13 to wonder. There's a lot of discussion in the staff's 14 testimony about the short duration of this temperature 15 rise in the canal. Did it surprise the staff at all 16 that FP&L came in for a license amendment request 17 after having asked for discretion on operating above 18 the tech spec temperature?
19 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange again.
20 The amendment was requested before the Notice of 21 Enforcement Discretion was requested.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: So does that mean it's 23 just a timing thing?
24 MS. GRANGE: I guess I'm -- I'm maybe 25 confused. If you could restate the question?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
381 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Overall I guess if this is 2 such a short duration problem, I'm wondering why the 3 process of going down a license amendment request was 4 asked. And maybe I should ask FP&L. I mean, I'm 5 surprised by this. The staff thinks it's a short 6 duration, yet you asked for an amendment request.
7 Could you help us understand a little bit what was in 8 your thinking for asking for an amendment request?
9 MR. SCROGGS: I can tell you that -- that 10 the events that precipitated us asking for the 11 enforcement discretion and the amendment request came 12 on fairly quickly --
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
14 MR. SCROGGS: -- as a result of -- of 15 algae issues as well as the hypersalinity. And our 16 concern was a lot of this is driven by ambient 17 temperature and weather conditions. Not knowing what 18 those ambient and -- temperature and weather 19 conditions would be in the future, our timeline for 20 resolving this and our potential need for an elevated 21 upper -- ultimate heat sink temperature limit was 22 determined that it would be most prudent to go ahead 23 and ask for that since our modeling showed us that 24 that was capable.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you, sir. I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
382 1 think I need to rephrase the question. I think I got 2 to the right party.
3 MS. GRANGE: Great.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: But thank you for your 5 patience.
6 This is becoming a pattern, Mr. Scroggs.
7 FP&L's root cause evaluation that the canal's 8 exceeding 100 degrees, which is NRC Exhibit 025 -- I 9 have a bunch of questions about heat load, but in the 10 root cause evaluation I wanted to clarify what units 11 were being discussed there in terms of the temperature 12 problem. Is it just 3 and 4? Is it for other units?
13 MR. SCROGGS: No, at the time of the root 14 -- and -- and let me make sure I'm addressing the 15 correct root cause evaluation. Is this a root cause 16 evaluation from July of 2014 conducted by Turkey Point 17 staff?
18 CHAIR GIBSON: If we could call up NRC-19 025? I think that's it. Does this refresh your 20 recollection, sir?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, probably. If you could 22 just keep going down. Yes, this does. It does 23 refresh my -- so this -- at the time of conducting 24 this evaluation, root cause evaluation there were 25 three units that provided -- or relied on the cooling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
383 1 canal system for heat dissipation, Units 3 and 4 and 2 Unit 1, which is a fossil fueled-fired boiler from the 3 1960 time frame. Unit 5, a gas-fired plant, provides 4 blowdown from a forced draft cooling tower into the 5 cooling canal system, but does not rely on it for heat 6 dissipation. Unit 2 had been decommissioned and was 7 being used in synchronous mode, but didn't rely on the 8 cooling canal system for heat dissipation. So there 9 were three units, the two nuclear units and Unit 1, 10 that were being considered when this -- conducting 11 this root cause evaluation.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So it was 1, 3 and 13 4 then was the subject of that? Okay.
14 Just for clarification, so then Unit 5 15 provides no heat load to this canal?
16 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct, sir.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. I think 18 I'm good with all the heat load questions.
19 How about the blowdown from Unit 5? Does 20 that go into the canal?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
23 MR. SCROGGS: And that's at -- you know, 24 at temperature in the 80s, you know, close to ambient 25 out of a -- out of the blowdown basin in the forced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
384 1 draft cooling towers.
2 JUDGE SAGER: How much of that water is 3 there? It's been treated as insignificant. Do you 4 have an idea about how much it is?
5 MR. SCROGGS: It's -- it's on the order of 6 1,000 gallons per day or so. I'm -- I'm -- you know, 7 it's just --
8 JUDGE SAGER: So it's really --
9 MR. SCROGGS: -- infrequent. I mean, 10 there's --
11 JUDGE SAGER: -- orders of magnitude 12 smaller then?
13 MR. SCROGGS: Significantly --
14 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
15 MR. SCROGGS: -- smaller.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Staff, I want to get 17 to the timeline of the extended power up-rate that's 18 discussed in your testimony. In October 2010 Florida 19 Power & Light applied for an extended power up-rate 20 that would allow Florida Power & Light to increase the 21 outputs of Units 3 and 4 from approximately 700 22 megawatts to 804 megawatts per unit. Is that correct?
23 MS. KLETT: Yes, that is correct.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: At the time FPL predicted 25 in its site certification application, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
385 1 Florida Power & Light Exhibit 35, that the total 200-2 megawatt increase would lead to about a 1-degree 3 Fahrenheit increase in temperature at the intake 4 location. Is that correct?
5 MS. KLETT: I believe so, Your Honor, yes.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Now at the time FP&L 7 applied for the extended power up-rate it planned it 8 stop using Unit 2 for power generation. Is that 9 correct?
10 MS. KLETT: At the time of the EPU 11 application, I'm -- that I do not know.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
13 MS. KLETT: I -- I thought that the EPU 14 application assumed all four units were operating.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you clarify that for 16 us?
17 (Laughter) 18 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir. The -- the -- the 19 decision to decommission Unit 2 had not been 20 completed --
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
22 MR. SCROGGS: -- at the time of the up-23 rate. So at the time of the up-rate there were four 24 units --
25 CHAIR GIBSON: You anticipated using all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
386 1 four?
2 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
4 When was the decision made to decommission 5 Unit 2, or whatever the word is -- discontinue using 6 it?
7 MR. SCROGGS: The end of 2013.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: And when did you make the 9 decision to do that?
10 MR. SCROGGS: Sometime during the course 11 of 2013.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: During 2013?
13 MR. SCROGGS: It had not operated since 14 2010 --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
16 MR. SCROGGS: -- as a thermal unit, but 17 the final decision and dismantling began --
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
19 MR. SCROGGS: -- in 2014.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So it hadn't been 21 operating. It wasn't operating in 2010 or '11 or on, 22 but you hadn't made the decision yet to discontinue 23 using it until 2013? And then you made that final 24 decision later that year --
25 MR. SCROGGS: Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
387 1 CHAIR GIBSON: -- that you were not going 2 to use it? Is that correct?
3 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. On page 39 of your 5 testimony you indicated that the total amount of heat 6 discharged to the cooling canal system from Units 1 7 through 4 has decreased since implementation of the 8 extended power-rate. Is that correct?
9 MS. KLETT: That is correct.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: The reason for the total 11 amount of heat discharge to the cooling canal system 12 decrease was the phase out of Unit 2, correct?
13 MS. KLETT: Yes, Your Honor.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: And it is your testimony 15 that the phase out of Unit 2 more than compensated for 16 the increased heat load produced by the up-rate of 17 Units 3 and 4, correct?
18 MS. KLETT: That is correct.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Given the timing we just 20 discussed then, would it be more accurate to say that 21 the total amount of heat discharged from Units 1 22 through 4 has decreased since FPL applied for the 23 extended power up-rate as opposed to since it 24 implemented the power up-rate?
25 MS. KLETT: I believe when it applied for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
388 1 the up-rate that was before they stopped using Unit 2 2 as a power generator.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: They hadn't made the 4 decision yet to stop using 2, right?
5 MS. KLETT: Well, they had not made the 6 decision yet and I -- the application came in before 7 December 2010, which is when I believe they shut down 8 Unit 2.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. If the water 10 temperature had increased since the extended power up-11 rate, that would still be included in the 12 environmental assessment as part of the environmental 13 baseline, is that correct?
14 MS. GRANGE: I just want to clarify that 15 you --
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
17 MS. GRANGE: -- mean the license amendment 18 for the ultimate heat sink tech spec, that 19 environmental assessment? Because we're talking about 20 two now.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Why don't you explain to 22 me --
23 MS. GRANGE: Okay. Yes.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: -- what you're getting at, 25 and then maybe I can ask a follow-up question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
389 1 MS. GRANGE: We --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Because I'm not sure I can 3 reformulate my question --
4 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: -- in light of what you 6 just said.
7 MS. GRANGE: Of course. So we did 8 consider the -- the -- the conditions as they were in 9 the cooling canal system, which included increased 10 temperature when we wrote the 2014 EA. And that was 11 included in the environment baseline.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: For 2014?
13 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. Just got 15 a few more here and then we'll break for lunch.
16 At page 45 of the staff testimony we find 17 the first two explanations you give for no impact on 18 groundwater. And they are: No. 1, the change in the 19 temperature limit and Florida Power & Light's 20 mitigating actions do not impact saltwater intrusion.
21 And the second is the time that the cooling canal 22 system was expected to exceed the previous temperature 23 limit was of short duration. Is that right?
24 MS. KLETT: Yes, sir.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Just to be clear, when you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
390 1 say Florida Power & Light's mitigating actions, you're 2 referring to the pumping of groundwater that the state 3 requires of Florida Power & Light to reduce salinity, 4 is that correct?
5 MR. FORD: I believe we're -- we're 6 referring --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, hold on just a 8 minute. Okay. Now I just want to be sure you're 9 speaking into the microphone, sir.
10 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. So this is Bill 11 Ford. We're referring to the pumpings that we knew 12 about at the time of the EA. So that would be pumping 13 from the Floridan Aquifer and the salt water from the 14 Biscayne Aquifer.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that would constitute 16 all foreseeable aquifer withdrawals that were on the 17 horizon?
18 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, those are the ones 20 you were aware of?
21 MS. GRANGE: At the time we prepared the 22 EA those were the withdrawals we were aware of, the 23 withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer and the Floridan 24 Aquifer.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
391 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Are there any other 2 mitigation actions that the staff considered?
3 MS. GRANGE: The staff was also aware that 4 withdrawals from the L31E canal were a possibility.
5 At the time we were reviewing the license amendment 6 request FPL had not requested authorization for those 7 withdrawals from the state. And I believe at the time 8 they also hadn't made use of the Biscayne Aquifer 9 withdrawals. And so, given that there was still a 10 possibility for further withdrawals to mitigate 11 cooling canal system conditions, we didn't consider 12 the -- that the possibility of the L31E withdrawals 13 would be likely since FPL hadn't submitted a request 14 at that time. But we now know that they have -- that 15 they received authorization for those withdrawals.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So you knew at the 17 time that they were considering these other things, 18 but you considered them to be of such an insignificant 19 likelihood that you didn't address them? Is that a 20 fair statement?
21 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Now why did the staff 23 conclude that the temperature increase has no 24 significant impact on groundwater?
25 MR. FORD: The temperature increases would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
392 1 -- would be of short duration because there's a big 2 temperature swing from day to night that -- and then 3 seasonally with the amount of water that's put in, so 4 that we -- given that the energy going into the system 5 was the same or less that we figured that these 6 conditions were kind of unusual for the canal system 7 and the people were taking -- to try and take 8 corrective action. We talked about that, the 9 corrective actions the company was planning on taking.
10 Basically the salinities aren't going to 11 -- and the temperature's going to change that much 12 across the -- for a long period of time be operating 13 at above 100 degrees. It would be for short 14 durations. And these durations would be short enough 15 that the salinities aren't going to change for -- over 16 the long run in that -- in the canal system. And the 17 groundwater system itself is slow to change. So it's 18 going to be responding mostly to long-term changes in 19 the CCS, not changes of a few days or hours, or a week 20 or so.
21 So considering that, you -- you assume 22 that -- it's reasonable to assume that groundwater 23 conditions aren't going to change as a result of the 24 power up-rate. It's a small temperature increase that 25 is small relative to the routine changes that occur in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
393 1 the canal system.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: But we're talking here not 3 about a power up-rate. We're talking about an 4 increase in the temperature limit in the cooling canal 5 system, aren't we, sir?
6 MR. FORD: Yes, that's what I was talking 7 about.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, I heard you 9 say "power up-rate."
10 MR. FORD: That's it.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Maybe I --
12 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. I misspoke.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: -- misheard you, sir.
14 MR. FORD: I misspoke. I'm sorry.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: That's okay.
16 MR. FORD: I meant the ultimate heat sink.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Why did the staff conclude 18 that the mitigating actions have no significant impact 19 on groundwater?
20 MR. FORD: The impact of the mitigating 21 actions were if you pumped Biscayne water -- Biscayne 22 water near the site and put that water into the canal 23 system, that what you would effectively do is you'd be 24 pumping basically saltwater. And so you're not 25 impacting a freshwater resource, that the freshwater NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
394 1 resources are located far away from where these wells 2 would be pumping water and you would not increase the 3 rate of saltwater intrusion from Biscayne Bay into the 4 aquifer.
5 The -- with respect to the Floridan 6 Aquifer, the water quality in that aquifer is 7 brackish, so that we're not pumping from freshwater 8 supplies. It's brackish over a very large area. And 9 as a result you're not going to be increasing 10 saltwater intrusion from that source, or definitely 11 not in the Biscayne Aquifer, which is the aquifer 12 we're primarily talking about.
13 The site has pumped from the Biscayne for 14 a long time anyway and at the -- for Unit 5 without --
15 you know, little impact or changes in water quality 16 coming out of that well. It's still primarily pretty 17 close to the same brackish water quality it has been 18 for many years.
19 So those would be the primary reasons.
20 You haven't -- you know, we weren't aware of any 21 impact at the time on the local wells in terms of 22 water level withdrawals.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: I think Judge Sager may 24 have a question, but I've got something I want to ask 25 just one quick follow-up first.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
395 1 MR. FORD: Yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: It sounds to me like the 3 conclusion you reached that there will be no impacts 4 on saltwater intrusion depend on your assumption that 5 100-plus temperatures will be of short duration.
6 That's a fair statement, isn't it?
7 MR. FORD: Yes, that -- and they're going 8 to be of short duration, won't be for long periods of 9 time.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Okay.
11 MR. FORD: Yes.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
13 JUDGE SAGER: I'm good.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: You're good?
15 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. On page 45 of the 17 staff testimony you all give four specific reasons for 18 finding no significant impact on groundwater 19 resources. Does the environmental assessment's 20 finding of no significant impact depend on all four of 21 these reasons acting together? And is one or more of 22 them dominant?
23 MR. FORD: I'd say it was the -- that the 24 -- the change in -- the dominant one was that you 25 expect that the temperature increases --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
396 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
2 MR. FORD: -- would be of short duration.
3 It wouldn't be a long --
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
5 MR. FORD: -- period of time, followed up 6 by the mitigating actions that we knew about, don't 7 impact saltwater intrusion.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: So two is the most dominant 9 and one would be the second-most important. Is that 10 correct?
11 MR. FORD: Yes, and I would say the 12 state's knowledge -- that the state knew from previous 13 environmental -- we -- the -- the knowledge that the 14 staff had from previous environmental assessments, 15 that there were agreements with the state and local 16 bodies --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
18 MR. FORD: -- to mitigate and correct any 19 impacts on the groundwater from higher salinities also 20 figured in the decision.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Got anything else, 22 Judge Kennedy, do you want to follow up there, or are 23 you going to get started here?
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: (No audible response) 25 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you want to do that or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
397 1 do you want to break for lunch?
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's up to you.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Why don't we break for 4 lunch? It's now 12:50. We'll be back at 1:45. If 5 you guys are ready then, we'll get started. If you're 6 not here until 1:50, well, we'll cut you five minutes.
7 But we would like to keep moving today. Thank you.
8 We stand in recess for an hour.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 10 off the record at 12:50 p.m. to resume at 1:52 p.m.
11 this same day.)
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Please be seated. Thank 13 you. Back on the record.
14 Mr. Ford, just to follow up on one 15 question I had for you when we broke, you would not 16 dispute that the environmental impact could be 17 significant if these high water temperatures between 18 100 degrees Fahrenheit and 104 degrees Fahrenheit were 19 not of short duration, would you?
20 MR. FORD: First, I want to correct 21 something I said earlier, which is that we didn't rank 22 which is most important in terms of the impacts. We 23 considered them all. So, all those points we talked 24 about before we considered in total.
25 As far as the -- so the question is would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
398 1 there be significant impact if it was above 100 2 degrees?
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Let me make sure you 4 understood my question. I'll read it again. You 5 would not dispute that the environmental impact could 6 be significant if the high water temperatures between 7 100 degrees Fahrenheit and 104 degrees Fahrenheit were 8 not of short duration, would you?
9 MR. FORD: First of all, I want to say 10 this. That it is unusual -- I think it would be very 11 unusual if that were the case that it is difficult to 12 hold an open system like that at a constant 13 temperature. It is affected by climate, day, and 14 light, and the amount of precipitation. So, I think 15 that would be very unusual if it were to be up above 16 that for 104 degrees for an extended long period of 17 time.
18 So, would they be significant? Between 19 100 and 104 degrees it is a small temperature 20 increase. From what I have seen, I don't know if the 21 salinities are going to increase that much, you know 22 from looking at some of the other exhibits in this 23 testimony.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: But it sounds like you are 25 saying that it would not be significant, then.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
399 1 MR. FORD: I don't think so.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think Judge 3 Kennedy has some other questions for you about short 4 duration.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm fascinated by short 6 duration.
7 Mr. Ford, just to clear the record, you 8 were not one of the authors of the environmental 9 assessment. Is that true?
10 MR. FORD: That's correct.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: But I take it you are 12 familiar with the contents of the environmental 13 assessment?
14 MR. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
16 I'm not sure this question is directed to 17 you but I am going to ask it and maybe any one of the 18 staff witnesses can answer.
19 The EA at page 44466 concludes that the 20 canals could experience temperatures between 100 and 21 104 degrees at the intake location for short durations 22 during periods of peak summer air temperature and low 23 rainfall. And again, this in the EA. I am looking 24 for clarification that I read that correctly.
25 I don't want to put you on the spot, Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
400 1 Ford, if you didn't participate in the EA. Let's see, 2 Mr. Welkie is putting the particular site up there.
3 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, what you 4 just said is an accurate statement.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. And, again, I 6 think this, again, brings it back into focus the 7 question of short durations. I'm looking for some 8 quantification of what the staff means when it states 9 short duration. Is it a few weeks? Is it calendar 10 time? Is it time at temperature? I mean this is a 11 little different than the question I have. But the 12 more I listen to you talk, Mr. Ford, I'm wondering if 13 we are talking about something that goes on over a 14 long period of time in a fluctuating manner or it is 15 the time at the elevated temperature and which of 16 those this duration question is trying to -- the short 17 duration classification is trying to point to. This 18 is too hard.
19 MR. FORD: Well, we know, historically, 20 that there has been very few instances where it went 21 over 100 degrees. Maybe, Audrey, you could give some 22 more details.
23 MS. KLETT: To my knowledge, prior to the 24 summer of 2014, the temperature had not exceeded 100 25 degrees. Before we issued the amendment, I believe it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
401 1 went above 100 degrees on five occasions and, on each 2 of those occasions, it was less than eight hours in 3 duration.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, is the important issue 5 here, then, the maximum temperature? I mean we are 6 going to go around and around about whether four 7 degrees is significant in the context of a 20 degree 8 daily swing. I mean one picture I have is that you 9 authorized the plant to operate above its previous 10 limit. I could see that as the whole canal 11 temperature could be elevated, just by argument sake, 12 by four degrees. So, it is an average temperature 13 increase over the next 35 years.
14 I mean that, to me, I worry about that.
15 I am concerned about small degree temperature 16 variations on average over a long period of time 17 having an impact on salinity and migration and leading 18 to more aquifer withdrawals and this whole thing just 19 going on, and on, and on. But yet, I heard the staff 20 being focused on say a peak temperature and a peak 21 temperature that only occurs for a small period of 22 time.
23 I'm really trying to understand your 24 perspective as to why you feel that is the most 25 important issue to address here. Because I see it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
402 1 different.
2 I see the staff has authorized a plan to 3 operate possibly at a higher temperature, on average, 4 for the rest of the life of the plant. And I don't 5 see that discussed, considered, but yet we have a lot 6 of testimony on the importance of the short duration 7 of this problem.
8 MS. KLETT: I think for the peak 9 temperature, for it to peak above 100, that is a short 10 duration. And given the natural variation of the CCS 11 system, the temperatures range between somewhere in 12 the 70s to typically in the mid-90s. So, the four 13 degree increase we thought, in the maximum peak, was 14 within the natural variation of the system and it can 15 vary 20, 25 degrees naturally throughout the year.
16 And given that FPL is addressing the algae 17 bloom, which I think escalated the temperature issues, 18 I think when that issue is addressed, the CCS 19 conditions would -- I guess the average temperatures, 20 I would assume, would return back to what they were 21 prior to the algae bloom.
22 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. I 23 would like to add to that response.
24 So, another thing to consider is that we 25 weren't looking at increasing the average temperature NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
403 1 by four degrees but just increasing the allowable 2 temperature at one measuring point by four degrees.
3 There is no extra heat going into the system and there 4 were a lot of contributing factors at the time that 5 were responsible for the increased temperatures, 6 including low rain fall and the algae bloom.
7 And so what we have seen since we issued 8 the amendment was that the temperatures have actually 9 not exceeded 100 degrees except for a couple short 10 durations in August of 2014. And, in fact, in 2015, 11 they have been back within the normal range of 12 temperatures that preceded the license amendment 13 request.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's great. I'm 15 glad that it has sort of been fixing itself. But if 16 I am sitting, as you point out before, you had to draw 17 a time line that said, at this point in time, I am 18 going to look forward and see what the environmental 19 impacts of making this tech spec change could be.
20 You know I struggle with what should be a 21 reasonable expectation that this would fix itself and 22 what could you rely on. I don't think in the four 23 factors that were quoted that mitigative effects were 24 -- you know I'm really -- I just don't get it.
25 To me, on one hand, the importance of not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
404 1 violating a technical specification, I get that but 2 that is for a whole other set of problems. Now, to 3 allow this tech spec change to go forward and to grant 4 the license amendment request, the staff has to look 5 at a host of environmental resources and environmental 6 effects. And I think the Board just continues to 7 struggle with trying to understand what the staff 8 relied on to not at particular resources or to not 9 look at particular magnitudes of effects.
10 So, I think the rest of today's questions 11 and going in possibly to tomorrow really try to get to 12 that backdrop of what did the staff rely on, where is 13 it documented in the environmental assessment, and 14 what those -- so we can understand what perspective 15 and what context the staff used to understand either 16 the lack of environmental impacts or the magnitude of 17 the environmental impacts that you did look at.
18 I don't mean to be testifying but I'm 19 trying to give you some context as to what is 20 troubling me. And I still, I am not getting an 21 acceptable answer in understanding the short duration, 22 nor do I even understand the short duration was in the 23 staff's consideration when it wrote and documented the 24 environmental assessment.
25 MS. GRANGE: Well, I can speak a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
405 1 bit to why we decided to look at it from the 2 perspective of the short duration, if this might be 3 helpful to you.
4 One thing we take a look at during NEPA 5 reviews is what is likely to happen, rather than 6 looking at the worst case scenario. We don't look 7 whether the impacts of it operating at four degrees 8 higher for the rest of the operating license but what 9 do we think is reasonable to occur in the future.
10 And so given that temperatures naturally 11 vary in the CCS and there is fluctuations throughout 12 the year, and that we had a lot of compounding issues 13 at the time, we expected that those conditions could 14 happen again in the future, perhaps, and that there 15 would be times where the temperatures would be 16 elevated in the cooling canal system again but that, 17 in the context of other things that were happening, 18 like FPL working with the state on mitigative actions 19 to reduce salinity in the cooling canal system, as 20 well as the fact that there wasn't any additional 21 power input as a result of the license amendment, we 22 didn't expect there to be anything that would make us 23 want to look at the environmental impacts of 24 continuous or long-term, long duration, elevated 25 temperatures.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
406 1 So, we were looking at what would the 2 impacts be in the context of these conditions 3 happening for short periods of time here and there 4 over the rest of the life of the license.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, I mean I guess, as I 6 understand what you just said, and you have mentioned 7 this earlier in your testimony that the staff relied 8 upon the implementation of various mitigation measures 9 that the State of Florida was going to impose on FP&L.
10 MS. GRANGE: Correct, that was one thing 11 we considered.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: And did you -- I think you 13 may have answered this before but I have forgotten.
14 Is that documented in the environmental assessment at 15 all?
16 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir, it is. I can find 17 the reference for you again, if you need it.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, that's fine. I 19 thought you had answered that before.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. Scroggs -- you have got 21 something you need to say Mr. Bolleter?
22 MR. BOLLETER: Well, just as a --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: I don't want you to explode 24 there.
25 MR. BOLLETER: Just as a follow-up. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
407 1 again, I can't speak to what NRC looked at but we did 2 a separate evaluation. I did an evaluation that was 3 more focused on what we're -- using actual data that 4 we are seeing, we can speculate all kinds of things 5 and so forth but taking and looking at actual data, 6 including some conservatism in what we are looking at.
7 Pete, in a minute, can talk a little bit 8 about he actually looked at, assuming a worst case 9 scenario that you added four degrees of heat to the 10 overall system, which is not going to occur. So, what 11 I ended up doing is we have a very extensive 12 monitoring network in and around the cooling canal 13 system. We have a station that is about a half a mile 14 upstream of the intake and we get temperature readings 15 every hour, unless the probe goes bad or whatever.
16 So, we said, just as an illustrative 17 example, let's just say that that is where the intake 18 is. That is a conservative assumption because you are 19 going to get additional cooling as that water gets 20 down to the intake.
21 So, we looked at the record from when NRC 22 action was approved up until, we took a cutoff date 23 of, September of 2015. We counted the number of hours 24 that we had a temperature in excess of 100 degrees.
25 It was, I think, 61 hours7.060185e-4 days <br />0.0169 hours <br />1.008598e-4 weeks <br />2.32105e-5 months <br /> total and that was out of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
408 1 8,000 some-odd records. I think it was like 0.7 2 percent of the time.
3 So, NRC is right on in terms of the 4 frequency of that occurring is very low. And as a 5 matter of fact, it is my understanding since the NRC 6 action, the temperature at the intake never exceeded 7 100 degrees. So, this is a somewhat conservative 8 assumption.
9 Even if you were to double the number, 10 double the frequency or triple it, the percent is 11 very, very small. And again, keep in mind, the 12 temperature in the cooling canal is a function the 13 operation of the plant, atmospheric temperatures, 14 rainfall and so forth, and things like that. So, it 15 would have to be a very, very unusual event for those 16 temperatures to stay elevated for an extended period 17 of time. From the day that we look at, we don't see 18 that occurring.
19 We also went an extra step and just said 20 okay, let's just say what kind of effect does this 21 additional temperature, heat that has been added to 22 the system, how does that affect the overall salinity?
23 Because the feeling is, because it doesn't occur that 24 often, it is not going to have a very notable effect 25 on salinity but I don't know what that is. We wanted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
409 1 to try to quantify that.
2 So, again, as an illustrative example, we 3 basically looked at, came up with an average, using 4 all the data that we have in the cooling canal system, 5 and came up with an average temperature for that 6 period of time. That includes all the temperatures 7 over 100 degrees at that particular location that we 8 are going to say, for conservative purposes, at the 9 intake.
10 We then said okay, what happens if NRC did 11 not allow that to occur and did not allow that 12 additional heat at that location to be added to the 13 system. We then subtracted that amount of heat out of 14 the whole cooling canal system and came up with a 15 revised average. I had to go to three decimal places 16 in order to determine it. It's like -- I can't 17 remember the exact number -- 91.005 or something. It 18 was like 0.005 degrees difference allowing that 19 additional heat into the system. I can't even measure 20 that.
21 So, it is something that, again, from a 22 frequency standpoint in relation to duration is maybe 23 an hour or two. It could be half a day. I don't 24 remember the exact duration. But these are just like 25 when you look in the summertime a really high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
410 1 temperature, you are going to see a potential spike 2 that has occurred.
3 And also Mr. Scroggs can testify some of 4 that data is during a period when the cooling canal 5 was not operating very effectively. We were not 6 getting very good cooling. There was algae bloom.
7 The salinity was higher. We felt there was heat being 8 retained in the system. So, the cooling canal was not 9 cooling as well.
10 So, again, we think some of that is, 11 again, the assessment is somewhat conservative.
12 Because that was pretty poor conditions in the cooling 13 canal from a heat dissipation standpoint.
14 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, this is Peter 15 Andersen.
16 Just to follow-up with what Jim was 17 saying, I took kind of a book-ending approach or kind 18 of a worst case analysis and I looked at what would be 19 the net effect of a four degree rise that just took 20 place in perpetuity so that you would have these 21 spikes that were over the 100 degrees but you would 22 also have just a hotter cooling canal system that may 23 be below this level. And I related it to the energy 24 balance calculations that were done on the uprate, 25 which showed that for a 2.5 degree rise, there would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
411 1 be, in the hot part of the cooling canal system, there 2 would be a 3.6 psu salinity rise. And so just doing 3 a ratio on proportion on that, I came up with a rise 4 of 5.8 psu for the four degree rise.
5 So, as Jim has said, that is not really 6 the intent of the license amendment but, nevertheless, 7 it kind of shows kind of the worst case or the 8 bookending of this and then, in reality, it will be 9 much less, as Jim has done the calculations for.
10 JUDGE SAGER: So, let me clarify, I think 11 what you said was if you ramp the whole system up 12 permanently four degrees, it would end up being what 13 was it 5 psu, something like that?
14 MR. ANDERSEN: 5.8, 6 psu, yes.
15 MR. BOLLETER: And just keep in mind, 16 still with the administrative order, FPL would have to 17 still keep the salinity down, you know have a much 18 lower salinity.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, those salinity 20 increases and those temperature profiles, they are 21 dominated by the environmental conditions that the 22 cooling canals seize, ambient temperatures, rain, all 23 that sort of stuff. Is that what I am supposed to 24 take away from that discussion?
25 Do you want to talk about the condition of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
412 1 the cooling canal system?
2 MR. BOLLETER: Yes, there was a period of 3 time where we had a very significant algae bloom. It 4 was a very unique algae, very filamentous algae, also 5 with the salinity being very high. We saw more 6 retention of heat and the cooling canal system was 7 just not cooling as effectively.
8 Also, just based on some assessment FPL 9 had done, there was not uniform distribution of 10 cooling in the cooling canal system and so they have 11 implemented a dredging program to try to help improve, 12 again, sort of the better distribution of flow to get 13 better cooling in the system.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't know who is the 15 right person at FP&L to answer this but how should we 16 view the drought conditions in 2014?
17 MR. SCROGGS: I think --
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: The usual, extraordinary 19 won't happen again.
20 MR. SCROGGS: Well, actually, the system 21 behaves based on multiple years of response. So, in 22 2014, we experienced a drought and rainfall really 23 didn't occur in normal precipitation amounts until the 24 July time frame. That was the second of three years 25 that had high drought conditions or low precipitation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
413 1 conditions, high evaporation conditions. So, that was 2 helping to drive the salinity problem.
3 And I think the biggest learning is the 4 summer of 2015. We actually had a D3 drought 5 classification of extreme drought in Southern Florida 6 during the summer of 2015. We didn't receive 7 appreciable rainfall as you saw in some of the earlier 8 data until late August. Yet, the improvements that we 9 were able to make by improving the sediment and flow 10 distribution in the canal system and some of the 11 Biscayne Marine aquifer water, allowed us to stabilize 12 the system, maintain temperatures below 100 degrees, 13 even with those drought conditions and full-time, full 14 power operation of all units; whereas, in the summer 15 of 2014 we actually came off power a couple of times 16 because of temperature conditions.
17 So, I think you can see that we have 18 exerted quite a bit of managerial control over the 19 conditions in the canal system. In doing so, we have 20 moved ourselves away from the upper heat sync 21 temperature limit. We expect that to be the case 22 when, back to our question earlier, the reason that we 23 asked and continue to pursue the license amendment was 24 with climatic changes as they have been observed to 25 be, we don't know what combination of factors we will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
414 1 experience in the future. We wanted to be able to 2 have the margin that the increased temperature limit 3 allowed but we have demonstrated, particularly in 4 2015, the ability to exert control over the cooling 5 canal system thermodynamically, water quality ways, so 6 that we are now moving ourselves -- we are providing 7 margin for ourselves through our physical actions in 8 the system.
9 That is a little bit of a rambling answer 10 to your question.
11 MR. BOLLETER: And we also had a drought 12 in 2011 that was pretty significant that probably some 13 of our lower water levels in the groundwater were 14 probably observed during that time period and there 15 was not an issue with temperature in the cooling canal 16 at that time. But we did, the water was much better 17 condition. We were getting much more effective 18 cooling at that time. We didn't have an algae bloom.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I'm good.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: I want to turn to the root 21 cause analysis which was NRC-025. Now, actually I 22 think it is referenced in that document but, anyway, 23 the root cause analysis that you all did indicated 24 that after temperatures reached 100 degrees, you 25 concluded that historically a general guidance has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
415 1 existed that a reduction in 200 megawatts equates to 2 a one degree Fahrenheit reduction in the CCS UHS 3 temperature.
4 Is that -- do I understand that correctly, 5 that is what the historical data suggests?
6 MR. SCROGGS: That is a historical rule of 7 thumb that operations has been able to glean, looking 8 through the data control system information. I will 9 add, though, that the response time for that is 10 considerable. If you come down 200 megawatts, that 11 molecule of water has two days before it comes around 12 to your enzyme.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: It's not instantaneous.
14 But there is just the general long-term trend if you 15 do that. Correct?
16 MR. SCROGGS: That was what has been used 17 as a rule of thumb to make judgments as to whether or 18 not down-powers would be effective for temperature 19 control.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, is the inverse true?
21 If you increase by 200 megawatts, does that equate to 22 about a one degree Fahrenheit increase in the CCS UHS 23 temperature?
24 MR. SCROGGS: Again, all other factors 25 equal and you are just isolating the thermal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
416 1 component.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
3 MR. SCROGGS: That is approximately 4 correct.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, the root cause 6 analysis indicated that the organizational drivers of 7 the canal temperature reaching 100 degrees, talk about 8 the organizational drivers for that but I couldn't 9 locate in there whether you all determined the actual 10 technical or scientific cause of the rise in the 11 cooling canal temperature. Did you all figure out 12 what it was?
13 MR. SCROGGS: Not in this document.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Then I was not wrong 15 in not finding it.
16 MR. SCROGGS: We recognize that the root 17 cause evaluation process, as you well know, is very 18 self-spotlighting on managerial or human factors and 19 it is a human factors root cause analysis. So, the 20 human factors focused on what organizational failings 21 or limitations could have contributed.
22 In the intervening year and a half that I 23 have been involved doing this and Mr. Andersen, Mr.
24 Bolleter, and other experts have been working to 25 really understand, it is a complex ecosystem, subject NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
417 1 to multiple external factors but at base, it is a heat 2 exchange. And the heat exchanger needs to have the 3 proper level of water, the proper quality of water, 4 and the proper surface area to function as designed.
5 And a great deal of the efforts involved to restore 6 the heat rejection capability of the cooling canal 7 system has been focusing on those basics. There is 8 also a groundwater salinity issue and that is more the 9 focus of our interactions with the state and local 10 regulators.
11 And so the good news is lowering the 12 salinity in the cooling canal system helps all those 13 things. It helps concerns over crocodiles and other 14 wildlife. So, all answers point in the same 15 direction.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. This is for the 17 staff. The EA at page 44466 states that canal 18 temperatures are typically about 2.5 degrees warmer 19 than the ambient air temperatures.
20 I searched both the EA and the NRC staff 21 testimony for any discussion of the data to support 22 that claim and couldn't find anything. Did I miss 23 anything?
24 MS. GRANGE: I would have to go back and 25 look but I believe that this is a general value that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
418 1 we based on the findings in the 2012 EPU EA.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, you may have 3 discussed it in the 2012 power uprate EA but you 4 didn't discuss it here, you just made a reference to 5 that as a sort of axiomatic statement. Is that a fair 6 statement?
7 MS. GRANGE: It was intended to just 8 describe the system. If you need any more 9 clarification, I would need to go back and look at the 10 EPU EA, which I am happy to do.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, rather than 12 take a lot of time right now, we will hold that. I 13 may want you to do that for us later.
14 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: In fact, maybe I will let 16 you find that for me later. How about that? Give us 17 an answer later but don't try to find it right now.
18 MS. GRANGE: Okay.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: So, to the extent that 20 there is historical air trend data, it would not have 21 been analyzed in conjunction with this but you would 22 have been relying on what you did with the power 23 uprate EA.
24 MS. GRANGE: We also considered what had 25 happened since the EPU EA. There was information in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
419 1 FPL's license amendment submittal that we considered.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And was that 3 basically consistent with what it had been or was the 4 temperature going up -- ambient temperatures going up 5 or going down?
6 MS. GRANGE: Are we talking about air 7 temperature?
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, we are just talking 9 ambient air temperatures, right.
10 MS. GRANGE: You know I don't remember off 11 the top of my head.
12 CHAIR GIBSON:
13 MS. GRANGE: That is something else I 14 would need to look up as well. I know one of the big 15 drivers was rainfall. So, I was a little more focused 16 on that.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. Do you all happen to 18 know whether the ambient air temperatures went up 19 after the 2012 to -- I guess it would just be 2013 to 20 2014, right?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Just in the limited 22 information that in my mind over the last several 23 years, I don't think we have seen any appreciable 24 change in ambient air temperatures or wind speeds or 25 directions, which are also influential.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
420 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Inputs. Okay, thank you.
2 Okay, you said you looked more closely at 3 rainfall than at ambient temperature. Did you assume 4 that precipitation trends would remain just the same 5 as that had been experienced in Turkey Point operating 6 history or did you anticipate they were going to 7 change?
8 MS. GRANGE: Well, we considered natural 9 variation that would occur, which would also include 10 drought years, like Florida has been experiencing.
11 So, in general, there is a lot of 12 variation and we considered that variation.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and is that primarily 14 memorialized in the EPU environmental assessment or 15 did you do some separate independent analysis for this 16 one?
17 MS. GRANGE: That was part of the 18 environmental baseline that we considered for the EA.
19 I don't believe that we -- we don't have anything 20 written down where we are specifically describing 21 future rainfall trends that we are anticipating. We 22 were looking at it a little more qualitatively, 23 knowing what we have seen in past and knowing we would 24 see similar variation in the future.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well then, good, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
421 1 didn't miss something.
2 In answer 78 on page 51 of the staff 3 testimony, you attribute the high temperature of the 4 cooling canal system to summer temperatures in 5 drought. Did you consider the drought at the time an 6 extraordinary one?
7 MS. GRANGE: Can you please repeat that 8 answer number?
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. Did you consider the 10 drought at the time to be an extraordinary one?
11 MS. GRANGE: Oh, I'm sorry. I meant in 12 the staff testimony it was --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry. On answer 14 78 on page 51.
15 MS. KLETT: There's nothing on our 16 screens. I don't know if --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Andy, could you pop that up 18 there?
19 JUDGE SAGER: Judge Gibson, if you don't 20 mind.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: No.
22 JUDGE SAGER: Our rationale here is what 23 we are trying to figure out is whether you consider 24 this an extraordinary event that won't happen again 25 and, therefore, discount this sort of behavior of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
422 1 system in the last couple of years.
2 MS. GRANGE: Well, we didn't consider the 3 drought itself to be extraordinary, I guess you could 4 say then. We considered the combination of factors to 5 be unique and that was low rainfall, combined with the 6 algae bloom, combined with the fact that FPL had noted 7 that the algae had been having some saline issues in 8 the condensers that were decreasing the efficiency of 9 the cooling canal system. And so those things 10 together were the extraordinary circumstance. We 11 didn't think that rainfall alone would be an 12 extraordinary circumstance in the future.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Do you need any 14 follow-up to that, Judge Sager?
15 JUDGE SAGER: No, I'm good.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Did you consider climate 17 change in figuring out what the rainfall and ambient 18 temperature was going to be on a going forward basis?
19 MS. GRANGE: I mean we considered in the 20 context of what the expected variations in the future 21 are going to be. There isn't anything in the EA that 22 specifically describes climate change as its own 23 section, if that is what you were looking for but it 24 is incorporated into the baseline assumptions that the 25 staff made about the remainder of the operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
423 1 license.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Did anyone with 3 expertise in atmospheric science review the 4 environmental assessment?
5 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, no, there 6 was not someone that had that specialty or that 7 specific specialty. We had a number of people that 8 are NEPA experts that reviewed the document.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, we have talked about 10 several things here. Were there any other factors, in 11 your estimation, that influenced the temperature of 12 the cooling canal system that staff considered but 13 that were not discussed in the EA?
14 MS. GRANGE: I believe we covered 15 everything that we knew at the time to be contributing 16 to the temperatures.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
18 MS. KLETT: And Your Honors, I found the 19 document that discusses the 2.5 degree Fahrenheit 20 above average ambient air temperature statement.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 MS. KLETT: That was from FPL's license 23 amendment application dated July 10, 2014. So, it is 24 letter number L-2014-216, which was referenced in the 25 issuance of the amendments.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
424 1 CHAIR GIBSON: And that was where the 2.5 2 number came from?
3 MS. KLETT: Yes. This is the average 4 intake. I don't have the exhibit number.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, well, we can find the 6 license amendment request. That's fine.
7 MS. KLETT: Okay.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, we were talking a 9 little bit about the FPL-036. Could you put that up?
10 We have got some follow-up questions to 11 some things that you said earlier. FPL-036, Mr.
12 Welkie.
13 This is a temperature analysis using CCS-6 14 as a surrogate for the TS monitoring location exhibit.
15 You referred earlier to some temperatures.
16 Now the temperatures you were referring to did not 17 include the July 2014 temperatures. Correct?
18 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct. We could 19 have gone back to that period but we just took it from 20 when NRC action occurred and that was reported or the 21 action was reported until the end of September.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And when you say EPA 23 action was approved, was this to afford you some 24 relief on a temporary basis from the 100 to -- 100 25 degree temperature limit on a temporary basis while NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
425 1 they were reviewing the amendment?
2 JUDGE SAGER: NRC can -- when was the 3 amendment approved?
4 CHAIR GIBSON: I thought that was in 2015, 5 wasn't it?
6 MS. KLETT: The amendment was approved 7 August 8, 2014.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, so this is August 8, 9 2014. I stand corrected. Thank you.
10 Okay, so this was after the amendment.
11 MR. BOLLETER: And I believe we started 12 looking at the data the day after what we understood 13 everything to be approved.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
15 MR. BOLLETER: And even if you look at 16 temperatures, just as maybe a follow along with 17 climate change or whatever, even if you look at 18 temperatures, if you were to count temperatures over 19 99 degrees, between 99 and 100 degrees, it only 20 equates to about another, I think, 0.6 percent. So, 21 and if you even look at 98 degrees, it is a very small 22 percentage of the temperatures that exceed even 98 23 degrees.
24 So, even if you have some climate change, 25 there is still the frequency of temperatures being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
426 1 really high at that particular location and, again, 2 they will be cooler by the time they get to the 3 intake, is low but you could still, on occasion, have 4 a spike that occurs for a very short duration.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, the peak 6 temperature, though, was before this, the date of 7 this, right? The peak temperature was 102.5, I 8 believe.
9 MR. BOLLETER: I believe that is correct.
10 I don't have the data in hand.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you -- if you add in the 12 July numbers, does that really change these numbers 13 significantly or is it just a spit in the ocean?
14 MR. BOLLETER: I suspect it is a spit in 15 the ocean. We can look at it.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, good.
17 All right, let's talk a little bit about 18 the migration out of the system. Now, on page 17 of 19 the staff testimony, you state that an exchange of 20 water exists between the canal system and the 21 groundwater because the canals are in-lined. I take 22 it by this that what you are referring to is the fact 23 that water can flow from the canals into the 24 groundwater, as well as from the groundwater into the 25 canals. Is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
427 1 MS. KLETT: Yes, that is correct.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, I searched the 3 EA for discussion of this exchange but the only thing 4 I could find was on page 44467, where the EA refers to 5 the groundwater recharging the canals. And I was 6 unable to find any discussion about the possibility of 7 water migrating out of the canals into the 8 groundwater. Did I miss anything?
9 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. We 10 also talk about the water withdrawals from the 11 Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers later. And given the 12 context of those withdrawals that they are intended to 13 mitigate salinity in the aquifer, it is inferred there 14 that there is exchange in both directions. We also 15 reference several documents at the beginning of the 16 environmental assessment, including the 2012 EPU EA 17 and the license renewal environmental impact 18 statement, both of which describe in more detail that 19 exchange happens in both directions.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: If one were to look at the 21 EA, this EA, they would have to go back. There is no 22 specific reference to a page number, correct, is there 23 to the original EPU?
24 I'm just curious how one would know that 25 is implicit. I mean it is implicit for you, perhaps, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
428 1 but I am trying to understand what a reasonable person 2 picking this up would see. I'm trying to understand 3 how they would know that.
4 MS. GRANGE: Understood. We don't -- I 5 think my understand when we incorporate a document by 6 reference under NEPA is that we can assume that the 7 facts that are in that document are as if they are in 8 the current document. So, I think that is why we 9 didn't describe in more detail the system here.
10 So, you are correct that no, we don't go 11 into detail about the groundwater exchange in both 12 directions in this document but there was an 13 assumption by staff that we were able to assume those 14 details were there because of NEPA's allowance for 15 incorporation by reference.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. Ford, on page 48 of 17 your written testimony, you opine that water from the 18 cooling canal system has migrated into the Biscayne 19 Aquifer but it has not migrated into the Floridan 20 Aquifer. Is that your testimony, sir?
21 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: I searched the EA for some 23 technical analysis supporting your opinion that water 24 from the cooling canal system has migrated into the 25 Biscayne Aquifer but not into the Floridan Aquifer and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
429 1 I couldn't find anything. Can you point me to where 2 the technical analysis shows up in the EA for that?
3 MR. FORD: It is not in the EA. It is in 4 reference documents.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: And what reference 6 documents are those, sir?
7 MR. FORD: It would be in the documents 8 for the EPU and I believe you will find it in the 9 environmental reports for the COL, the new reactor.
10 There is one in 2009 and '13 referenced in the EA.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Report for what in 2009 and 12 2013?
13 MR. FORD: The two new reactors. The two 14 new reactors that are proposed for Turkey Point.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: You are talking about the 16 combined operating license applications, 6 and 7, is 17 that right? Okay.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just to make sure I 19 understand, so this EA points to the EPU EA, which 20 then points to some assessment that was done for the 21 combined operating license?
22 MR. FORD: No, it is in the references in 23 the ultimate heat sink EA for the 2014.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So, it is in the 25 references but not discussed in the text or is it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
430 1 MR. FORD: I don't know if it is discussed 2 in the text.
3 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. The 4 EUP EA is discussed in the text at the beginning of 5 the EA. That is one of the documents that is 6 incorporated by reference. The COL application is 7 cited for some factual information and that is 8 provided as a citation in a couple places throughout 9 the document. And then in the list of references, it 10 is included at the back of the EA.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: And you are saying that the 12 COL EA addressed the issue of migration into the 13 Biscayne Aquifer but not into the Floridan Aquifer?
14 MS. GRANGE: Well, I will need to correct.
15 There was no EA for the COL. So, what we referenced 16 was the environmental report.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm sorry, the 18 environmental report?
19 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: And it discussed the 21 migration into the Biscayne Aquifer but not into the 22 Floridan Aquifer.
23 MS. GRANGE: You know I would have to go 24 back and look at what that document specifically 25 references. I know that the EA for the EPU describes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
431 1 groundwater interchange, as well as the license 2 renewal environmental impact statement, both of which 3 were incorporated by reference. So, those discuss the 4 different aquifers and their connections to the 5 cooling canal system or --
6 MR. FORD: Biscayne Aquifer. It discusses 7 the, I guess in this case, the lack of communication 8 between the Floridan Aquifer, which is the underlying 9 aquifer and the Biscayne Aquifer. So, it describes 10 the confining units. It describes the water quality 11 in the two aquifers.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Because there is a 13 confining layer between the two, therefore, there 14 would be no communication between the CCS and the 15 Biscayne Aquifer.
16 MR. FORD: Anytime under --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Is that what you are 18 saying? I just want to make sure what you are saying, 19 sir.
20 MR. FORD: Yes. It is more than 800 feet 21 of sediment. It is low permeability that doesn't 22 allow vertical flow between the two units.
23 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I think you meant 24 the Floridan Aquifer.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
432 1 MR. HARRIS: You said Biscayne Aquifer.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, I'm sorry. Well, 3 thank you for correcting me. I'm trying to make sure 4 I understand what you are saying.
5 Let me ask you a question, okay? And then 6 don't anticipate what I am going to say. Let me see 7 if I can get it right.
8 You are saying that there is a confining 9 layer that serves to prevent water from the CCS that 10 could migrate down, even if it could interchange with 11 this upper aquifer. The lower one, it couldn't get to 12 because of this confining layer. Is that a fair 13 statement?
14 MR. FORD: No, sir. What --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: No, that is not what you 16 are saying.
17 MR. FORD: What I am saying is that water 18 from -- I will describe it. Water from the CCS could 19 flow into the Biscayne Aquifer.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct.
21 MR. FORD: And but water from the Biscayne 22 Aquifer is not flowing into the underlying Floridan 23 Aquifer --
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
25 MR. FORD: -- because of the confining NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
433 1 unit between those two aquifers.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, well, I think 3 we are saying just about the same thing but I will 4 accept your correction. Okay?
5 I will let you answer in just a second.
6 Okay and you are saying that this 7 addressed in the environmental reports for the COL.
8 Is that correct, sir?
9 MR. FORD: What I am saying is that this 10 confining layer and the idea that these two aquifers 11 are not in hydrologic interconnection, that water 12 can't flow between them --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
14 MR. FORD: -- is described in these other 15 documents, yes.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: And these other documents 17 --
19 CHAIR GIBSON: -- is COL environmental 20 reports.
21 MR. FORD: Yes.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Is that correct?
23 MR. FORD: Yes.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay. Now, you had 25 something you wanted to say, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
434 1 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes. I agree with 2 everything Bill is saying. In addition, too, that 3 there is an upward hydraulic gradient from the 4 Floridan to the Biscayne. The Floridan is under 5 pressure. Therefore, you have flow from the Floridan 6 into the Biscayne and not vice-versa.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
8 MR. BOLLETER: Well, and also just adding 9 on, furthermore, there is water quality data from the 10 Floridan Aquifer that it is not -- I mean it is 11 brackish water. It is low salinity.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct. Well, I just 13 wanted to make sure I understand what the source of 14 the information was, that's all. But thank you.
15 MR. FORD: And I have one correction.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
17 MR. FORD: Well, based on my 18 interpretation that if they were connected, the heads 19 might drive the Floridan water upward into the 20 Biscayne but they are not hydrologically connected.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, fair enough.
22 Go ahead. Did you want to ask him a 23 question? Go ahead.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just to keep this 25 confusion going, at least the confusion in my mind.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
435 1 So, now we have got communication between the canal 2 system and the Biscayne Aquifer. Is that what I 3 heard?
4 MR. FORD: Yes, they are in hydrologic 5 communication.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, so if there is a 7 potential pathway for salt migration from the canal 8 into the Biscayne Aquifer, and maybe that is not what 9 you are saying but there is a hydrologic communication 10 and earlier in today's testimony I heard that the 11 Biscayne Aquifer is referred to as a groundwater 12 resource, now I am back to asking if the impact of the 13 canal, the higher salinity in the canal was looked at 14 by the staff and its impact on that groundwater 15 resource. And if so, where?
16 MR. FORD: Well, you know in the earlier 17 documents you have already referenced, the power 18 uprate in the COL, that the groundwater in the 19 Biscayne Aquifer at the site is about a 140-foot thick 20 aquifer, that most all of it is salt water. There is 21 a little bit of brackish water near the surface. And 22 that regionally, the Biscayne Aquifer is an aquifer, 23 a good water producer. But in this area and in the 24 area of the CCS, it is all salt water.
25 So, I'm going to lose my train of thought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
436 1 there. So, you could see that yes, salt is moving 2 into the CCS and you can mix -- and basically no 3 freshwater supplies are immediately in danger beneath 4 it.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, is that another way 6 the salt water that has migrated at least downward and 7 possibly somewhat laterally you are saying can't move 8 far enough that would impact any freshwater?
9 MR. FORD: We are saying that, as we have 10 said before, the salinity changes are going to be very 11 small as a result of the power uprate -- I'm sorry, 12 the ultimate heat sink. Sorry I didn't get that 13 right. And, therefore, you are not going to see a big 14 change in salinities.
15 Now the changes that you see in salinities 16 are a result of the long-term operation of this 17 facility for 43 years.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, this salinity problem 19 that evidenced itself in the 2014-2015 time frame is 20 more the result of things other than the license 21 amendment request, that is, all the stuff that was 22 discussed by the FP&L?
23 We keep going around.
24 MR. FORD: And from what --
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: It seems like there were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
437 1 things going on and all we want to point to is the 2 temperature change.
3 MR. FORD: Yes, the previous EAs 4 considered -- the environmental assessments prior to 5 the ultimate heat sink considered the operation of the 6 CCS. But in my opinion, the interactions you are 7 seeing with the state and people worrying about these 8 salinity conditions, this is a result of the long-term 9 operation of the CCS and would be going on independent 10 of this power uprate decision.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: But are you suggesting 12 that it wouldn't need to be looked at as part of the 13 environmental assessment?
14 MR. FORD: Sorry, I meant the ultimate 15 heat sink power. Corrected here.
16 So, I'm sorry. Could you repeat your 17 question again?
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, and I sort of 19 interrupted you. I guess I get it. I mean I know 20 there seems to be a focus on this temperature change, 21 the tech spec limit change but yet, there was a lot of 22 environmental things going on at the same time. And 23 I guess from my perspective, I see some obligation on 24 the part of the staff, unless you can convince me 25 otherwise to look at all what is going on here. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
438 1 I'm trying to understand why the temperature change 2 plus all what is going on wasn't part of all that 3 needed to be looked at, as part of this license 4 amendment request and from a NEPA perspective.
5 MS. GRANGE: Maybe I can take a stab at 6 that question from a NEPA perspective.
7 So, because we had done previous 8 assessments that had looked at the impacts of the 9 plant operating, including groundwater impacts, when 10 we were looking at the license amendment, we were 11 looking at what would be the change between the plant 12 continuing to operate as it had been operating and the 13 NRC granting that license amendment.
14 So, if we allowed the temperature to 15 increase by that four degrees, what impacts would we 16 expect to see, given that the temperature would be of 17 short duration but there were a lot of factors that 18 were influencing the temperature to be driven higher 19 in the cooling canal system when FPL came in for the 20 amendment?
21 And so for groundwater specifically, we 22 didn't see that there were going to be any measurable 23 impacts beyond what was already occurring during the 24 operation of the plant and we didn't expect it to 25 effect the saltwater that was migrating into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
439 1 Biscayne Aquifer. We didn't expect it to affect the 2 saltwater-freshwater interface west of the plant.
3 And so because NEPA allows us to describe 4 things in a relative way in the context of an EA, we 5 didn't feel that going into a very long description 6 about all those things we had already described in 7 previous assessments would really be helpful to the 8 reader or the decision-maker because we had determined 9 that there really wouldn't be measurable impacts to 10 groundwater as a result of the license amendment 11 itself. We weren't saying that there aren't impacts 12 to groundwater as a result of continued operation, in 13 general.
14 Does that help you understand?
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm trying to 16 think it through. Are you saying that in previous 17 environmental assessments the increased salinity in 18 the canals shows up somewhere in those assessments?
19 It just seems like it has disappeared from the horizon 20 here that we had -- there was the EPU and its 21 environmental assessment. There is some of the stuff 22 that Mr. Ford talked about on the COL in various 23 communications or lack of communications. But I am 24 not hearing anywhere where the increased salinity 25 content due to higher elevated temperatures, albeit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
440 1 potentially mitigated at some point, but that just 2 doesn't seem to show up in any of the documents here.
3 MS. GRANGE: I believe that maybe when you 4 think about it in the context of because the 5 temperature, and I am coming back to temperature 6 again, because we believe that that would be of such 7 short duration, we don't anticipate an appreciable 8 change in salinity that would then result in 9 environmental impacts from that four degree change.
10 So, we didn't look at salinity in great detail because 11 of that.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: But you are not saying 13 that the increased salinity was part of the 14 environmental baseline that you adopted for this EA.
15 MS. GRANGE: I guess -- can you clarify 16 whether you are talking about the increased salinity 17 that would result from a four degree increase or the 18 increased salinity that was already occurring in the 19 cooling canal system?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I don't know how to 21 separate the two.
22 MS. GRANGE: Okay.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: That is a good point. I 24 think that to me they are tied together.
25 MS. GRANGE: Because we do describe the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
441 1 increase in salinity that was already happening as 2 part of the environmental baseline. We describe it in 3 the proposed action and the need for the proposed 4 action. So, we do address it there.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: I think maybe we ought to 6 take a break. Ten minutes and we will come back on 7 the record then.
8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 9 off the record at 2:54 p.m. and resumed at 3:10 p.m.)
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Please be 11 seated.
12 I believe Judge Sager has some questions.
13 JUDGE SAGER: Judge Sager has some 14 questions when he can find them.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: There you go, sir.
16 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. And Mr. Welkie, could 17 I get you to bring up INT-003 on the screen?
18 So, this is a plot of salinity. So, I 19 have some questions about this. And Mr. White, I am 20 going to wake you up because I have to ask you about 21 them, since you submitted this.
22 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, it would be 23 objectionable to have Mr. White testifying.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: I don't think you will 25 object to these questions when you hear them. Just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
442 1 keep your powder dry for a minute, okay?
2 MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE SAGER: I just wanted to ask this.
4 It is not very well defined. Where did these data 5 come from?
6 MR. WHITE: Okay, forgive me. Just give 7 me the name of that --
8 CHAIR GIBSON: It's right on the screen 9 there. Can you see it?
10 JUDGE SAGER: It says data sources FPL --
11 MR. WHITE: Oh, this is coming from DERM, 12 from the Department of Environment Regulation, 13 Miami-Dade County.
14 JUDGE SAGER: And this is salinity 15 measured somewhere. Where is it measured?
16 MR. WHITE: The data source is FPL00 --
17 see that second line, there, sir?
18 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
19 MR. WHITE: That is the -- I believe that 20 is the well number, is it not, FPL? Yes, it is FPL's 21 monitoring system.
22 All of this data is based on data provided 23 to DERM by FPL. They didn't collect any of the data.
24 It is all an analysis and in fact that whole exhibit 25 of extensive graphs and charts if all DRM data based NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
443 1 no FPL data.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Right. What I am trying to 3 establish is it is obviously salinity. It says 4 salinity in parts per thousand and it has date across 5 the bottom. It goes back until August of '73.
6 MR. WHITE: Right.
7 JUDGE SAGER: But I'm trying to establish 8 where the measurements were made. Were they in the 9 CCS? Were they in a well beneath the CCS?
10 MR. WHITE: I would defer to FPL on that, 11 sir, because their data source is FPL0001562 NPDES and 12 that data came from FPL.
13 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, can someone from FPL 14 help me out?
15 MR. SCROGGS: No.
16 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
17 MR. SCROGGS: With no more indication than 18 is on this, I can't tell you the nature, origin. I 19 would imagine, given the time frame, it is several 20 monitoring -- I would imagine the FPL nomenclature 21 might be a letter that FPL provided. That might be a 22 letter serial number that FPL provided but it is not 23 indicative of a monitoring station.
24 MR. WHITE: Sir, I would be happy to 25 contact the DERM and find out exactly where that data NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
444 1 came from.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: That will be your homework 3 for tonight, Mr. White. You can tell us first thing 4 in the morning. Okay?
5 MR. WHITE: Well, I will have to call the 6 gentleman at home.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Maybe you can. Yes, if you 8 can get a hold of him.
9 MR. WHITE: Yes, please.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, I tell you what. We 11 will table those.
12 Why don't you go ahead and start on the 13 next one, Judge Sager, and we will come back to that 14 when we have some information from Mr. White.
15 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Mr. Welkie, can we 16 see FPL-013, please? Is that 013? All right, maybe 17 I have the wrong one.
18 MR. BLAIR: That's INT-013.
19 JUDGE SAGER: Right. We want FPL. It is 20 a map of -- there it is -- groundwater.
21 S o , t h i s i s t h e 22 groundwater-saltwater-freshwater interface, I believe.
23 And so I believe this is defined -- let's see, who 24 should I be asking this question? I think it goes to, 25 since FPL's exhibit, it probably goes to Mr. Bolleter NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
445 1 or someone else. So, that looks like it is labeled at 2 the 1,000 milligrams per liter isochlor.
3 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
4 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, it says that on the 5 bottom.
6 All right, so we have been talking psu and 7 now this is milligrams per liter. Can you give me the 8 conversion factor?
9 MR. BOLLETER: Well, let me just tell you 10 the source of this information. This source comes 11 from the USGS and that is how they define the 12 saltwater intrusion line, the 1,000 per liter chloride 13 line.
14 Drinking water standard, just for 15 reference, is 250 milligrams per liter. So, again, it 16 doesn't mean right at that line it is now fresh 17 potable water that meets drinking water standards.
18 JUDGE SAGER: So, it is a slight gradient 19 but they are going -- so, this is a standard 20 definition used by the USGS as 1,000 milligrams per 21 liter.
22 MR. BOLLETER: Right. Correct and that 23 doesn't necessarily mean that is the extent of FPL 24 water. I mean that is just there is saltwater that 25 predates the cooling canal being built.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
446 1 The conversion from chloride to salinity 2 just, and again, I have to just do this in my head, 3 but again, for chloride is probably 19,800 milligrams 4 per liter and salinity at 35. So, it is kind of like 5 you can kind of sort of do the math, sort of.
6 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, I think it is about 7 1,000 is about one. Does that sound about right?
8 MR. SCROGGS: Recognize that this is 9 milligrams per liter chloride not milligrams per liter 10 of salinity.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Right. Oh, that's right.
12 Right, right.
13 MR. SCROGGS: So, what Mr. Bolleter is 14 explaining is the chloride versus salinity.
15 JUDGE SAGER: Right. Sorry. Thanks for 16 pointing that out. I was thinking salinity and that 17 is not the totality of it the salt.
18 Okay. But I guess one of things that I --
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Just a minute. Is that 20 1,000 milligrams per liter?
21 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Of chloride.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Chloride.
25 JUDGE SAGER: Remember salt has sodium, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
447 1 chlorine, and a number of other small --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, good. I just wanted 3 to be sure. Thank you.
4 MR. ANDERSEN: Just for a real rule of 5 thumb, I normally think of if you have 1,000 6 milligrams per liter, I normally say that that is 2P 7 issue in terms of the TDS. Just divide by 1,000 8 multiply by 2.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, the back of the 10 envelope.
11 MR. ANDERSEN: It is not exact but that is 12 the back of the envelope.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, fair enough.
14 JUDGE SAGER: I was just trying to get an 15 idea of how salty that really is. And as you stated, 16 this is not a sharp interface, it is a gradient of 17 some width.
18 MR. BOLLETER: Typically that is the case 19 but we do see between, say there is overlying 20 freshwater lens or a much fresher lens over top of the 21 salt, there is a very distinct gradient. It is not a 22 gradual gradient. It is very distinct.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you. And I was 24 looking for a trend here. Do you see any trend for 25 the salinity interface on this map?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
448 1 MR. BOLLETER: No, it just kind of goes 2 back and forth.
3 JUDGE SAGER: So, it is affected by 4 yearly, annual changes in rainfall and things like 5 that?
6 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
7 JUDGE SAGER: How much pumping, how much 8 draw-down, a number of factors.
9 And the earliest one here is at what date?
10 CHAIR GIBSON: I think Mr. Scroggs wanted 11 to add something.
12 MR. SCROGGS: I would just say that it 13 includes manmade factors such as water control 14 decisions that were made in the '50s is quite 15 different than how water is managed today in surface 16 canals, structures, as well as weather.
17 JUDGE SAGER: In fact, I think I see on 18 here that there is a light blue line for 1951 and it 19 kind of runs through the middle of that pack. So, 20 that would be well before there was any CCS or even a 21 Turkey Point plant.
22 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. I think that is all 24 I wanted to ask about that.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, good.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
449 1 Mr. Ford, on answer 18, page 24 of your 2 written testimony, you state that the 3 freshwater-saltwater interface is located 4 approximately six to eight miles west of Turkey Point.
5 I was unable to find any technical 6 analysis in the EA or in the testimony of any NRC 7 staff witnesses on that as to why the 8 freshwater-saltwater interface is six to eight miles 9 west of Turkey Point. Did I miss anything?
10 MR. FORD: No, it is in the previous 11 documents that I talked about earlier, which is the 12 power uprate EA and the environmental reports from 13 2009 and '13 and the COL --
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
15 MR. FORD: -- environmental report.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. Just bear with 17 me a second.
18 Are you familiar with FPL-037, which was 19 the administrative order from the State of Florida 20 that was, I believe, the last document admitted in 21 this case?
22 MR. FORD: Yes, sir, I am.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Could we get that, Mr.
24 Welkie?
25 If we could turn to page 13, paragraph 41.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
450 1 It states the saline -- I'm sorry -- paragraph 42.
2 The saline water interface is generally where 3 groundwater with greater than 1,000 milligrams per 4 liter total dissolved solids meets groundwater with 5 less than 10,000 milligrams per liter total dissolved 6 solids. Is that right? Do you see that? Paragraph 7 42.
8 MR. FORD: Yes, so this is how they have 9 defined it in this document. I can't -- you know 10 10,000 milligrams per liter. When I defined saline 11 water in my testimony, I cited the test definition of 12 salt water and brackish water. There, I used saline 13 water would be 19,000 parts per thousand -- I mean 19 14 parts per though, 19,000 parts per million or 15 milligrams per liter.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you speak into the 17 microphone?
18 MR. FORD: Sorry. So, in my testimony, I 19 defined salt water as 19,000 parts per thousand 20 chlorine and that is based on state Florida 21 definitions of saltwater.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, the 23 freshwater-saltwater interface, six to eight miles 24 west of Turkey Point, to which you referred in your 25 testimony, is that the same saline water interface NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
451 1 that is referred to here in paragraph 42 or are we 2 talking about two separate things? That is what I'm 3 trying to understand, Mr. Ford.
4 MR. FORD: So, I'm not sure I can answer 5 that question, Your Honor.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, that's okay. If you 7 don't know, it's all right.
8 Okay, on answer 30 on page 28 of your 9 written testimony, you testified that salinity in the 10 Biscayne aquifer, underneath the cooling canal system 11 has increased in that water with higher salt content 12 has moved from the cooling canal system into the 13 Biscayne Aquifer.
14 I searched the EA for some technical 15 analysis supporting your opinion that salinity in the 16 Biscayne Aquifer underneath the cooling canal system 17 is increased in that water with higher salt content is 18 moved there into the Biscayne Aquifer but I could not 19 find anything.
20 Is there anything in the EA that you can 21 refer to me in that regard?
22 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor, this would be 23 another description that was incorporated by reference 24 and was described in previous NRC documents.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: And this would be in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
452 1 EPU EA and in the environmental reports for the COL.
2 Is that right?
3 MS. GRANGE: The EPU EA and the NRC 4 staff's environmental impact statement for the license 5 renewal were the documents, two of the documents 6 incorporated by reference.
7 The COL environmental report, although it 8 was referred to, is just a reference. It wasn't 9 incorporated by reference under NEPA, to just clarify 10 what I had said earlier.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think that is the 12 first reference I have had you make to the 13 environmental impact statement for the license 14 renewal. Is that what you just said?
15 MS. GRANGE: I have mentioned that 16 earlier, Your Honor.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, I did not pick up on 18 your saying that. Okay. And when was that done?
19 MS. GRANGE: When was that environmental 20 impact statement done?
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 MS. GRANGE: I believe it was 2006 but I 23 can take a quick look for you and let you know what 24 year that was for sure.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, yes, please do.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
453 1 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor, it was January 2 2002.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: 2002, okay, very well.
4 Mr. White, did you have something you 5 needed to say, sir?
6 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. We spoke with the 7 staff at DERM and they said that information was 8 gathered at the Uprate Monitoring Well northwest 9 corner of the CCS.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Northwest corner?
11 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, very well.
13 Thank you for that clarification, Mr. White.
14 Just one second, please.
15 All right, we almost had a coup there, I 16 see. I don't give over my presiding officer 17 responsibilities that easily, Judge Kennedy.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: I moved quickly.
19 (Laughter.)
20 CHAIR GIBSON: All right. Okay, I have 21 got some questions, I think, for FPL.
22 At page -- answer 32 on page 20 of your 23 testimony, you opine that saltwater interface at the 24 base of the Biscayne Aquifer is approximately six to 25 eight miles inland. Is that right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
454 1 If you didn't let us know what it should 2 be. It's okay.
3 MR. BOLLETER: Well, whatever the USGS 4 defines. I mean some of these different numbers that 5 are being thrown out, like the 10,000 milliliter per 6 liter of chloride has nothing to do with the saltwater 7 intrusion line. That typically is not used. That is 8 really for a totally different purpose because it 9 defines Class 2 and Class 3 groundwater.
10 So, if the total dissolved solids, which 11 means it tends to be more salty is higher than 10,000 12 milligram per liter, it is not -- it is classified 13 differently. The USGS does not use that at all. I 14 mean that is much higher than the 1,000 milligram per 15 liter chloride line. So the USGS, and I don't know 16 why they ever decided to use 1,000 milligram per liter 17 chloride line but that is what they used to define 18 salt water intrusion. So, basically, whatever that 19 distance is from the -- whether you take it from the 20 western edge of the cooling canal or you take it from 21 the coast, until you get inland, until you get to the 22 USGS line, that is the distance inland of the 23 saltwater intrusion line, as defined by the USGS.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
25 MR. BOLLETER: And is at the base of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
455 1 aquifer. You do have a shallower lens, fresh lens, 2 that overlies the more salty water.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Scroggs, you 4 were grabbing the microphone like you needed to say 5 something. It's just fine. Go ahead.
6 MR. SCROGGS: I just wanted to let -- in 7 direct response to your question, yes, you will see 8 that we reference FPL-013 immediately followed by a 9 description of the USGS line six to eight miles 10 inland. So, yes, that is what we are talking about.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you for that 12 clarification.
13 Maybe if we got that -- that is FPL-013, 14 is that right? Maybe if we got that up, Mr. Welkie.
15 This is what you were referring to earlier. This is 16 the same diagram, isn't it? Okay.
17 Okay. Now, was this done in 2008, 18 FPL-013?
19 MR. SCROGGS: It says it is excerpt from 20 our 2012 monitoring report.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
22 MR. SCROGGS: So this figure --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Is 1951 through, is that 24 2008?
25 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, correct, 2008.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
456 1 CHAIR GIBSON: So the data, basically, you 2 may have done it in 2012 but the data would have been 3 through 2008. Has there been any update of this since 4 2008, that you are aware of? Not necessarily this 5 particular diagram but I mean in terms of the 6 saltwater-freshwater interface?
7 MR. BOLLETER: Not that I have seen.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
9 MR. BOLLETER: It could be the USGS 10 routinely goes out but, as you can see, between the 11 time intervals, there is a fair amount of time.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
13 MR. BOLLETER: But they, I am sure, go out 14 once a year, other different wells, and take chloride 15 levels.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay but you haven't seen 17 any update from them since then.
18 MR. BOLLETER: I have not looked, yes.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: This is the most recent 20 data you guys have anyway.
21 MR. BOLLETER: That we have looked at, 22 correct, that we have used.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Do you 24 have an opinion as to whether or not it would have 25 moved inland or not since 2008 or do you think it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
457 1 probably somewhere in the same range that it was in 2 2008?
3 MR. BOLLETER: I would suspect it is 4 somewhere in the same range.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
6 MR. BOLLETER: But we do see variations, 7 based on drought and other conditions. But the 8 monitoring data that we have for stations that are 9 further to the east, plus those that are close to the 10 edge here, we don't see a lot of change. You know 11 specific conductance or salinity or chloride levels, 12 a few wells, we will see a little bit of change.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well.
14 Okay, returning to staff. In answer 63 on 15 page 47 of your written testimony, you state that for 16 the cooling canal system to impact the 17 saltwater-freshwater interface, higher salinity 18 groundwater would have to move six miles west. Did I 19 read that correctly?
20 MR. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: So, is it your testimony 22 that the cooling canal system would have no 23 significant impact on the saltwater-freshwater 24 interface due to the distance of the cooling canal 25 system from that interface?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
458 1 MR. FORD: Well, the answer in the short 2 is yes, higher saline groundwater, groundwater of 3 higher concentrations in salt or salinity, would have 4 to move six to eight miles west before the freshwater 5 interface would start to feel it. And that then might 6 cause it to move farther west, the freshwater 7 interface. But we are not expecting significant 8 salinity changes from the decision that we made. So, 9 we don't expect the changes from 100 to 104 degrees to 10 basically change the salinities that are going on in 11 the CCS.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: If we could return to 13 FPL-037. We talked about 42. Could we go to 14 paragraph 46? Okay.
15 Now, read along with me, here. It says 16 the hypersaline plume extends two or three miles west 17 of the CCS and continues to move westward. It is 18 pushing the saline water interface, which is now four 19 or five miles west of the CCS further west. The 20 saline water interface is moving westward at the rate 21 of 400 to 600 feet per year. Is the state wrong in 22 paragraph 46?
23 MR. FORD: I can't confirm that.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Well --
25 MS. GRANGE: May I add a statement?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
459 1 CHAIR GIBSON: In a minute. Why do you 2 say you can't? Do you have no opinion one way or 3 another, sir?
4 MR. FORD: Just from looking at the power 5 uprate monitoring reports, I don't see a big increase 6 in salinity out that far but I don't know where this 7 information -- what they relied for this statement.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Yes, Ms. Grange?
9 MS. GRANGE: I was going to add that this 10 paragraph should be seen in the context of continued 11 operation of Turkey Point. And so --
12 CHAIR GIBSON: In the context of what 13 operation?
14 MS. GRANGE: Continued operation --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Continued operation.
16 MS. GRANGE: -- rather than just the 17 license amendment at hand. So, we don't expect that 18 the license amendment that we approved would change 19 this statement. We don't think that it would create 20 a higher salinity that would then push water into the 21 already saline aquifer that would then extend the 22 plume out any farther than it is already extended and 23 that, in turn, that that would not impact the 24 freshwater-saltwater interface that is six to eight 25 miles west.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
460 1 JUDGE SAGER: Pardon me. Let me butt in.
2 So, this will go back to -- we will forget 3 about that graph that I was looking at because you 4 mentioned within the operating conditions as they 5 existed prior to the uprate. And so I think I have 6 seen it mentioned elsewhere in the testimony. I don't 7 have the page numbers but the operating conditions of 8 the CCS has been around 60 parts per thousand plus or 9 minus. Is that correct in recent years?
10 I think that graph would show it would be 11 about the last decade or so.
12 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I think it is from 13 about 2003 until about 2014. That 60 was what the 14 equilibrium appeared to be.
15 JUDGE SAGER: And so the question I was 16 going to ask to FPL was that graph starts off at 17 around below 40 parts per thousand, which would have 18 been near normal salinity and seems to slowly climb 19 up. Is that a fair description of what has happened 20 over the last four years?
21 MR. SCROGGS: I'd say no.
22 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
23 MR. SCROGGS: Over the last four years, 24 there has been a notable increase at the end of 2013.
25 JUDGE SAGER: All right, I said 40.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
461 1 Sorry.
2 MR. SCROGGS: I'm sorry.
3 JUDGE SAGER: So, when it first started, 4 it was not that much over normal oceanic salinity. Is 5 that correct?
6 MR. SCROGGS: That is correct.
7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. And for some reason, 8 it has climbed up to where it is 60 but that is not a 9 cause for alarm?
10 MR. SCROGGS: Well, if we look at time 11 series over the last 40 years of salinity behavior, 12 you see there are periods where, after multiple dry 13 years, there will an inordinate increase in the 14 average annual salinity level and then it will level 15 back out again.
16 So, we have looked at different things, 17 different metrics to tell us what is going on in the 18 system, including heat exchange or efficiency and 19 other things. When we see those, we go back and we 20 look at the situation and we see, as we have seen in 21 the time period from the early 2000s to approximately 22 2013, a fairly flat annual average salinity response.
23 So yes, in the big picture, we have seen 24 an escalation since day one but are we seeing a new 25 equilibrium that is still able to be maintained or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
462 1 managed or something more dynamic? And up to 2013, it 2 was the former. I would say there was a significant 3 departure in late 2013-2014 in salinity behavior.
4 JUDGE SAGER: Thank you. That is what I 5 would have seen on that graph as well.
6 Do you have an explanation for why it has 7 climbed up over all those years? Yes, it goes up and 8 down. There is a lot of variability for various 9 factors. Does FPL have a rationale for why it has 10 climbed up?
11 MR. SCROGGS: I think Mr. Andersen has 12 talked about kind of the effect of the deficit, the 13 rainfall deficit over time. And then in my portion of 14 testimony, page 15, I go into a specific discussion of 15 the multiple factors affecting the recent excursion in 16 salinity. But Pete, do you want to --
17 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I think your question 18 is more of a very long term, over 40 years, why do you 19 see that continued rise. Or I guess the way I would 20 characterize it more from inception, that went from 21 about 40 to some equilibrium of around 60, where it 22 remained for about ten years or so. I think that rise 23 from 40 to 60 is a direct result of that difference 24 between evaporation and precipitation, in that it 25 essentially generates salt or leaves behind salt as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
463 1 result of evaporation. And so there is that slow 2 buildup that takes place.
3 If that deficit is erased, then that 4 salinity goes down. But if it goes in the other 5 direction, then, certainly, it goes up, as I think we 6 have seen in the past couple of years, not just 7 because of precipitation but other factors as well.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, thanks. And so let me 9 then take that over to the staff. Maybe, Ms. Grange, 10 let me ask you.
11 So, I think what you have been saying is 12 that there is this plateau where it has been operating 13 for some time and within that historical context, you 14 didn't see any cause that salinity was going to be a 15 big issue.
16 MS. GRANGE: Correct. We didn't see that 17 the license amendment itself would create any more --
18 would not further exacerbate the salinity conditions.
19 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, could we get INT-004, 21 Mr. Welkie?
22 I don't know who, maybe FPL could help us 23 with this one. This is an administrative order from 24 the State of Florida's Department of Environmental 25 Protection to the Turkey Point facility. Is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
464 1 correct?
2 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct. It was 3 issued in December 2014 but was subsequently 4 challenged and has been the subject of an 5 administrative law hearing.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: And has that administrative 7 law hearing been resolved?
8 MR. SCROGGS: It has been completed but 9 the recommended order has not been issued.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well.
11 Recognizing that you all may be contesting 12 this matter and if you need to say we are contesting 13 that matter and I can't speak to that, that is okay.
14 I just want to know if you can clarify a couple of the 15 facts that are alleged to be -- things that are 16 alleged to be facts here.
17 On page 2, paragraph 10, it says there is 18 a freshwater lens northwest and west of the cooling 19 canal system, which extends from the surface to 20 approximately 15 to 20 feet below the surface near the 21 cooling canal system and increases in thickness with 22 distance. Is that an accurate description of that 23 freshwater lens?
24 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you. And is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
465 1 this freshwater lens distinct from the 2 saltwater-freshwater interface that we just discussed 3 as being depicted on the map with the saltwater 4 intrusion lens drawn that was FPL-013?
5 MR. BOLLETER: This is, yes, different.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, continuing on 7 in paragraph 10 on page 2, it states that there is a 8 deep well associated with the monitoring well cluster 9 TPGW-7 that has experienced an increasing trend in 10 salinity and specific conductants beginning in 11 September 2013.
12 Is that an accurate description of that 13 fact, alleged fact?
14 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, good. Okay, thank 16 you.
17 Okay, now, could we bring up FPL-014A, Mr.
18 Welkie? And could you bring up page 1-18, which I 19 believe is page 60 of the PDF? Okay.
20 I assume you are familiar with this 21 document, Mr. Bolleter?
22 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and this is a map that 24 shows the various locations of groundwater monitoring 25 stations at or near the Turkey Point site. Correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
466 1 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: If we could look at cluster 3 TPGW-7, which we just, the one that was identified in 4 that order that is being contested.
5 MR. BOLLETER: Right.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: It is west of the estimated 7 extent of saltwater intrusion. Is that correct?
8 MR. BOLLETER: Based on the 2008 line or 9 whatever that the USGS had.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And you don't think 11 that 2008 line has changed much?
12 MR. BOLLETER: I don't think it has 13 changed much. I mean much is all relative but it has 14 changed.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: The freshwater lens would 16 still be about where it is relative to that line at 17 this point in time, in your opinion. Is that correct?
18 MR. BOLLETER: In that general area, 19 correct.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well. Thank 21 you.
22 MR. BOLLETER: I will probably just add 23 on, you may end up asking the question but at TPGW-7, 24 we have seen an increase in the deep well and specific 25 conductance in salinity. It is still low. I'm before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
467 1 it was fresh. It is still fairly low but we have seen 2 an increasing trend. That tritium data that we have 3 for that well does not show any commensurate increase 4 in tritium. So, that change, we can't necessarily 5 readily attribute to cooling canal.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, thank you.
7 Okay, that, hopefully, will help me ask 8 these questions of the staff because I needed to get 9 there. So, thank you.
10 If we could turn to the environmental 11 assessment at page 44466, it states that the NRC 12 previously assessed the environmental impacts of 13 continued of operations of Turkey Point in NUREG-1437, 14 Supplement 5 and the EA and final FONSI for the EPU 15 and implementation of the proposed license amendments 16 would not result in any impacts beyond those already 17 characterized in these documents.
18 Did I read that correctly?
19 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: And that NUREG-1437 was 21 published in January 2002. Is that correct?
22 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: And this is the 24 environmental impact statement for the license renewal 25 to which you referred just a little while ago. Is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
468 1 that correct?
2 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And the final 4 finding of no significant impact for the EPU was 5 completed in March of 2012. Is that correct?
6 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Recognizing that INT is 8 being contested by Florida Power and Light but 9 focusing only on the alleged facts that we have 10 essentially got agreement, those were not incorrect 11 statements, that administrative order, which is 12 INT-004, states at page 2, page 10 that the monitoring 13 well cluster TPGW-7 has experienced an increasing 14 trend in salinity and specific conductants beginning 15 in September 2013.
16 Now, what this suggests to me is that the 17 staff review did not include consideration of 18 monitoring well cluster TPGW-7 or of any other well 19 readings in preparing the environmental assessment.
20 You would not disagree with me about that, would you?
21 MS. GRANGE: Well, the statements that you 22 just read are indicative of the fact that the staff 23 didn't find that impacts that would result from the 24 license amendment would be significantly different 25 than those that were already characterized by the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
469 1 previous assessments.
2 So, the descriptions of the kinds of 3 impacts and the magnitudes of impacts that would occur 4 to groundwater in the license renewal environmental 5 impact statement, for instance, are not going to be 6 significantly different than what we would find 7 occurring if the plant continues to operate under the 8 license amendment conditions.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: It sounds to me like what 10 you are saying is that you considered them and 11 dismissed them as insignificant because they had 12 previously been characterized and nothing had changed 13 since the previous reports. Is that a fair statement?
14 MS. GRANGE: Yes, that would be correct.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, I searched through the 16 EA for any discussion of monitoring well readings that 17 noted the increased trend in salinity but I came up 18 empty. Did I miss anything there?
19 MS. GRANGE: No, Your Honor, the EA 20 doesn't go into detail on that.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And the only place 22 that the saltwater-freshwater interface itself is 23 referenced is in this 2002 EIS. Is that correct? It 24 is not referenced in any of these other documents. Is 25 that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
470 1 MS. GRANGE: I believe it is also in the 2 2012 EPU EA.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
4 MS. GRANGE: But you are correct that it 5 is not discussed in the 2014 EA and that was related 6 to the fact that the staff found that because 7 groundwater was not going to be affecting the 8 saltwater-freshwater interface as a result of the 9 proposed amendment, those were details that we decided 10 didn't need to be described in detail in this 11 assessment.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, I also searched the EA 13 for any mention of the impact of the temperature 14 increase on the freshwater lens located northwest of 15 the cooling canal system but I struck out there. Is 16 there any discussion of it that I missed?
17 MS. GRANGE: You didn't miss anything and 18 for the same reasons as I previously described.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Again, sticking with the 20 administrative order INT-004, if we could turn to 21 that, Mr. Welkie. Page 2, paragraph 11 says the 22 freshwater lens in the Southeast Miami-Dade County is 23 an important natural resource that supports critical 24 marsh wetland communities and is utilized by numerous 25 existing legal water uses, including irrigation, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
471 1 domestic self-supply, and public water supply.
2 You don't dispute this characterization of 3 that freshwater lens, do you?
4 MS. GRANGE: No, sir.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
6 Okay, I think I would like to take a 7 ten-minute recess, at this point, and we will come 8 back on the record.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 10 off the record at 3:55 p.m. and resumed at 4:15 p.m.)
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Please be seated. We're 12 back on the record.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you so much.
14 Let's start with another question for the 15 staff and it is aquifer withdrawals. Maybe we could 16 put -- I guess in discussing cumulative impacts of the 17 aquifer withdrawals, the EA states on 44468, so three 18 fours six eight of the EA. That is one of our 19 favorite exhibits there, Andy.
20 And I am quoting. Because the CCS is a 21 manmade closed-cycle cooling system, aquifer 22 withdrawals are not likely to have significant effect 23 on surface water resources.
24 And I think you are going to tell me we 25 have had the answer to this but I am just curious what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
472 1 the basis for the statement is. So, because the CCS 2 is a manmade closed-cycle cooling system, aquifer 3 withdrawals are not likely to have a significant 4 effect on surface water resources.
5 MS. GRANGE: So, I can answer that. This 6 is Briana Grange. So that goes back to our discussion 7 earlier today about the fact that the cooling canal 8 system is a closed-cycle system. So, it doesn't have 9 any cooling water or rather, it doesn't have any 10 connections to surface waters. And so, -- did you 11 need to ask me --
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, no, go ahead. I'm 13 sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
14 MS. GRANGE: And so aquifer withdrawals 15 would not enter the cooling canal system and then flow 16 into other surface water resources or something like 17 that would be an example of if there were connections 18 the kind of impact we might expect.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: So said another way, can 20 I infer from that that there is no communication 21 between the aquifers and surface water resources?
22 MS. GRANGE: No, I don't think you can 23 conclude that. There are connections between the 24 aquifers and surface water resources. There is not a 25 direct connection between the cooling canal system and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
473 1 other surface waters.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, aquifer withdrawals 3 are certainly wrapped into this license amendment 4 request, I mean whether they are mitigative measures.
5 Certainly, the staff looked at various aquifer 6 withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer and from the 7 Upper Floridan Aquifer. Did you explore any potential 8 effect on the surface water resources because of those 9 withdrawals?
10 MS. GRANGE: For the withdrawals 11 themselves, we relied on the state, which as part of 12 the authorization process, the state has to ensure 13 that there aren't impacts to fish and wildlife 14 resources or other surface water resources in their 15 authorization. So, that is what we relied on in 16 stating that there wouldn't be impacts from 17 withdrawals specifically to other surface water 18 resources.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, you relied on the 20 State of Florida and their assessment of this issue.
21 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. What about the 23 aquifers, themselves? And again, this may be another 24 question that was asked earlier this morning. Was the 25 impact on the aquifers themselves due to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
474 1 withdrawals assessed?
2 MS. GRANGE: That would be another impact 3 that we would have relied on the State for, because 4 they are the ones that would authorize those 5 withdrawals. And so we assumed that they would have 6 determined the amount of water that could be withdrawn 7 without impacts like long-term degradation to the 8 aquifers.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, so the significant 10 effect -- not likely to have significant effect both 11 on the aquifers and surface water resources relies on 12 State actions or assessments.
13 MS. GRANGE: Correct. Right and that is 14 also related to the longer term mitigative actions 15 that FPL and the State have been pursuing under the 16 conditions of certification for the operate project.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
18 I'm going to address a question to FP&L.
19 It just struck me on page 63 and 64, maybe we could 20 put up the FP&L testimony, FPL-001, I guess. And it 21 is the response to question 106, which is a pretty 22 lengthy response.
23 And as I see it, FP&L identifies a number 24 of points that they, personally, regard as having been 25 considered in the EA; however, at least in reading it, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
475 1 I see no mention of any water withdrawals from any of 2 the aquifers in this list. Furthermore, there doesn't 3 appear to be any mention of any analysis of 4 groundwater impacts due to aquifer withdrawals.
5 I guess I'm not sure the value in this 6 question but I am just curious if FP&L has a view as 7 to why this is still a good environmental assessment 8 without those impacts being assessed.
9 MR. SCROGGS: Well, I think, in general, 10 I would say that we are recognizing the short duration 11 of the time periods that this elevated ultimate heat 12 sink temperature would be experienced and the 13 potential frequency, meaning multiple years between 14 periods when you might see this, we felt that the 15 incremental effect is not expected to require the 16 groundwater resources and such. Those are being 17 required for other purposes, salinity management, 18 primarily.
19 So in that same vein, as the staff has 20 explained, that is essentially how we were looking at 21 it.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: So you look at it as well 23 that the salinity problem is separable from this 24 temperature increase for the license amendment.
25 MR. SCROGGS: Absolutely.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
476 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you. I'm 2 good.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: I think this is probably 4 for Florida Power and Light. If you can't recite this 5 off the top of your head, this is not a test, so you 6 can get it together tonight, if you need to. I'm just 7 curious because I was unable to put this together 8 myself.
9 We were wondering if you could describe 10 which sources Florida Power and Light was authorized 11 to withdraw from, how much water it was authorized to 12 withdraw, and when those authorizations were given.
13 Would that be possible?
14 If you know it off the top of your head, 15 that is great.
16 MR. SCROGGS: We can certainly take a stab 17 at it.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Perfect. Why don't you do 19 that? And then if there is something you misspoke on, 20 you can clear it up tomorrow morning. Okay?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Okay. When we looked at 22 opportunities for resource water to address salinity 23 issues in the cooling canal system in 2014, we already 24 had existent on-site three Upper Floridan Aquifer 25 wells that were providing up to 14 million gallons per NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
477 1 day of service to Unit 5 cooling tower. Unit 5 did 2 not require that full amount. So, we were able to 3 divert three to four million gallons per day through 4 a chiller, pass that water into the ICW inlet for 5 Units 3 and 4 to provide a little extra cooling. And 6 in that way, Upper Floridan water on the order of 7 three to four millions gallons per day was put into 8 the system based on existing wells.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: And this was, you said, in 10 2014?
11 MR. SCROGGS: 2014, yes, sir.
12 So beyond that, we looked at opportunities 13 to make use of excess surface waters in regional 14 canals. The L31 E system flows approximate to the 15 cooling canal system and then discharges through three 16 gates north of FPL. Those gates are managed to retain 17 a certain amount of water in the water basin to the 18 west of these gates. And then when tidal conditions 19 and basin level conditions are appropriate, water is 20 released out to Biscayne Bay.
21 The Water Management District manages this 22 release and is required to meet a certain allocation 23 for the Biscayne Bay to obtain a certain amount of 24 freshwater. We allowed to be allowed to pump from 25 that canal system into a feeder canal that runs along NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
478 1 the western periphery of the cooling canal system and 2 then from that canal into the cooling canal system, 3 volumes of water that were excess or beyond what was 4 necessary for the Biscayne Bay to meet its allocation.
5 So, the Water Management District, in 6 2014, granted us an emergency order to obtain those 7 volumes and they would coordinate with us daily to 8 predict or grant authorization each day of how much 9 water we could move from those northern canals down 10 into the canal system. That provided us, from the 11 period of late July to -- well actually it was in 12 September and October of 2014, a period of about 21 13 days, on average, 20 million gallons per day.
14 It was determined that the wet season 15 would end in mid- to late October. So, they had us, 16 by their decree, cease pumping in October of 2014.
17 We asked, at that point in time, had 18 already applied for six Upper Floridan Aquifer wells 19 to be dedicated to provide 14 million gallons per day 20 into the cooling canal system to make up the rainfall 21 deficit that we have identified. That modification 22 request went to the State and was being processed. It 23 was one of the orders that was granted in December of 24 2014 but challenged thereafter and we have not acted 25 on that. That also went through an administrative law NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
479 1 proceeding and we are awaiting the recommended order 2 from that activity. So, we have never done the Upper 3 Floridan wells from that activity.
4 In the spring of 2015, we sought, once 5 again, to have the Water Management District grant us 6 access to excess L31 canal system water. So, we were 7 able to obtain an emergency order that allowed us to 8 access that, essentially, as of June 1, subject to 9 certain constraints and flows. Because of the extreme 10 drought condition in the State of Florida in that time 11 period, we did not satisfy those other flow 12 constraints until August 27th, essentially, which was 13 the first period of continuous pumping.
14 I think the volumes that were received --
15 and the wet season was determined to end November 30th 16 of 2015. So, between August 27th and November 30th, 17 2015, we were granted access to excess storm water 18 flows and, on average, I would say it was between 35 19 and 40 million gallons per day. That, coupled with 20 natural precipitation into the system that occurred 21 during that same time frame, allowed us to reduce 22 salinity from 95 parts per thousand in the July time 23 frame to today I think we are at about 36 parts per 24 thousand.
25 So, at the same time, we were doing other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
480 1 flow balancing and sediment management activities in 2 the canal system that made the radiator work better.
3 So, all those combined efforts allowed us 4 to stabilize the thermal situation in the canals, 5 improve the water quality, and allow us to operate 6 without approaching the upper heat sink limit in the 7 summer of 2015.
8 Now, that brings us up to date. Oh, go 9 ahead.
10 MR. ANDERSEN: Did that cover the marine 11 water?
12 MR. SCROGGS: Thank you for reminding me.
13 During the work for Turkey Point 6 and 7, 14 we did quite a bit of hydrogeologic definition on-site 15 under the site itself and in an area that we had 16 identified for an alternative water source radio 17 collector wells. Those test wells gave us an 18 opportunity to tap marine water, essentially, 35 parts 19 per thousand water in the Biscayne Aquifer, and we 20 consulted with the Water Management District and DEP.
21 Because it is marine water, it is not a regulated 22 water source and we were given authority or 23 essentially given a letter saying that they don't 24 regulate it. And we applied for well permits through 25 the county Department of Health, which was the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
481 1 authorization that allowed us to drill two additional 2 wells plus the test well for a combined output of 3 about 40 million gallons per day of marine water.
4 That water flowed, essentially, from the first of June 5 to the beginning of September time frame.
6 And as we have said, we started receiving 7 freshwater and L31 water through precipitation and 8 pumping and no longer needed to rely on that marine 9 water at that time. So, we have not accessed that 10 source since the September time frame.
11 So, that brings us up to present. Going 12 forward, the order that was FPL-037, is the order that 13 grants us an L31 permit for 2016. And we have entered 14 into a consent agreement with Miami-Dade County. That 15 now looks at other wells, wells that would not be used 16 for cooling canal system makeup but would be used to 17 extract some of the hypersaline groundwater from the 18 Biscayne Aquifer and dispose of that water.
19 So, we have moved from managing the 20 cooling canal system as a physical system to now 21 turning to start to address the hypersalinity in the 22 groundwater that has emanated from the cooling canal 23 system.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: That was great. Thank you.
25 That really helps understand the picture. I just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
482 1 didn't have it. Do you have some follow-up question, 2 Judge Sager?
3 JUDGE SAGER: No, I think that -- so my 4 take on that, after I lost track of all the numbers, 5 correct me if I am wrong, you have got this system and 6 it takes a lot of water. And you had to get very 7 creative in going out to find sources of water to try 8 to remediate the issues that you have had.
9 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
11 MR. BOLLETER: And let me just add, too, 12 as far as getting approval for those sources of water, 13 we can't impact other -- the freshwater groundwater 14 resources impact Biscayne Bay.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. Thank you.
16 I'm just going to get a little water here.
17 Just a second.
18 JUDGE SAGER: All that talk about water 19 has made you thirsty.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: That's right. I don't 21 think it is hypersaline. So, I think I'm okay.
22 I would like to talk a little bit about 23 the characterization of some of the aquifers that you 24 all made in the testimony.
25 On answer 32 on page 20, if we could get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
483 1 that, Mr. Welkie. I'm sorry, Florida -- FPL. Sorry.
2 If we could go to page 20, answer 32. There we go.
3 It actually starts on page 19 but I think what I want 4 is on page 20.
5 In that testimony, it seems to be you are 6 saying that while the Upper Floridan Aquifer is a 7 major source of potable groundwater in other parts of 8 Florida, the water withdrawn in southeastern Florida 9 is brackish. Is that correct?
10 MR. ANDERSEN: That's correct.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: And on page 48, answer 80 12 of that testimony, page 48, answer 80 -- okay, there 13 we go. You testify that the salinity of the water in 14 the relevant portion of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is 15 approximately 2.5 practical salinity units or psu. Is 16 that correct?
17 MR. ANDERSEN: That's correct.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, what is seawater?
19 What is the psu of seawater?
20 MR. ANDERSEN: About 35.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: About 35. So, what would 22 freshwater be in psu?
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Freshwater would be, 24 essentially, zero to about 0.5 psu.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: 0.5 or lower?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
484 1 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you.
3 Could we get out the State of Florida's 4 groundwater classification regulations? I don't think 5 anyone put these in. I would like to make this a 6 Board exhibit for us. I assume nobody has any 7 objection to the groundwater classification 8 regulations. We'll get copies out to everybody.
9 While they are handing those out, Mr.
10 Welkie, could you get to page 4, the PDF of Board 11 Exhibit 1?
12 Mr. Andersen, now, according to Board 13 Exhibit 1, Class G-I, groundwater is defined by the 14 State of Florida as potable water use groundwater in 15 single source aquifers which has a total dissolved 16 content of less than 3,000 milligrams per liter. How 17 many psu would that be?
18 MR. ANDERSEN: Three psu.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: So, the water that Florida 20 Power and Light is withdrawing from the Upper Floridan 21 Aquifer would be defined as Class G-I groundwater by 22 the State of Florida. Is that correct?
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, I think we are kind 24 of mixing two designations. We are calling brackish 25 and then we are calling the G designations. So, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
485 1 think we are right at that level, where you would be 2 between a G-I and a G-II.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
4 MR. ANDERSEN: Of course, the G-II 5 encompasses anything that is below 10,000.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Right.
7 MR. ANDERSEN: So, I don't think it has 8 been designated down to that where it changes to 3,000 9 it all of a sudden becomes a G-I. I think that, in 10 general, it is just understood that that is a brackish 11 water aquifer and not potable in that area.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So --
13 MR. ANDERSEN: Right. Yes, but the other 14 part is that potable water use groundwater in single 15 source aquifers which has a total dissolved solids 16 content of less than 3,000.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: So, what you are saying is 18 that yes, it does a total dissolved solids that would 19 meet that classification but it is not from a single 20 source aquifer. Is that what you are saying? It 21 distinguishes that from a Class G-I?
22 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, that, and what I said 23 earlier in that I don't think they split it down to 24 looking at it. You know one, it changes from 10,000 25 to 3,000.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
486 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, brackish could 2 be -- it could be brackish and be G-I, though, if we 3 did meet that single source aquifer, apparently.
4 According to the state at least. Is that correct?
5 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, according to this 6 designation, yes. But I don't think you would want to 7 drink water of 3,000 milligrams per liter TDS. The 8 standard is 250 chloride, which is about 500 or 0.5.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm just curious. Do you 10 have any idea what the history is behind this G-I 11 classification?
12 MR. ANDERSEN: I have been focused more on 13 the difference between G-II and G-III. So, I am not 14 really that familiar with why it is set at 3,000 or 15 that high.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay.
17 Now, where would you pinpoint the 18 saltwater-freshwater interface for the Upper Floridan 19 Aquifer in relation to Turkey Point? Do you have any 20 idea where that would be?
21 MR. ANDERSEN: I don't. I just know it is 22 further inland than where FPL is withdrawing with 23 their Unit 5 wells.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Not wanting to put words in 25 your mouth but would it be fair to say that in your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
487 1 estimation it is so far away as not to be relevant to 2 our discussion of saltwater intrusion?
3 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I would -- yes.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: So, the sole 5 freshwater-saltwater interface that should be of 6 concern to us is in the Biscayne Aquifer. Is that 7 correct?
8 MR. ANDERSEN: Correct.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: This is for the staff. On 10 page 49, answer 69 of your written testimony, you 11 indicate there that FPL was authorized to withdraw 12 approximately 5 million gallons from the Upper 13 Floridan Aquifer. Is that correct?
14 MR. FORD: Yes.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: And you also testified 16 there that the EA discussed the possibility that the 17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection might 18 issue an administrative order requiring FPL to install 19 new wells to pump approximately 14 million gallons of 20 water a day from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Is that 21 correct?
22 MR. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, where does this 24 fit in with the withdrawals that you talked about 25 earlier? Can you help me pinpoint that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
488 1 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir. The approval, the 2 Water Management District approval in the 5 million 3 gallons per day I referred to as use of existing 4 Floridan Aquifer wells. It was granted approval 5 reallocating up to 5 million gallons per day for use 6 that I described. In practical terms, we used about 7 3 to 4 million gallons per day.
8 The other, we were talking about the other 9 administrative. The administrative order is a 10 Department Direction asking FPL to take action to 11 achieve certain objectives. One of the first things 12 is we would produce a salinity management plan 13 describing those activities. It, itself, doesn't 14 provide us the authorizations to put in wells. We 15 have to go out separately and that was the subject of 16 the Upper Floridan well Site Certification Mod that 17 was applied for in September of 2014, had its 18 administrative law hearing just recently and we are 19 awaiting the recommended order on that.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
21 MR. SCROGGS: So, that Site Certification 22 Modification would be a state-issued permit under the 23 Power Plant Siting Act to do those six Upper Floridan 24 wells providing up to 14 million gallons per day.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: So, you know I don't want NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
489 1 to -- you know I know you can never tell what a 2 regulatory agency might do but if you do get the 3 relief that you are seeking, I take it then that you 4 could be allowed to pump as much as 14 million gallons 5 a day. Is that correct?
6 MR. SCROGGS: Again, we are in an odd 7 situation a bit --
8 CHAIR GIBSON: I know.
9 MR. SCROGGS: This is the state agency 10 ordering us to take action and we are defending that 11 action.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
13 MR. SCROGGS: But the bottom line is we 14 have done the math. We have done the modeling. Other 15 agencies have looked over our shoulder and confirmed 16 the modeling.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
18 MR. SCROGGS: The 14 million gallons per 19 day is going to be a good long-term resource, allows 20 us not to use the L31 or other surface waters and make 21 up that precipitation deficit so that we can exert 22 long-term salinity management over the canal system.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, you said that 24 that is still pending; there has not been a final 25 resolution of that. Is FPL-028 not related to that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
490 1 Could you get that Mr. Welkie, FPL-028?
2 Or is this the one that is stayed, pending 3 the administrative hearing?
4 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, within our Site 5 Certification Modification request, there were several 6 things.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
8 MR. SCROGGS: The first thing was an Upper 9 Floridan well that would be dedicated to emergency use 10 for Fukushima backup water use and the formal State 11 reallocation of the existing Upper Floridan wells --
12 so, not only the Florida Water Management District but 13 the State had to confirm that -- and the other Upper 14 Floridan wells. Of those three components, only the 15 other Upper Floridan wells were eventually contested 16 by intervenors. So, the state was able to issue a 17 final order, partial, that authorized the Fukushima 18 well to be installed, although not used to provide 19 water to the cooling canal system, and for the 20 reallocation of the Turkey Point or the Upper Floridan 21 water for other use on-site.
22 So, this May 15, 2015 order was a 23 resolution or was resolving a blanket intervention, 24 narrowing that blanket intervention to just the other 25 Upper Floridan wells and allowing the other two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
491 1 components to proceed.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: And so the final approval 3 to do this 14 million withdrawal just hasn't been 4 finalized yet and it certainly is still up to the 5 approval of the State agency.
6 MR. SCROGGS: Correct.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: But that is what you are 8 anticipating, at least at this point in time.
9 MR. SCROGGS: They have issued their 10 modification approval. It has been challenged. The 11 administrative law judge held his hearing and we are 12 awaiting that recommended order.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, thank you.
14 That is very helpful because I have to tell you, it is 15 a little hard to follow this without a program.
16 MR. SCROGGS: I sympathize.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Just one 18 clarification in the 14 million gallons a day 19 withdrawal that is pending. In your estimation, is 20 that not going to affect the quality of the Upper 21 Floridan Aquifer, if you get that approval?
22 MR. SCROGGS: Again, that was part of the 23 process by which our application required us to do 24 modeling to demonstrate that it wasn't. The Water 25 Management District participated with their modelers NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
492 1 to confirm that they agreed with that and DEP accepted 2 both of those as demonstration that we would not.
3 Now, they are monitoring conditions that 4 would have us keep an eye on that.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
6 MR. SCROGGS: But based on the analysis 7 and the information and the experience we have had 8 with the Floridan Aquifer in that area, we do not 9 expect those to affect or degrade the quality of the 10 Upper Floridan Aquifer in that area.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well.
12 There is a reference, there is some 13 reference there to the 250 milligrams per liter 14 chloride isochlor. I am just curious if you could 15 speak to that, sir.
16 MR. SCROGGS: In this March 2015 document?
17 If I could see that.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, in terms of what the 19 impact of this 14 million gallon withdrawal would be, 20 if any.
21 MR. SCROGGS: I would ask if I could see 22 that language and maybe between the three of us, we 23 can do it.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure, it is on answer 82 on 25 page 48. I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
493 1 MR. SCROGGS: In our testimony?
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, on the FPL testimony, 3 FPL-001, I think. Okay, testimony page 48, answer 82.
4 There you go. There you go.
5 I'm just trying to understand what the 250 6 milligram per liter chloride isochlor has to do with 7 this. That was the part that I just didn't quite get.
8 What is the significance of that number?
9 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, it is kind of more of 10 a regulatory type of thing in that we are talking 11 about whether we will cause saltwater intrusion. And 12 the thing that the Water Management District is 13 involved with or interested in is the movement of the 14 250 milligram per liter isochlor. So, what we are 15 basically saying is it is somewhat of a moot point 16 because you are already over 250, so you can't move 17 the 250.
18 It is just that simple. We are relating 19 back to the District criteria for saltwater intrusion 20 and it is less than that or it is already over that 21 amount.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Court reporter, did 23 you get all that, by the way? Okay. Mr. Bolleter was 24 anxious to speak and took the microphone away from Mr.
25 Andersen. So, I wanted to be sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
494 1 (Laughter.)
2 CHAIR GIBSON: I wanted to be sure that 3 you got that.
4 Okay, yes, Mr. Bolleter.
5 MR. BOLLETER: I was going to just add 6 that the 250 milligram per liter chloride line is the 7 drinking water standard and so that is why there is an 8 interest from DEP for the 250. And again, we were 9 talking earlier about USGS and 1,000.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Right, right.
11 MR. BOLLETER: You know so we have got 12 these different numbers floating around but that is 13 where the 250 comes from.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, that is a different 15 saltwater-freshwater interface.
16 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: We are talking now about 18 where is the drinking water number. If it goes above 19 250, then it could not be drinkable or whatever but if 20 it is below 250, then it is. And that is the concern 21 that the State of Florida is expressing about this.
22 Is that a fair statement?
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and they want to be 25 sure that that is not going to be exceeded by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
495 1 withdrawing this water from the aquifer, these 14 2 million gallons. Is that a fair statement?
3 MR. ANDERSEN: Correct.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: It is really scary when I'm 5 asking questions and the technical judges don't follow 6 up. So, okay, I guess I must be doing okay.
7 Okay, now, let's assume that you do get 8 the 14 million gallons a day approval. You know to 9 us, that sounds like a lot of water to be removed. If 10 you remove it, doesn't other water have to replace it?
11 MR. SCROGGS: Well, in essence, that is 12 what the groundwater modeling that is done to support 13 the permitting analyzes. What is the effect of 14 removing that groundwater? And the answer has been, 15 there is no negative effect from doing that, that 16 amount, that volume of removal from that location.
17 MR. ANDERSEN: If I could follow up on 18 that.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
20 MR. ANDERSEN: You know part of, again, 21 the State regulatory process is to assess that. And 22 so we created a or actually used a Water Management 23 District model to look at the effect in the Floridan 24 Aquifer withdrawing 14 million gallons a day. And so 25 you do get this decline in water levels, mostly marked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
496 1 where you withdraw from and then less with further 2 distance away from the well. It is called a cone of 3 depression.
4 So, what that does is it lowers the water 5 levels. And the objective of the District, then, is 6 to look at how much does it lower the water levels and 7 is that lower, does that affect anybody.
8 And so we look at the extent of this cone 9 of depression. We look at who it might affect. I 10 think there were about three or four users that were 11 within a ten-mile area and we determined that it would 12 not affect their ability to produce water.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
14 JUDGE SAGER: In fact, I think that is 15 FPL-027, page 76, Mr. Welkie, if you could bring that 16 up. Correct me if I am wrong but I think this what 17 you are talking about, this modeling right here.
18 MR. ANDERSEN: That's correct, yes.
19 JUDGE SAGER: So does that actually create 20 an incline on the surface? When you are near the 21 vadose zone, you can pull down the water surface but 22 this a buried aquifer beneath a confining layer. Does 23 it actually develop this surface?
24 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, like you said, this 25 is 1,000 feet underground and so it is a confined NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
497 1 aquifer under pressure. And so what these numbers 2 represent is really a decline in water pressure.
3 (Simultaneous speaking.)
4 MR. ANDERSEN: It is a pressure that is 5 equivalent to or expressed in terms of a water level.
6 JUDGE SAGER: Right. So, if I read this 7 correctly, it looks like one of these is combined. I 8 think that is the one on the right combines the FPL 9 proposed withdrawals with other South Miami and 10 whatever FKAA is. And it shows, in effect, like 20 11 miles out of five feet of drawdown, something like 12 that. Does that sound about right?
13 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, that is the cumulative 14 impact of all of those users, FPL, the new 15 withdrawals, as well as the existing Unit 5 16 withdrawals. And these are permitted quantities. So, 17 everyone doesn't always use their allocated amount but 18 this is what they are allowed to use.
19 JUDGE SAGER: So, it is fair to say it is 20 a fairly wide impact here.
21 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, it is a fairly wide 22 impact but it is also a fairly limited impact, in 23 terms of they are interested in feed of drawdown but 24 that may not really affect anybody.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Got it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
498 1 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Got anything else?
3 JUDGE SAGER: I think I wrote this 4 question, so I should ask it but I don't really 5 remember it anymore.
6 (Laughter.)
7 JUDGE SAGER: This goes to Mr. Ford. I 8 think you said in the NRC-001 that you did modeling of 9 the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Is that correct?
10 MR. FORD: I didn't do modeling.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, then maybe I mistook 12 it. I didn't remember it.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Did anybody do modeling for 14 the staff?
15 MR. FORD: Not that I am aware of.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, so you were 17 basically, whatever modeling -- did you see the 18 modeling that was done by Florida Power and Light for 19 the State?
20 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. Yes, 21 we relied on models that FPL had done, as well as 22 historical data from the site.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And these models 24 were done when?
25 MR. ANDERSEN: The models that we did were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
499 1 for the Site Certification of the mod. And so I 2 believe that was in May of 2014.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: And the -- okay. Okay.
4 And that was when you did the modeling. Were these 5 outputs we just saw on this model, were those 6 presented in May of 2014 or did those come later?
7 MR. ANDERSEN: They may have come later 8 because I think what I am citing is the date on the 9 memorandum. So, I was done with my memorandum. I was 10 done with my work at that time and I don't recall when 11 that was actually released.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, do you have any idea?
13 MR. SCROGGS: The modification, the 14 application to the State, including all this 15 information, was September of 2014. It preexisted 16 because we had been talking with several agencies 17 about possible alternatives.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
19 MR. SCROGGS: So, Mr. Andersen's work 20 preceded the actual turning it in to an application 21 and submitting it the State. So, I don't know if it 22 was shared with the NRC staff prior to being part of 23 the Site Certification Modification.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you know when you all 25 received it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
500 1 MS. GRANGE: If we are talking about the 2 models we were just looking at, I'm not sure but we 3 did not have those before we made the license 4 amendment decision.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Just one more 6 follow-up question.
7 We were talking about if you get the 8 approval to do the 14 million gallons per day. Will 9 the water source affect the salinity of the water in 10 the aquifer?
11 MR. ANDERSEN: You mean as far as where it 12 is coming from?
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct.
14 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, one of the reasons 15 why the Upper Floridan Aquifer is such a desirable 16 source is that the salinity of that aquifer is fairly 17 low, as we have talked about, the 2.5 psu. The reason 18 why that is attractive is that you are introducing a 19 low salinity water into the cooling canal system. If 20 you, like the marine water that we talked about, a psu 21 of 35, if really not that attractive to put in because 22 it doesn't offer that -- there is salt being added, 23 whereas, with the Floridan Aquifer water, there is 24 very little salt being added. So, the source does 25 greatly affect it, mainly, depending on what its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
501 1 salinity is.
2 MR. SCROGGS: And just to expand, the 3 addition of that Floridan Aquifer water at low overall 4 salinity actually reduces the amount of marine water 5 that comes in to replace it because it is a whole 6 water balance. And when that Upper Floridan Aquifer 7 water is going to be available, the head in the 8 cooling canal system is not going to draw in as much 9 Marine water as before. So, you get kind of two 10 bonuses. You are replacing the water with lower salt 11 water and you are preventing more of the 35 psu water 12 from coming in.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Just curious. We haven't 14 talked much about algae. Is the algae better for you 15 now, since you have been making these changes?
16 MR. SCROGGS: Yes and no. In the summer 17 of 2013 and '14 we had a cyanobacteria, which is a 18 blue green algae, that was very aggressive and high 19 salinity supported blue green algae. As we have 20 reduced the salinity, we have seen a significant shift 21 in the population away from that blue green algae but 22 another algae has started growing. And the core issue 23 is there are nutrient levels in the system because of 24 all the vegetation surrounding it and that is what is 25 keeping the algae going and that is our longer term NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
502 1 challenge.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. If we could take a 3 break for about ten minutes. You all are okay going 4 to six tonight? Seeing no fundamental complaints, we 5 will go ahead and do that, then. Thank you.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7 off the record at 5:02 p.m. and resumed at 5:17 p.m.)
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Please be 9 seated. All right, we are back on the record.
10 I believe Judge Kennedy has some questions 11 for the staff.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: I do. Thank you.
13 These all relate to the license amendment 14 request that the staff offered up in their pre-filed 15 testimony related to ultimate heat sink temperature 16 tech spec changes.
17 Ms. Grange, you testified on page 34 of 18 your written testimony -- I guess we are going to do 19 a bunch of stuff on the staff, so INT-001 -- that in 20 the past, the staff had found that the license 21 amendment request at other facilities involving 22 increases in the ultimate heat sink technical 23 specification limit meet the NRC criteria for 24 categorical exclusion, citing the regs at 10 CFR 25 51.22. Is that correct? Is this the page, 34?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
503 1 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor, that is 2 correct.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Specifically, you 4 testified that in this case, the NRC staff used 5 categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), correct?
6 MS. GRANGE: Correct, sir.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, that exclusion 8 applies to changes to a facility component within the 9 restricted area, correct?
10 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: And cooling canals within 12 a restricted area would be considered a facility 13 component. Is that correct?
14 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, yes.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: However, categorical 16 exclusion 10 CFR 51, identified at 51.22(c)(9) does 17 not apply if there is a significant change in the 18 types or amounts of any effluence that may be released 19 offsite. Is that correct?
20 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is heat an effluent?
22 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor, I believe 23 so.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is salt considered an 25 effluent?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
504 1 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, the exclusion would 3 not apply if there were a significant change in the 4 heat or saltiness of water that migrated offsite?
5 MS. GRANGE: Since we identified that we 6 would be doing an environmental assessment pretty 7 early on in the process, you know I don't know if that 8 would meet the criteria of a categorical exclusion or 9 not because I didn't have to ask that specific 10 question, whether it would meet that criteria at 11 (c)(9). So, I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure 12 right now without looking at the information.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess I was going 14 to follow that up with were you aware of evidence 15 showing that this cooling canal system waters have 16 migrated outside the canals but it sounds like you 17 didn't even get to that question. Well, not that 18 question but the exclusion question.
19 MS. GRANGE: For groundwater specifically, 20 no, we didn't.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Now, in support of that 22 statement, the staff has used categorical exclusions 23 to increase ultimate heat sink temperature limits for 24 other plants. You cited NRC-029, NRC-030, NRC-031, 25 and NRC-043. I think those are a number of license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
505 1 amendment request tech spec changes.
2 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
4 If we take a look at, first, at NRC-029, 5 this is a license amendment for the Hope Creek plant.
6 I don't think we have to call it up. I have just got 7 some questions about that specific license amendment.
8 This amendment allowed for continued plant operation 9 if the temperature of the ultimate heat sink exceeds 10 89 degrees, provided the ultimate heat sink 11 temperature averaged over the previous 24-hour period 12 is verified at least once per hour to be less than or 13 equal to 89 degrees and the ultimate heat sink 14 temperature does not exceed a maximum value of 91.4.
15 I am hoping that that is correct. It is 16 a lot of words. But if you want to take a look at it, 17 we can call it up here.
18 MS. GRANGE: Are you asking me if I want 19 to take a look at it?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess I am asking 21 you.
22 MS. GRANGE: From my recollection, yes 23 that is correct.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that is that amendment 25 request.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
506 1 So, prior to this license amendment, Hope 2 Creek's ultimate heat sink temperature was 89 degrees?
3 MS. GRANGE: I believe so.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: And Hope Creek's ultimate 5 heat sink, is that the Delaware River?
6 MS. GRANGE: The Delaware Estuary, which 7 leads to the Atlantic Ocean. So, it is basically 8 between the Delaware River and the Atlantic Ocean is 9 the estuary stock portion. It is considered the 10 Delaware Estuary.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. I guess just 12 another fact that may be relevant here. Hope Creek 13 has a cooling tower?
14 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that water is used for 16 helping to generate power or cool the plant to 17 generate power?
18 MS. GRANGE: Right. It is a cooling tower 19 system that cools the Hope Creek plant.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, the water used for 21 Hope Creek, again, I think this ultimate heat sink 22 tech spec amendment refers to the temperatures of the 23 cooling water that is used to cool Hope Creek's safety 24 systems and not the power generation portion.
25 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
507 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, is that a once-through 2 system?
3 MS. GRANGE: No, Hope Creek is a closed 4 cycle system. It has a cooling tower.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess now I am getting 6 confused. Are you suggesting that the water that --
7 this 89 degree tech spec change relates to the basin 8 water in the cooling tower?
9 MS. GRANGE: I would need to go back and 10 review the details of that license amendment. I think 11 in the context of that license amendment, why I 12 brought that up in the testimony is to show that in 13 the past the staff has looked at small changes in 14 ultimate heat sink temperatures and determine that 15 those were categorical exclusions, in general. So 16 that it was meant to be a broader example, rather than 17 a specific one, one for one kind of example. I wasn't 18 saying that Hope Creek is the same or a similar system 19 as Turkey Point.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right and as the nuclear 21 engineer on the Board here, I guess I got curious how 22 you selected those cases. We really have pages of 23 questions here, trying to ascertain the applicability 24 or the commonality between the license amendment 25 request that you cited and the one here for Turkey NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
508 1 Point. And it just seems to me, again, I guess I am 2 getting ahead of this, but instead of reading five 3 pages worth of questions, all these questions really 4 point to, there seem to be significant differences to 5 me between all of these tech spec amendment requests, 6 other than the fact that they are minor temperature 7 changes. But some are once-through, some are direct, 8 they are closed cycle, some are not closed cycle.
9 Some have salt involved. Some don't have salt 10 involved.
11 So, maybe in a broader question -- I'm 12 trying to understand. Was the only commonality that 13 you selected these a small temperature change?
14 MS. GRANGE: That is the main commonality.
15 I mean another factor was that we wanted to cite more 16 recent examples. And so these were also some of the 17 more recent examples that we could find for this kind 18 of action.
19 So, they were really intended to highlight 20 the staff's process for determining what kind of NEPA 21 review is most appropriate for license amendments 22 involving small changes in ultimate heat sink 23 temperatures.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: If you were to pick one of 25 these license amendment requests that you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
509 1 selected, and I know you didn't take the categorical 2 exclusion for this case but I'm trying to -- I think 3 this gets, in some manner, to how you treated the 4 license amendment request in evaluating the NEPA 5 aspects.
6 Which of these license amendment requests 7 do you think is closest to Turkey Point's situation?
8 MS. GRANGE: You know I wouldn't be able 9 to answer that without looking back at those licensing 10 requests because Turkey Point is a very different 11 system, as you have indicated. So, I don't think the 12 intent was to say that the tech spec changes were 13 identical.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I think the Board was 15 trying to figure out what we needed to glean from this 16 and I mean I can read all these questions but we are 17 going to get to the same point.
18 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm really trying to help 20 the Board understand what the takeaway is from those 21 examples. Is it merely that they are small 22 temperature increases? Is that the most common 23 factor?
24 MS. GRANGE: I think the takeaway that I 25 intended was that for license amendments in the past, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
510 1 that have been those small changes in ultimate heat 2 sink temperatures, when the staff has looked at the 3 kind of NEPA review that it needed to do, it has 4 followed its process in like two or three, as well as 5 the regulations of Part 51, and it has found that 6 those types of actions have met the categorical 7 exclusion criteria, as cited in the testimony. It 8 wasn't to say that any of the technical details were 9 identical but just more to show that the staff has a 10 process that it has consistently followed in the past 11 and that that process has led us to a categorical 12 exclusion for that kind of action.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: I hear everything you are 14 saying but I mean I see enough differences between all 15 these cases. And if I take Hope Creek and Indian 16 Point, I think they are very similar in terms of plant 17 design and they are asking for upper heat sink 18 temperatures increases for small, I think, open cycle 19 systems, as opposed to, in Turkey Point's case, where 20 they are looking to change the cooling water 21 temperature for something that is used for both power 22 generation and for cooling their safety equipment.
23 The closest example I came would have been 24 Millstone. Any thoughts?
25 MS. GRANGE: I mean I wasn't trying -- I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
511 1 mean I guess I don't -- I wouldn't be able to give you 2 one that you should be looking to for those technical 3 details because that just wasn't the intent of my 4 statements there.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, let me cut to the 6 chase, then. I mean I think we could debate back and 7 forth the merits of all of these. I mean I think the 8 one commonality is the slight temperature change. I 9 get that, that these aren't requests for large changes 10 in parameters.
11 Do any of these four plants use aquifer 12 withdrawals to replenish water in their cooling 13 systems?
14 MS. GRANGE: Not to my knowledge, no.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: In any of these four 16 examples, did anyone challenge the categorical 17 exclusion or the environmental assessment?
18 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, no.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: In any of these four 20 examples, has a plant been found in violation of state 21 water quality standards in relation to the ultimate 22 heat sink?
23 MS. GRANGE: I mean that would be 24 something I would have to look up but, to my 25 knowledge, no, they have not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
512 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean that sort of avoids 2 large pages of questions to try to get to the 3 differences between the various plant conditions.
4 So, I mean I think I will just leave you 5 with those thoughts. I mean I get what you are trying 6 to do in terms of temperature increase but I think 7 there is such differences between these license 8 amendment cases that I struggle to find the true value 9 in the citation.
10 So, I appreciate your answering the last 11 three questions, which really is sort of the 12 culminative part of this, looking for the basis. So, 13 thanks.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think what we 15 would like to do is to stay in recess until nine 16 o'clock tomorrow morning.
17 Over the evening, I do have some homework 18 for Ms. Grange. First, we were unable to locate any 19 incorporation by reference of the COL environmental 20 report. If there was such an incorporation by 21 reference, I would like you to provide that citation 22 to me.
23 MS. GRANGE: I can answer that one now.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
25 MS. GRANGE: We did not incorporate that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
513 1 by reference.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
3 MS. GRANGE: I think that was -- I'm not 4 sure if that was a misstatement by me or Mr. Ford but 5 we didn't intend to indicate that.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, well, then, 7 that is less homework for you tonight.
8 MS. GRANGE: Great.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: I was unable to locate any 10 reference in either the 2002 license renewal EIS or in 11 the 2012 environmental assessment for the EPU to the 12 saltwater-freshwater interface or to the migration of 13 saltwater out of the cooling canal system. If there 14 was such a discussion, I would like you to provide a 15 citation for me to that as well.
16 MS. GRANGE: Understood.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well. We will 18 stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
19 Have a good evening. We will see you tomorrow.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 5:31 p.m.)
22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
Pumping from the L31E elevates the water level in the cooling canals Rainfall freshens the surface of Biscayne Bay, but the hypersaline blob remains unchanged.
Deep nutrient pollution appears offshore shortly after pumping begins
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4 Docket Number: 50-250-LA and 50-251-LA ASLBP Number: 15-935-02-LA-BO01 Location: Homestead, Florida Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 Work Order No.: NRC-2085 Pages 259-513 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
259 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 --------------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
9 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT : 50-250-LA 10 COMPANY : 50-251-LA 11 (Turkey Point Nuclear : ASLBP No.
12 Generating Units 3 and 4) : 15-935-02-LA-BO01 13 --------------------------x 14 Monday, January 11, 2016 15 16 Hampton Inn & Suites 17 Reef Room 18 2855 NE 9th Street 19 20 Homestead, Florida 21 22 BEFORE:
23 MICHAEL M. GIBSON, Chair 24 DR. MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 25 DR. WILLIAM W. SAGER, Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
260 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Florida Power & Light Company:
3 WILLIAM BLAIR, ESQ.
4 ERIN WALKOWIAK, ESQ.
5 of: Florida Power & Light Company 6 700 Universe Blvd.
7 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 8 william.blair@fpl.com 9 Erin.walkowiak@fpl.com 10 and 11 STEVEN C. HAMRICK, ESQ.
12 Florida Power & Light Company 13 801 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 14 Suite 220 15 Washington, DC 20004 16 steven.hamrick@fpl.com 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
261 1 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
2 BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.
3 DAVID ROTH, ESQ.
4 MATTHEW RING, ESQ.
5 of: Office of the General Counsel 6 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 9 brian.harris@nrc.gov 10 David.roth@nrc.gov 11 Matthew.ring@nrc.gov 12 13 On Behalf of the Intervenor:
14 BARRY J. WHITE 15 MICHAEL HATCHER 16 of: Citizens Allied for Safe Energy 17 10001 SW 129 Terrace 18 Miami, Florida 33176 19 bwtamia@bellsouth.net 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
262 1 CONTENTS 2 EXHIBITS MARK RECD 3 INT-017 Original license for Unit 4 273 4 INT-208 Miami-Dade County's comments to the 5 draft environmental report for the combined 6 operating license for proposed Units 6 and 7 7 at Turkey Point 274 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
263 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 9:31 a.m.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Good morning.
4 ALL: Good morning.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: We are here today on Atomic 6 Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket Nos. 50-250-LA 7 and 50-251-LA concerning the United States Nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission's amendment of Florida Power &
9 Light Company's operating licenses for Turkey Point 10 Units 3 and 4 located near Homestead, Florida.
11 First, let me introduce the Board that 12 will be conducting this evidentiary hearing. Sitting 13 to my right is Judge Michael Kennedy who holds a Ph.D.
14 in nuclear engineering and is a full-time judge with 15 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. Sitting 16 to my left is Judge William Sager who is a professor 17 of geophysics at the University of Houston, as well as 18 a part-time judge with the Atomic Safety and Licensing 19 Board Panel. I'm Michael Gibson. I'm a lawyer and 20 full-time judge with the Atomic Safety and Licensing 21 Board Panel, as well as the Chairman of this Board.
22 Next, I would like to have announcements 23 of counsel beginning first with Florida Power & Light.
24 MR. HAMRICK: Good morning. This is 25 Steven Hamrick, counsel for Florida Power & Light, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
264 1 with me is Erin Walkowiak, co-counsel.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Counsel for the 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff?
4 MR. HARRIS: Good morning. This is Brian 5 Harris, counsel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 and to my immediate right is Mr. David Roth, and to 7 his right is Matthew Ring, counsel for the NRC.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Citizens Allied for Safe 9 Energy?
10 MR. WHITE: Good morning. Barry White, 11 CASE authorized representative. And this is Michael 12 Hatcher, consultant.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Did I miss anyone?
14 (No audible response) 15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Next, I would like 16 to introduce the Board's administrative staff and 17 other support personnel. First, we have two lawyers, 18 Nichole Pepperl, who is in her second and final year 19 as one of our law clerks, and Jennifer Scro, who is in 20 her first year as one of our clerks. Next, our IT 21 coordinator is Mr. Andy Welkie. We also have Joey 22 Ledford, who's with -- hold your hand up there, Joey.
23 He's with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 24 Office of Public Affairs, and he will handle any 25 inquiries from the press or public. Likewise, our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
265 1 court reporter is Brandon Paterson. Officer Becker 2 and Officer Morales are here from the City of 3 Homestead Police Department to provide security for 4 our hearing. And I would also note that all weapons 5 are prohibited from entering this hearing room.
6 One more thing. If you'd please disable 7 your cell phone, we'd appreciate it. If you need to 8 use your phone, please do so outside.
9 This is a brief summary of why we are here 10 today: About seven mile southeast of here Florida 11 Power & Light Company operates two nuclear power 12 reactors called Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The issue 13 in this proceeding concerns the cooling canal system 14 for these two units. Nuclear reactors generate heat 15 and keep those reactors from overheating. Non-contact 16 cooling water is circulated to maintain the proper 17 temperature for the reactors. And at Turkey Point the 18 cooling water is drawn from this cooling canal system.
19 Turkey Point's cooling canal system is 20 known as an ultimate heat sink because it provides a 21 place for excess heat from the plant to be dissipated.
22 Specifically, hot water is discharged from the plant 23 and it flows a long a 13-mile loop, which takes about 24 two days. The cooler water then returns to the plant 25 where it is once again recirculated for cooling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
266 1 purposes.
2 Now in order to operate Turkey Point Units 3 3 and 4 the Atomic Energy Act requires Florida Power 4 & Light to have operating licenses from the U.S.
5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The original licenses 6 for these units were issued in 1972 and 1973 and were 7 later renewed in 2002. The expiration date for the 8 renewed licenses is 2032 for Unit 3 and 2033 for Unit 9 4.
10 Both licenses contain technical 11 specifications that set a maximum water temperature 12 for intake water as it returns to the plant from the 13 cooling canal system. If Florida Power & Light goes 14 over that maximum temperature limit, it is obligated 15 to shut down both units.
16 In July 2014, the cooling canals came 17 close to exceeding the water temperature limit of 100 18 degrees Fahrenheit, and as a result Florida Power &
19 Light sought license amendments to raise the maximum 20 temperature limit from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 21 degrees Fahrenheit.
22 As it is legally obligated to do when it 23 receives such a request, the Nuclear Regulatory 24 Commission staff conducted an environmental 25 assessment. The environmental assessment concluded NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
267 1 that an increase in the intake temperature from 100 2 degrees to 104 degrees would have no significant 3 environmental impact. This environmental assessment 4 was then published in the Federal Register on July 31, 5 2014.
6 Normally the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 waits 60 days before granting a license amendment in 8 order to obtain public comments, as well as to afford 9 interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing 10 to challenge the license amendment. However, in this 11 case the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that 12 there were exigent circumstances that justified 13 granting these amendments without waiting the normal 14 60 days. The specific exigent circumstances here were 15 that Units 3 and 4 would have to shut down if the 16 water intake temperature exceeded the 100-degree 17 temperature limit.
18 Accordingly, on August 8, 2014 the Nuclear 19 Regulatory Commission staff issued the license 20 amendments, published a notice in the Federal 21 Register, affording the public an opportunity to 22 request a hearing to challenge these amendments.
23 In October 2014 Citizens Allied for Safe 24 Energy, which we will simply call CASE, filed a 25 petition to intervene and requested a hearing. After NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
268 1 oral argument here a year ago we determined that CASE 2 had pleaded one admissible contention, which is 3 essentially a legal or factual challenge to the 4 license amendment and that it had standing to raise 5 this challenge.
6 That contention alleges that the NRC's 7 July 2014 environmental assessment does not adequately 8 assess the impact of increased temperature and 9 salinity in the cooling canal system on salt water 10 intrusion arising from: (1) migration out of the 11 cooling canal system or the CCS, which we may refer to 12 it as today; and (2) the withdrawal of fresh water 13 from surrounding aquifers to mitigate conditions 14 within the CCS.
15 Today we're holding this hearing to 16 determine whether there is any merit to this 17 contention.
18 Once this hearing concludes, the Board 19 will evaluate the evidence and issues its decision.
20 The Board certainly could conclude that the NRC staff 21 correctly found in the environmental assessment that 22 the license amendments will not have a significant 23 environmental impact. On the other hand, the Board 24 could conclude that there are environmental impacts 25 not addressed in the environmental assessment that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
269 1 should have been, but that those matters can be 2 addressed by the insertion of additional conditions in 3 the license or that the evidence presented at this 4 hearing itself adequately clarifies any less-5 significant errors.
6 It is even possible if any errors are 7 significant enough that the Board could conclude that 8 the environmental assessment is deficient and that the 9 NRC staff needs to go back to the drawing board to 10 clear up those deficiencies. All of these outcomes 11 are possible depending on the evidence the parties 12 have filed with the Board as well as on the sworn 13 testimony the Board will hear at this hearing through 14 its examination of the parties' witnesses.
15 Now that the witnesses have already 16 provided their direct testimony on paper, we are here 17 today to ask questions of those witnesses with respect 18 to the admitted contentions.
19 The three of us, who are judges with the 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, act for the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in contested proceedings 22 such as this one and make an initial decision as to 23 whether the license amendments should be granted.
24 Those initial decisions can be reviewed by the 25 Commission and can be affirmed, reversed or modified.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
270 1 Although the Atomic Safety and Licensing 2 Board Panel is physically housed within the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission, and although individual judges 4 receive their appointments from the Commissioners of 5 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we are a fully 6 independent entity and are wholly separate and apart 7 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
8 Rather, the NRC staff appears here as one 9 of three parties that will present its side of this 10 contested proceeding. And as three independent judges 11 we will consider the views of the NRC staff, just as 12 we will consider those of Florida Power & Light and of 13 CASE, and I assure we will accord each side equal 14 weight. If one of the parties here does not like the 15 ruling that we ultimately make, after this hearing 16 that party can petition the Commissioners to review 17 our decision.
18 I should emphasize that this hearing is 19 essentially a trial and this Board and the 20 representatives and witnesses for the three parties to 21 this proceeding will be the only folks who have any 22 speaking parts. If you came here to talk about your 23 concerns with Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, I'm sorry, 24 but this is not the forum for that.
25 However, under 10 CFR 2.328 this hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
271 1 is open to the public, and so those of you in the 2 audience are certainly welcome to be here to view 3 these proceedings, and we encourage you to provide 4 this Board with written statements, so-called limited 5 appearance statements, to express your views on the 6 appropriateness of increasing the intake water 7 temperature at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. All such 8 limited appearance statements will be transcribed and 9 placed into the official docket of this proceeding.
10 I hasten to add, however, that limited 11 appearance statements are not evidence, and while they 12 may assist the Board and the parties as this 13 proceeding goes forward, they are not evidence per se.
14 If you have a written appearance statement today or 15 would like to write one up during a break in our 16 proceedings, you can hand that statement to one of our 17 clerks, Nichole Pepperl or Jennifer Scro, and they'll 18 make sure it gets placed in the docket so we will have 19 a chance to review it. If you'd prefer to write up a 20 statement on your computer, you can email it to our 21 clerks using the email address provided in the 22 December 8, 2015 hearing notice, which I believe is on 23 the back table back there, but we need to get those by 24 January 15, which I believe is this Friday.
25 One of the things that we'll be doing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
272 1 today during this proceeding is marking the parties 2 exhibits and possibly the Board's exhibits 3 electronically. This may involve some interchange 4 between the Board and Mr. Welkie, whom we previously 5 introduced as a member of the Panel's IT staff.
6 And we anticipate using some display 7 technology as part of the evidentiary proceedings, and 8 if you have any difficulty with that, Mr. Welkie can 9 help you. You can see the display screen up here.
10 Hopefully this will make the information more 11 accessible and understandable.
12 Once the exhibits are marked, they will be 13 transmitted electronically to the electronic hearing 14 docket at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which 15 will keep our process entirely electronic from start 16 to finish, and that will allow you, the public, with 17 easy access to these documents on the NRC web site.
18 Additionally, as Mr. Paterson's presence 19 indicates, we'll be transcribing this proceeding and 20 at the conclusion of it we will establish a mechanism 21 for the parties to correct the transcript of any 22 errors.
23 Finally, we need to go over just a couple 24 of little housekeeping matters. First of all, we're 25 planning to be able to conclude this proceeding no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
273 1 later than the end of the day tomorrow, which is 2 Tuesday, January 12.
3 Second, the Board and the Board alone will 4 be asking questions of the witnesses. The witnesses 5 are seated here in front of us so we can ask questions 6 back and forth between the parties' witnesses. Once 7 we've completed our examination of the parties' 8 witnesses, we will allow each party to suggest any 9 additional questions it thinks we should have asked 10 but we didn't. Those questions will be submitted 11 privately to the Board. The Board may or may not ask 12 those additional questions, I should add, but the 13 parties certainly will be afforded with the 14 opportunity to suggest those.
15 Finally, the Board left open the question 16 of the admission of two exhibits at its January 4 17 teleconference. The Board has reviewed FPL's 18 objections and they are overruled. The Board admits 19 INT-017, which is the original license for Unit 4, 20 because it is relevant to the background of the 21 cooling canal system, and the Board will have some 22 questions on that matter for the witnesses.
23 (Whereupon, the above-referred to 24 document was marked for identification as 25 INT-017 and was received in evidence.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
274 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Similarly, the Board admits 2 INT-028 because the discussion of salinity in the 3 cooling canal system is relevant to the state 4 groundwater proceedings, which is a topic on which the 5 Board expects to ask some questions as well.
6 (Whereupon, the above-referred to 7 document was marked for identification as 8 INT-028 and was received in evidence.)
9 CHAIR GIBSON: I assume no one has 10 anything further needing the Board's attention, but if 11 there is, please speak now.
12 (No audible response) 13 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. When we will be 14 asking the witnesses questions, be sure to speak into 15 the mic. I may be able to hear you, but it's very 16 important the court reporter get a good copy on his 17 transcript, so we want to be sure and get that done.
18 Mr. Hamrick, are all of FPL's witnesses 19 present in the courtroom?
20 MR. HAMRICK: Yes, Your Honor.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Harris, are all 22 of your witnesses present in the courtroom?
23 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: And are they all seated up 25 here?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
275 1 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. White, is CASE's 3 witness present?
4 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well. If you 6 all could just stand up and raise your right hand, I'd 7 appreciate it.
8 You do affirm that all the testimony 9 you're about to give in this case now before this 10 Board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 11 but the truth? This you do affirm under the pains and 12 penalties of perjury?
13 ALL: I do.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. We are going to 15 be trying to get all of our questions for Dr. Stoddard 16 out of the way, but I assure you all you should not 17 get your feelings hurt if we don't ask you all 18 questions yet. You'll get your chance.
19 And I believe you got to leave at 11:00, 20 is that correct, sir?
21 DR. STODDARD: That's correct. Please.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So what we'll do is 23 if we have time we may have a few follow-up questions 24 for a few of you on some of the things Dr. Stoddard 25 has raised. We'd like to do those while he's here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
276 1 But in any event, what we're going to be doing is 2 we're going to be recessing at about 10:40, allow you 3 all five minutes to submit any additional questions we 4 need to ask Dr. Stoddard, put him back on and ask him 5 those questions. And we'll finish. To the extent 6 there are questions we may ask the rest of the 7 witnesses during this initial period, you don't need 8 to submit those yet. You can submit those at the end 9 when we'll be doing that for all the witnesses. Does 10 everybody understand that?
11 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well.
13 Okay. Dr. Stoddard, as an initial matter 14 there appears to be some inconsistency in the record 15 in regard to your educational background. An expert 16 declaration you submitted in the Turkey Point combined 17 operating license case states that your doctorate from 18 the University of Washington is in psychology, 19 however, the affidavit you submitted in this case 20 states that your doctorate is in animal behavior and 21 physiology. Could you please clear that up for us?
22 DR. STODDARD: Yes, at the University of 23 Washington the animal behavior program, which is a --
24 a bio-psych program, is housed within the Department 25 of Psychology. So my major was in animal behavior.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
277 1 My minor was in physiology. I took half my courses 2 from the Zoology Department next door. So -- so my --
3 the -- the document that I have somewhere in a drawer 4 says psychology on it. I am a biologist.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So you're more like 6 B. F. Skinner than, is that right, than Sigmund Freud?
7 DR. STODDARD: Yes, I don't -- I don't 8 think I ever took a human psych course.
9 (Laughter) 10 DR. STODDARD: I still don't understand 11 people.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, okay. Very 13 well. In your rebuttal testimony at page 9, you opine 14 that migration of hypersaline water from the cooling 15 canal system through the porous oolithic limestone 16 into the Biscayne Bay will have a negative impact on 17 a variety of aquatic life. Is that correct?
18 DR. STODDARD: That's correct.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Are you familiar with INT-20 028, which is Miami-Dade County's comments to the 21 draft environmental report for the combined operating 22 license for proposed Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point?
23 DR. STODDARD: Not by that name.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
25 DR. STODDARD: I may -- I may have read NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
278 1 the comments, but I couldn't --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Welkie, could 3 you bring up INT-028 at page 8?
4 See if you have any familiarity with this, 5 sir.
6 At the bottom of this page the county 7 discusses tritium being found in a deep-well cluster 8 TPGW-10, which is located on the Biscayne Bay slightly 9 north and east of the Turkey Point plant. Do you see 10 that?
11 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
13 DR. STODDARD: And I am familiar with 14 that.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. You're familiar with 16 the deep-well cluster TPGW-10?
17 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Very well. Do you 19 know how deep that is and at what depth the data was 20 taken?
21 DR. STODDARD: I do not know the precise 22 depth.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, let me just -- hold 24 on a minute. Is there somebody from Florida Power &
25 Light who knows how deep that well is and what depth NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
279 1 the data was taken?
2 MR. BOLLETER: This is Jim Bolleter. I 3 don't recall the exact, but it's over 100 feet deep.
4 So it's a deep well and it's screened at a very 5 discrete interval of -- and again, at that specific 6 well I don't remember if it's two feet or five foot of 7 screen at that deep interval.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Bolleter.
9 DR. STODDARD: So, Judge Gibson, if I get 10 your drift, is -- is -- are you going -- looking to 11 see whether there's actual evidence that the 12 hypersaline plume is going into the bay itself?
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, we'll get to that.
14 You don't have to anticipate me --
15 DR. STODDARD: Okay.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: -- Dr. Stoddard. We'll 17 just take this one brick at a time. Okay?
18 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: This also states that the 20 increase in tritium concentrations became evident in 21 quarterly monitoring results for the June 2012 22 sampling. Is that correct, Mr. Bolleter?
23 MR. BOLLETER: Yes, that's correct.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, Dr. Stoddard, 25 recognizing that you didn't recall this document NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
280 1 specifically, is this the evidence that you rely on to 2 show that there has been salt water migration from the 3 cooling canal system into Biscayne Bay?
4 DR. STODDARD: No, sir. I rely on -- on 5 data measured by DERM that shows elevations in 6 phosphorous and ammonia recorded above the surface of 7 the -- the bay floor.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
9 DR. STODDARD: And I have -- I have those 10 -- those data here to show you, if you're interested, 11 and they're available. If your IT person has them, he 12 can put them on display, if you'd like to see them.
13 Or -- and I have printouts, if you'd like to see 14 those.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, we definitely want to 16 know what you're relying on. Okay?
17 DR. STODDARD: So these -- these --
18 CHAIR GIBSON: But by virtue of the fact 19 that they haven't even been provided before today, 20 these are not going to be exhibits, Dr. Stoddard, Mr.
21 White. These are just going to be demonstratives for 22 the point you're trying to make.
23 DR. STODDARD: Understood.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: We can look at them for 25 that purpose.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
281 1 DR. STODDARD: Understood.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: And I suspect these 3 technical judges will have some specific questions 4 about that.
5 Okay. You say our Mr. Welkie has this?
6 DR. STODDARD: Yes, he does.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Could we display 8 that and then perhaps you may have some -- well, I'll 9 let Dr. Sager.
10 DR. STODDARD: Okay. So this first 11 figure, the upper portion of it, shows pumping from 12 the L31E canal. And as -- the time scales are the 13 same on these. As the pumping begins; this is fresh 14 water coming from the L31E to the west of the cooling 15 canal system, the canal height begins to respond by 16 going up, as you would expect. So we can go to the 17 next figure.
18 And the upper figure here is rainfall.
19 You see it rains in the summer in Miami, and 20 fortunately, it rained this summer. And the lower 21 figure there is two conductivity metrics, one directly 22 above the other. The gray one that you see dropping 23 is up at the surface. The black one that you see 24 holding steady is down at the bottom. It's above the 25 floor of the bay, so it's in the water. And it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
282 1 holding steady. So the rain seems to be diluting, the 2 -- the surface waters, as you would expect them to do, 3 but the water at the bottom is not.
4 So let's continue on to the next figure.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: And I just want to be sure.
6 Has this been provided to the other parties, this 7 information?
8 DR. STODDARD: I don't know. I have -- I 9 have -- I have printouts of these I can give to 10 everybody.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Have you guys seen this 12 before?
13 DR. STODDARD: These are data from DERM.
14 MR. HARRIS: No, CASE has not provided 15 this information to FPL.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Have you?
17 PARTICIPANT: No, that has not been 18 provided at this time.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Well --
20 DR. STODDARD: And -- and your question 21 for me was how do I know this, so I'm only explaining.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, I understand that, but 23 we need to get copies to these other people.
24 DR. STODDARD: I have -- I have copies.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you have paper copies, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
283 1 you could hand those out?
2 DR. STODDARD: I do.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.
4 DR. STODDARD: Who -- would anybody like 5 them right now?
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Can you hand those out?
7 DR. STODDARD: Here you go.
8 JUDGE SAGER: I just want to get something 9 clarified.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Take it from here.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. This is 12 Judge Sager. Dr. Stoddard, a question here just to 13 make sure everyone knows what we're talking about.
14 This long abbreviation that starts with TP and ends 15 with 7B is a well?
16 DR. STODDARD: It's not a well. It's a 17 monitoring -- it's a monitor. It's a -- in this 18 particular case it's a conductivity monitor that's 19 located just east of the Turkey Point reactor facility 20 in the bay just a few inches above the floor of the --
21 of the bay.
22 JUDGE SAGER: At what depth?
23 DR. STODDARD: Pardon?
24 JUDGE SAGER: Do you know the depth? How 25 deep is the sea floor there?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
284 1 DR. STODDARD: I don't -- I spoke with --
2 with DERM about that and the bay varies in depth.
3 This one I was told was about 30 feet deep. I'm not 4 -- I'm not confident of that. But there is -- there's 5 a -- there are some channels that have been dug, you 6 know, the -- the shipping channels, and it may be down 7 at the bottom of that. That's the only way you get it 8 down that deep. But it is not -- it's in the water 9 column. It's not down in a drill hole below the --
10 below the floor. And I confirmed that this morning 11 just to make sure.
12 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you.
13 DR. STODDARD: Yes. So what we're looking 14 at, you remember that in the previous figure we saw 15 addition of L31E water to the cooling canals. At the 16 time that the water begins -- elevation begins to rise 17 in the cooling canal system, as it ought to given 18 you're adding water, the ammonia begins to appear in 19 the bay and phosphorous begins to appear in the bay 20 and it -- and it begins to elevate significantly. And 21 it's not -- that ammonia and phosphorous almost 22 certainly results from years of accumulated plant 23 growth in the canals that has been consistently 24 removed and stacked up on the berms. And then more 25 recently of course FPL macerated the aquatic plants in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
285 1 the canals and leaving the -- leaving the biomass to 2 -- to decompose.
3 So what we've got here now is a migration 4 of ammonia and phosphorous heading offshore into the 5 water. And I think that's probably the most -- the 6 clearest demonstration we've seen so far of migration, 7 because people -- people had seen the tritium before 8 and there was always the question of whether the 9 tritium was coming from underground migration or 10 whether it was evaporating and coming down as 11 precipitation, which tritium certainly does. It's 12 very volatile. But ammonia phosphate are not 13 particularly likely to be moving in this way. And so 14 I think to me this is the most convincing evidence 15 I've seen to date that we in fact have migration of 16 water from the cooling canals into the bay itself.
17 And that's why I've provided that for you.
18 And the last slide, my wife -- I was 19 trying to explain this to my wife last night. She 20 says, Phil, I need a diagram. So I drew a little 21 picture and she says that's great. And it's just a 22 schematic. It's not to scale. But essentially the 23 water goes from the L31E into the canals. We've known 24 there's a hypersaline blob for some time. We've known 25 it's migrated underground. And the question is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
286 1 whether it's getting into the bay. And so, I believe 2 based on the -- on the ammonia, on the -- and the 3 phosphate we're pretty confident now that -- that it's 4 actually getting into the bay water.
5 And the last slide just shows you where 6 these were located. So the L31E outfall is -- is 7 south of the cooling canal system and the measurement 8 site is north. That's about a -- a 10-mile difference 9 as the water flows or the fish swims. And the 10 currents aren't -- aren't favorable to relocation. In 11 fact, they go the opposite direction. So it was --
12 seems pretty likely that the elevated phosphate and --
13 and ammonia are not coming from the L31E outfall, but 14 in fact are coming from the facility itself.
15 So that's how I -- that's why I'm 16 confident that we're looking at water moving from the 17 i the CCS into the bay.
18 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. I have some 19 questions. Go back to page 2, which is the 20 conductivity. Right. So that's in conductivity 21 units. Can you give me an approximate idea of the 22 difference in salinity and psu or ppt between the 23 upper curve and the lower curve, the surface water and 24 the deep water?
25 DR. STODDARD: You know, that's a great NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
287 1 question and if you want to give me five minutes, I 2 can do that. So maybe during the break -- I have my 3 computer. I can pull those data up for you, but I 4 don't have them off the top of my head.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
6 DR. STODDARD: Let me --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, that would be great to 8 do that, but I suspect a ballpark is going to be good 9 enough for us.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Exactly. Yes, I mean, I 11 just -- I think in terms of psu or ppt and not --
12 (Simultaneous speaking) 13 DR. STODDARD: I could -- I could -- I 14 could pull out my -- I could pull out my iPhone and 15 see if I can find a conversion table, but I can't do 16 it for you off the top of my head.
17 JUDGE SAGER: Well, can you tell me is 18 that within the -- in your sketch you showed brackish 19 water over saline water which would occur because of 20 density.
21 DR. STODDARD: Well, here's -- let's -- we 22 -- we can do an -- we can do a -- a -- an intelligent 23 guess. Okay?
24 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
25 DR. STODDARD: So looking before the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
288 1 pumping begins we see those lines are in the same 2 place, which means the surface waters and the -- and 3 the deep waters are the same in the -- before the 4 pumping begins. And then they diverge when --
5 JUDGE SAGER: That would be --
6 DR. STODDARD: -- when the -- when the 7 summer rains start, etcetera. Okay? So dry season 8 conditions in the bay should be normally somewhere in 9 the range of -- and I'm just checking my notes here.
10 I think they're in the range of 30 to 40 normally in 11 the bay. And again, 12 JUDGE SAGER: So the bay does go 13 hypersaline at some times? I mean, it's open to the 14 ocean quite --
15 DR. STODDARD: During the dry season the 16 bay in the shallow areas in particular often goes 17 hypersaline.
18 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
19 DR. STODDARD: Florida Bay as well.
20 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
21 DR. STODDARD: Not extremely so. Not --
22 nothing like what we see in the canals, but more 23 saline than you would find offshore.
24 JUDGE SAGER: So let's see, the surface is 25 the gray on that goes down as fresh water comes in?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
289 1 DR. STODDARD: That's -- that's --
2 JUDGE SAGER: That's floating on top and 3 the --
4 DR. STODDARD: Well, also it's the rain.
5 As the rains -- as the rains fall, they do -- they 6 dilute the surface. You get -- you get a little bit 7 of freshwater separation when it rains.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So is the difference 9 we're seeing outside the range of sort of natural 10 conditions?
11 DR. STODDARD: No.
12 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. That's 13 all the questions I have.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Dr. Kennedy. I 15 got just one quick question.
16 DR. STODDARD: Well, I'm saying -- when I 17 say "natural conditions," I say natura at that site.
18 So you can get hypersalinity for a variety of reasons.
19 So in Florida Bay, for instance, there's almost --
20 there's very little water exchange between Florida Bay 21 and the gulf. And so it gets hypersaline in there all 22 by itself simply from -- from pooling. So the 23 currents in Little Card Sound, Card Sound, Barnes 24 Sound are not very strong. And certainly in the 25 shallow areas you will get -- the water doesn't move NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
290 1 much. It's very hard to say whether the salinity at 2 that location is going to be that way normally because 3 we have -- we have various alterations in the water 4 systems, less water coming off of the freshwater 5 systems for a variety of reasons we can discuss.
6 JUDGE SAGER: I don't know the currents in 7 Biscayne Bay. Are they strong? Does it flush out the 8 bay?
9 DR. STODDARD: You get a -- a -- you get 10 a little bit of a southward current along the shore 11 there, but not -- not a lot.
12 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Dr. Kennedy. Just 14 help me understand the top line. I guess the bay 15 conductivity.
16 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the dark line, the 18 black line.
19 DR. STODDARD: The black line.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Should I expect to see an 21 increase in conductivity when the pumping started?
22 And I'm not sure I see one, but should I have expected 23 to see one? You said ammonia phosphorous are coming 24 out, but why not additional salt communicating to the 25 bay?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
291 1 DR. STODDARD: What could be happening --
2 and here again we're not -- we can't see underground.
3 We're not omniscient. What looks like is happening is 4 that we're displacing -- we've been displacing the 5 saltwater plume for some time into the bay.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
7 DR. STODDARD: And what's happening now 8 with the additional pumping is it's pushing a 9 relatively new -- new pulse of nutrients downwards and 10 out. We're seeing it in a -- probably an increase in 11 the speed of water -- of water dislocation.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Let me try a couple 13 questions just to make sure I understand the point 14 here. (A), we don't see an increase in salinity on 15 this curve --
16 DR. STODDARD: What --
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- at the deep --
18 (Simultaneous speaking) 19 DR. STODDARD: That's correct, which 20 suggests that -- I mean, you could interpret that one 21 of two ways: You could say, well, there's no water 22 coming from -- from the canal system in there, or you 23 can say it's been a chronic condition.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
25 DR. STODDARD: And we're not seeing a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
292 1 change in the salinity, but we're getting that's new 2 is a change in -- in nitrogen and phosphorous. And I 3 believe the latter is the case. And what I think 4 we're seeing is -- is a -- is a new downward flush of 5 water. Some -- you're stacking up -- you're stacking 6 up water in the cooling canal system and so you're 7 going to start -- you're going to enhance the speed of 8 dislocation. So nutrients that have accumulated in 9 that water recently, past couple years from -- from 10 the plants are going to be -- are going to be flushing 11 along with salt that's already down there.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: And just one last follow-13 up question. This is Dr. Kennedy. I have no feel for 14 the time frame, so pumping begins and then there's 15 data being displayed here that you contend exhibits 16 communication between a canal and the bay. Is it 17 consistent with your sense of what the time frame 18 would be? In other words, is this consistent with 19 your understanding of the communication time frame 20 between the canal and the bay?
21 DR. STODDARD: I believe -- I believe it 22 makes sense. If you look at -- at the first figure --
23 and let's go ahead and skip up to the first one there.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Is this the first figure, 25 the one that's pumping?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
293 1 DR. STODDARD: Yes, that's correct. So if 2 you look, the pumping begins in earnest. The date is 3 August -- about August 27th or so is when -- is when 4 you get the big peak. They've -- they've done a 5 little bit of pumping. Three days it looks like.
6 Significant pumping begins around then. You see a --
7 very quickly, within a couple days you see an 8 elevation in the -- in the cooling canals. That's --
9 that's consistent.
10 Now when does the -- when does the 11 nitrogen and phosphorous appear? So that's -- that's 12 our question. And the first elevated measurement 13 appears in the beginning of September. Maybe -- maybe 14 a little bit earlier. Actually it looks like it's 15 sort of mid -- mid-August. And then -- and then we 16 start seeing in September it starts rising and rises 17 from there. So we're looking at a -- at a -- about a 18 -- really a -- a lag of a -- a couple weeks.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let me just clarify. This 20 is Dr. Kennedy. You said mid-August. Is that what 21 you meant?
22 DR. STODDARD: So the -- so the pumping 23 begins --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Late August, looks like.
25 DR. STODDARD: Actually -- sorry, August NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
294 1 -- beg your pardon. It's August 26th to 27th. Yes.
2 So that's late August, not mid-August. Thank you 3 for -- thank you for observing that.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the phosphorous --
5 maybe --
6 DR. STODDARD: And the phosphorous begins 7 -- you start seeing the phosphorous really start to 8 break out of -- of where it was on the -- around the 9 1st of September. So really it's --
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So about five days?
11 DR. STODDARD: It's about five days or so.
12 And then it continues up from there. So it looks like 13 it's just -- it's just beginning to -- to appear in 14 August. There's a -- a tiny little elevation around 15 the 10th of August. And if you look back over, you'll 16 see there's a little bit of pumping that goes on 17 around the same date.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right.
19 DR. STODDARD: So there -- it does -- if 20 you were to do a -- a cross-correlation of these two, 21 I think you'd probably see a very nice alignment 22 between the two.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Are you aware of any 25 negative impacts to wildlife in the Biscayne Bay from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
295 1 the presence of hypersaline groundwater within or 2 underneath the bay?
3 DR. STODDARD: We have seen significant 4 evidence of hypersalinity problems in Florida Bay in 5 the past. It's one of the things that we watch for 6 and we try to avoid. And we have no control of it in 7 Florida Bay except for trying to get more water back 8 into the Everglades Restoration System. People have 9 been very concerned about possible increases in -- in 10 damage to Biscayne Bay. I have heard biologists 11 speaking about damage to seagrass beds that are now 12 occurring in -- in the lower end of Biscayne Bay.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, as an expert 14 you're certainly entitled to rely on other people's 15 hearsay, but those people aren't around. Have you 16 personally --
17 DR. STODDARD: I have not personally 18 witnessed it, no. I don't study seagrass.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
20 DR. STODDARD: My colleague at FIU, Jim 21 Fourqurean, studies seagrass. His students study 22 seagrass. I also teach his students in -- in courses 23 and they write review papers for me. And so, I read 24 those every -- every autumn. And so, I stay up on the 25 literature.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
296 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Is there some 2 specific literature that you can point us to for that 3 specific proposition with respect to Biscayne Bay?
4 DR. STODDARD: At this -- on the seagrass 5 beds at this time, no, sir.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. On page 8 of your 7 rebuttal testimony you state that the literature 8 suggests that elevated temperatures in the cooling 9 canal system have produced thermal and hypersaline 10 conditions that are hostile to American crocodiles and 11 other aquatic vertebrates, correct?
12 DR. STODDARD: Correct.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: To what specific literature 14 are you referring for this testimony?
15 DR. STODDARD: So, I'm referring to the 16 literature cited in my -- in my written testimony.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
18 DR. STODDARD: You have copies of that, I 19 believe.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: We do. We do. Could you 21 tell us specifically what that literature is, because 22 it was not apparent to me, sir.
23 DR. STODDARD: Okay. So Cherkiss et al, 24 the American -- 2011, The American Crocodile in 25 Biscayne Bay; Gaby et al, 1981, Population of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
297 1 American Crocodile at the Turkey Point Power Plant 2 Site; Hutton and Child, Crocodile Management in 3 Zimbabwe, 1989, which addresses thermal maxima there; 4 Kim et al, 2013, Heat Stress Response in Male Germ 5 Cells; Kinne and Kinne, 1962, Rates of Development in 6 Embryos of a Cyprindont Fish; Mazzotti, 1983, a Ph.D.
7 thesis; Moatani and Wainright, 2015, How Warm is Too 8 Warm for the Life-Cycle of Actinopterygian Fishes; 9 Shrode and Gerking, 1977, Effects of Constant and 10 Fluctuating Temperatures on Reproductive Performance 11 of Desert Pupfish, Cyprinodon nevadensis; and this is 12 a great one to try to pronounce, Thorbjarnarson, 1989, 13 Ecology of the American Crocodile. And I believe 14 that's --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you, sir.
16 DR. STODDARD: -- sufficient.
17 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 18 Harris for the staff. I'd like to renew our 19 objection. A lot of these literatures that he's 20 reading off are documents that weren't provided as 21 part of discovery.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: They were not, the specific 23 documents. They were cited in his testimony, though.
24 Correct?
25 MR. HARRIS: They were cited in his NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
298 1 testimony, but they were never disclosed, they were 2 never provided to the other parties.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Your 4 objection is noted, counsel.
5 MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: You stated that according 7 to FPL the crocodile population at Turkey Point 8 crashed in 2015, is that correct?
9 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: What document from Florida 11 Power & Light did you rely on for this statement that 12 the crocodile population at Turkey Point crashed in 13 2015?
14 DR. STODDARD: This was a document that 15 was -- a report that was provided to DERM by FPL.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So you believe that 17 you've seen a document in DERM's possession that was 18 provided by FPL, and that was the basis for the 19 statement, is that correct?
20 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Assuming you're 22 correct that hypersaline water is harmful to the 23 American crocodile and hypersaline is migrating from 24 the cooling canal system into Biscayne Bay, does it 25 follow that there would be a decline in the crocodile NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
299 1 population surrounding Biscayne Bay?
2 DR. STODDARD: Surrounding the bay? So is 3 that to say outside the bay?
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Well --
5 DR. STODDARD: You mean in the bay?
6 Surrounding --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: I don't know.
8 DR. STODDARD: We could say -- I mean, do 9 you mean surrounding --
10 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm --
11 DR. STODDARD: -- the cooling canal system 12 in the bay?
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Let's not quibble with 14 words.
15 DR. STODDARD: I'm just trying --
16 CHAIR GIBSON: My point is I'm trying to 17 figure out if there is this --
18 DR. STODDARD: Is it going to harm the --
19 (Simultaneous speaking) 20 CHAIR GIBSON: -- problem, and if there's 21 this connection, have we seen a decline?
22 DR. STODDARD: There has been a decline in 23 -- in breeding overall. The crocs are -- are -- have 24 been breeding less in the CCS, which has been a major 25 crocodile factory for the past -- every since the --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
300 1 the cooling canal system was -- was created. FPL's 2 been very proud of this. It appears as a point of --
3 a point of pride in their -- in their literature, in 4 their environment impact assessments. They even have 5 an American crocodile coloring book that you can get 6 online for your -- for the grandkids. And so, what 7 this now means is this six-mile-long estuarine are is 8 pretty much a dead zone, whereas it used to be 9 biologically productive.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: All right. When you say 11 it's a dead zone, I mean, is there a specific data 12 that you've symboled that would show this decline --
13 DR. STODDARD: Well --
14 CHAIR GIBSON: -- or is there --
15 DR. STODDARD: -- well, the crocodiles 16 themselves are -- you know, they're an apex predator.
17 And so they're at the top of the food chain.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
19 DR. STODDARD: And so, they're -- they're 20 -- the inability of the crocs, or the refusal of the 21 crocs to use this facility for reproduction --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
23 DR. STODDARD: -- the decline of the 24 number of nets and hatchlings is a pretty good 25 indicator that something's amiss.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
301 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I mean, do you go 2 out and count crocodiles like people go out and count 3 birds or something? I mean, do you do that?
4 DR. STODDARD: I do not.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: You do not?
6 DR. STODDARD: No, I rely on the -- on the 7 written reports of -- you know, for one thing I'm not 8 allowed on that facility.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
10 DR. STODDARD: That's -- you know, FPL has 11 -- has contractors. They do a lot of environment 12 monitoring. They have for a very long time.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
14 DR. STODDARD: People who know this --
15 know this stuff very well, they know where all the 16 nests are. They tag the nestlings -- the hatchlings, 17 rather. Keep very good track of them. They have for 18 a long time. It's a wonderful data set.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. With respect to the 20 original demonstratives to which you've referred and 21 about which you were examined by Judges Kennedy and 22 Sager, I'm curious, you say the data for that came 23 from DERM?
24 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: And is that assembled in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
302 1 some document at DERM? Is that just some data in 2 different places here and there that you looked at and 3 then you included it? I'm just curious if there's 4 like a report --
5 DR. STODDARD: How did I --
6 CHAIR GIBSON: -- that refers to these 7 specific parameters and --
8 DR. STODDARD: I -- I think those data are 9 probably too new to be in a report.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: They're too new to be in a 11 report? Do you know when those data came about?
12 DR. STODDARD: The -- the data here appear 13 to be -- go up through late November.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
15 DR. STODDARD: So that tells you about how 16 -- how recent they are.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I guess I'm a little 18 confused --
19 DR. STODDARD: And just -- and just --
20 just to state, I mean, as you noted, on my written 21 testimony I didn't refer to these data.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
23 DR. STODDARD: And the reason I went and 24 looked them up was because I, like you, was interested 25 in -- in this assertion that water is migrating into NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
303 1 the bay.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
3 DR. STODDARD: And like you, I question 4 that.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
6 DR. STODDARD: I think it's a good -- you 7 know, it's a reasonable set of questions. How do we 8 know this? Because we know it's under -- it's down in 9 the wells. We can see it there. But what's our 10 evidence that something's getting into the bay?
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
12 DR. STODDARD: And so, I've -- I've 13 puzzled that as -- like you have today. And that's 14 why I sought out these data, just to confirm for 15 myself that there was a -- a scientific rationale for 16 -- for these assertions.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Go ahead.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Stoddard, this is 19 Judge Kennedy. I'm just curious: It appears that 20 you've been talking quite a bit about the conditions 21 in the canal, and a good portion of this contention 22 deals with migration outside of the CCS.
23 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do you have any data that 25 you can offer that would -- I mean, we've talked about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
304 1 the phosphorous and the ammonia, but is there any 2 let's say crocodile data -- I don't even know if 3 that's a -- they're not in the parking lot, but I'm 4 just curious if there's --
5 DR. STODDARD: They might be.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm just curious. We're 7 trying to get our hands around whether this migration 8 has an impact. And there's lots of questions later on 9 about the assessment of these impacts. And we're 10 giving you the opportunity to offer to the Board any 11 particular evidence that you could provide, other than 12 your demonstratives, that you would point the Board to 13 that hopefully is within the exhibits or have been 14 disclosed that would give us some view as to this 15 hypersaline migration outside the canals and its 16 impact on the environment. And I guess your specialty 17 is crocodiles, so I'm looking for crocodile data, I 18 guess.
19 DR. STODDARD: So I am a zoologist. My --
20 how am I going to address that? So there was -- there 21 was -- there was two issues of concern in -- in Mr.
22 White's contention that he asked me to -- to speak to.
23 One was the effect of taking water from the L31E and 24 the other was migration of saline from the hypersaline 25 waters. So I focused on -- on what was readily NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
305 1 available. And the most -- most obvious thing was two 2 things: One is the temperatures within the canals are 3 elevated. And the other is that the water in the 4 canal system is hypersaline and is leaking out.
5 I think we have reason at this point to be 6 concerned about the -- the water leaking out because 7 we know what it can do. What we don't have -- at 8 least what I have not yet seen is strong evidence that 9 hypersaline water is having a widespread effect in the 10 bay. What anybody can see from the aerials is that 11 the area of the bay on the west shore, Biscayne Bay 12 and the northern edge of -- of Card Sound there is 13 degraded. And whether that's from hypersalinity, 14 whether it's from lack of fresh water -- I mean, 15 they're -- they're very similar things.
16 But the whole system necessarily 17 intercepts water. It was designed to do that. The 18 very idea of the interceptor ditches -- the whole 19 principle is to -- is to redirect water. And so, 20 there is significant degradation of the bay. It's 21 evident to anybody who looks at it. And the only 22 thing that can happen from migration of hypersaline 23 water out is further degradation.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: However you --
25 DR. STODDARD: It's -- it's -- it's a --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
306 1 it's a difficult system because you're -- you're 2 looking at -- I mean, as -- as scientists we want to 3 see experiments, right? And experiments you want to 4 see controls. We can't do those experiments. We 5 can't -- we don't have a parallel system immediately 6 there that we can -- that we can test. What you can 7 do is you can look at areas to the north and south 8 which are, you know, more -- looking for correlations.
9 And you'll see worse conditions immediately adjacent 10 to the cooling canal system.
11 Now dissecting out whether that's 12 hypersaline migration or whether it's -- it's a cut-13 off in freshwater sheet flow is a -- is a difficult 14 thing to do. And it's probably a combination of the 15 two. Now probably may not be good enough for you in 16 this case.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I don't want to be 18 harsh, but I'm going to take that as a no --
19 (Laughter) 20 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- that you don't have any 21 anecdotal evidence that would lead us to understand 22 the environmental impacts. Yes, I mean, I think 23 you've been very straight with an assessment here and 24 I --
25 DR. STODDARD: I try -- I try to be -- you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
307 1 know, I try not to over --
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
3 DR. STODDARD: -- you know, overstate what 4 I can. So the -- I'll -- I'll tell you, the -- those 5 -- those phosphate data and the nitrate and the -- and 6 the ammonia data were the first data I have seen in 7 100 percent made me confident that I was actually 8 seeing migration into the water column. Like you all, 9 I'd been convinced of migration into the underground 10 strata, but I wasn't -- I hadn't seen the real -- the 11 real good evidence that there was -- that there was 12 saline migration into the bay itself. I think the 13 appearance of ammonia and nitrate now convince me that 14 there is.
15 So it's -- so the degradation that's been 16 seen may in fact be attributable to some of the 17 hypersaline migration, but these are -- you know, 18 we're on the edge of -- of really understanding what's 19 going on here and I think that that may be the broader 20 point, that -- and I have to say, you know, my 21 colleagues at FPL don't regard me as particularly 22 sympathetic to their situation, but on this one I have 23 to say I have a certain amount of sympathy. They've 24 got a very complex hydrogeological system and 25 biological system and they're doing a lot of work NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
308 1 trying to manage it. You do one thing, something else 2 happens. It's -- it's very complex. And they would 3 love to everything isolated and separable, and we were 4 just not given that geology to work in.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
6 You got anything else on this?
7 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, I wanted to ask one 8 question, not be combative or anything, but you say 9 that it's the nitrogen and the phosphorous, the 10 nutrients that are convincing you the water is 11 migrating out, but don't those things also come from 12 lawn fertilizer? Is there any other source? What 13 convinced you that they're coming from the cooling 14 canals?
15 DR. STODDARD: That was -- that's an 16 excellent question, Judge. And the fact that the L31E 17 outfall and the C111 outfalls are 10 miles south of 18 the -- of the monitoring site, and also that the 19 currents tend to -- tend to drift southwards rather 20 than northwards.
21 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
22 DR. STODDARD: And I would -- I would 23 be --
24 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
25 DR. STODDARD: Rather than lawn NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
309 1 fertilizer, I'd be more inclined to -- inclined to 2 think about agricultural run-off.
3 JUDGE SAGER: Right.
4 DR. STODDARD: But agricultural run-off 5 likewise is not going to be so much ammonia as 6 nitrate. And this is ammonia, which is going to be 7 produced under -- under more anaerobic conditions.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Right. Thank you.
9 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Since we still got 11 a little time, I've got a few questions for the staff 12 and FPL witnesses. We should be able to get through 13 by 10:40. Then we can recess and you all can put your 14 questions together for Dr. Stoddard.
15 I don't know which person on the staff 16 wants to take this, but I want to look at this issue 17 of the cooling canal system water possibly migrating 18 into Biscayne Bay. And regardless of whether the 19 migration is actually happened to date, it seems that 20 there could be substantial harm if there were 21 migration. You all agree with that?
22 MR. FORD: Well, you're talking about for 23 biological harm?
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, let's just say 25 environmental, and that encompasses a whole lot of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
310 1 things.
2 MR. FORD: To my knowledge, is what I know 3 about it --
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
5 MR. FORD: -- that the hypersaline plume; 6 that means higher than sea water --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
8 MR. FORD: -- is moving under the bay, but 9 it's -- it's staying in the deeper parts of the 10 Biscayne Aquifer because of its higher density.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
12 MR. FORD: So the higher salinities are 13 found at depth. I personally am not aware of where 14 it's coming up in the bay to change water quality at 15 this time.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Really my question 17 does not go so much toward whether it is actually 18 happening or not. My question really has to go to the 19 question of whether or not it is plausible because I 20 didn't see anything in the environmental assessment 21 about it, this possibility. And it seems to me that 22 it's plausible that it could happen. And so, did I 23 miss something in the EA? Is there something in there 24 that addresses this possibility?
25 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
311 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
2 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor, we did not 3 address migration into the bay because the staff's 4 understanding for FPL's post-up-rate monitoring 5 reports are that they have not found any indication 6 that there is migration into the bay.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And essentially you 8 based it on what you were told by FPL then? Is that 9 a fair statement?
10 MS. GRANGE: We -- yes, we -- we based it 11 on our review of their reports.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. Okay. Thank you.
13 Mr. Bolleter, maybe you can help clear 14 this up. In your written testimony on page 29 you 15 state that there was a notable increase in tritium and 16 other saltwater parameters indicating the presence of 17 cooling canal system water in TPGW-10 prior to 18 beginning of the post-up-rate period. Did I read that 19 correctly?
20 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Is this 22 notable increase in tritium in TPGW-10 that you 23 discussed in your testimony the same 2012 increase in 24 tritium that is discussed in INT-028?
25 MR. BOLLETER: I don't have INT-028.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
312 1 CHAIR GIBSON: INT-028 I believe is what 2 we just mentioned. It was the Miami-Dade County's 3 comments to the draft environmental report for the COL 4 for Units 6 and 7.
5 MR. BOLLETER: Yes. And that's a deep 6 well. That's the 100-plus-foot deep well.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. But I just wanted to 8 make sure the notable increase in tritium that you 9 discussed in your testimony is the same increases 10 discussed in --
11 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: -- this 2012 report.
13 MR. BOLLETER: Right.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: That's the source, correct?
15 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. On page 17 8 of INT-028; Mr. Welkie, if we could get that back 18 up, it states that TPGW-10 is a monitoring well 19 cluster located on the Biscayne Bay. You see that?
20 Is that right? Located on the Biscayne Bay slightly 21 north and east of the Turkey Point plant and within 22 the cone of influence of the proposed RCW. Do you see 23 that?
24 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now this well NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
313 1 cluster does not monitor the water in the bay itself, 2 but rather the groundwater under the bay, is that 3 correct?
4 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. You further 6 testified on page 30 of your written testimony that 7 there is no indication that any cooling canal system 8 water of significant consequence has reached the bay 9 because it is not detected in Biscayne Bay monitoring 10 stations BBSW-1, BBSW-2, BBSW-3, BBSW-4 or BBSW-5.
11 Did I read that correctly?
12 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. How do you know that 14 no cooling canal system water was detected in the 15 Biscayne Bay monitoring stations?
16 MR. BOLLETER: We have been monitoring 17 those stations since 2010. And these are automated 18 probes that are placed in Biscayne Bay and they take 19 readings every hour. So we have salinity -- or 20 actually it measures specific conductance, converts 21 the salinity. We also record temperature. And some 22 of the stations we also record water level. So we 23 have quite a bit of data. Also, we go out quarterly 24 and collect water quality samples. We also collect 25 semiannually nutrient samples. And also we collect NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
314 1 tritium samples when we go out.
2 And just based on looking at all the data 3 that we have, one is we don't see any -- the stations 4 that we -- the specific conductance or salinity at 5 those stations are really no different than what you 6 see in other stations in Biscayne Bay, which indicate 7 there's an effect at those locations. The tritium 8 values are all what we would -- might expect to see.
9 We don't see the very high levels of tritium that 10 would be indication that there's cooling canal water.
11 So out in the Biscayne Bay proper we don't see, you 12 know, any effects.
13 Now, the -- the -- the information that 14 was presented a little earlier, I don't know whether 15 that could be from the cooling canal, could not be.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
17 MR. BOLLETER: There is -- we had noted 18 that there was -- I think it was in our -- the 19 testimony that provided that on the south end of the 20 cooling canal there is a fairly narrow berm and there 21 we have a monitoring station, SWC-5, and another 22 monitoring station, SWC-4. Those are in canals that 23 are immediately adjacent to the cooling canal.
24 We have seen a little bit higher levels of 25 tritium coupled with higher specific conductance that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
315 1 may suggest that there is some seepage that is going 2 through the berm. We're not seeing that it's, you 3 know, groundwater pathway, that it's -- the water 4 wants to come up. Whether the -- the other location 5 -- it is a very deep location that was talked about.
6 It is very possible that the specific conductance that 7 you're seeing is just typical specific conductance in 8 the bay. The bay gets above 60,000 microsiemens per 9 centimeter. And just -- I don't have the exact number 10 for you, but this -- you know, if you want to kind of 11 estimate salinity for -- to specific conductance to 12 say 54,000 microsiemens per centimeter, plus or minus, 13 it is probably what might be equivalent to 35 14 practical salinity units.
15 But Biscayne Bay, we see specific 16 conductance values over 60,000. So what you see in 17 this artificially deep hole, typically Biscayne Bay, 18 is -- I mean, it's -- in a lot of that area you have 19 to get a -- you can only get access at high tide. So 20 this is a 18 to 20-foot dredged canal.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 DR. STODDARD: So much deeper. So it's 23 not a typical, you know, location. The high 24 nutrients, we see manatees in that area. And that 25 specific location was actually moved halfway through NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
316 1 the monitoring. We started monitoring at that 2 location in June -- or actually, I don't remember when 3 we put the station out. Maybe it was July or August.
4 But that station was moved halfway through the 5 monitoring effort, to move it right close to the 6 cooling canal.
7 So again, we're not seeing out in Biscayne 8 Bay proper any effects. Could there be a little bit 9 of seepage that we're seeing? We maybe a little bit 10 of seepage possibly.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
12 MR. BOLLETER: But also I would say, too, 13 at our wells, that TPGW-10 well, we have a cluster of 14 three wells: a deep well, a intermediate depth well, 15 and a shallow well. We don't see anything in the 16 shallow wells that indicate there's upwelling or 17 anything like that, that basically that salt water 18 wants to sink and go down.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I'm good.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: So let me try -- get the 21 whole drift of all of this. Going back to the 22 question before about the deeper well, which I guess 23 goes up below the bay --
24 MR. BOLLETER: right.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- that TG-10.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
317 1 MR. BOLLETER: Ten. Ten deep.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that's an indication 3 that there is communication from the canals to deep 4 below the bay, but you haven't seen any data to 5 indicate that you're getting communication between the 6 canals and the bay actually in the contents of the bay 7 proper?
8 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Just one more thing I 11 believe in that regard. When you conclude that 12 there's no cooling canal system water of significant 13 consequence detected in the Biscayne Bay monitoring 14 station, you're looking at data, I take it, not just 15 related to the 2012 increase in tritium at TPGW-10, 16 but you're looking at later data as well, is that 17 correct?
18 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. Do you 20 have anything else, Judge Sager?
21 JUDGE SAGER:
22 (No audible response) 23 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you have anything else?
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: I do not.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
318 1 DR. STODDARD: Judge Gibson, you asked 2 about how to convert the microsiemens into --
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Actually Judge --
4 DR. STODDARD: Judge --
5 CHAIR GIBSON: One of these guys.
6 DR. STODDARD: I think somebody did.
7 Anyway, so if you're looking at -- I -- I -- thank you 8 -- thank you, Jim, here. So he's given us the -- the 9 Rosetta Stone to do the translation. So that solid 10 line along the top here is at about 38, you know, 11 standard units, psu.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Is that okay? Does that 13 help?
14 PARTICIPANT: That's good.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: You got anything else?
16 PARTICIPANT: No.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: You got anything?
18 (No audible response) 19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. This is what we'll 20 do. We will stand in recess for -- can you all do 21 this in five minutes? You all need 10 to prepare --
22 PARTICIPANT: Seven.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Seven? Okay. Seven 24 minutes. All right.
25 MR. HARRIS: Can we do 10, sir?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
319 1 CHAIR GIBSON: We'll do 10. All right.
2 We'll do 10. I just didn't want this gentleman to be 3 late for his class. So I'm sure that will give you 4 plenty of time. Oliver Wendell Holmes once started a 5 letter saying "I'm sorry I didn't have more time to 6 write a shorter letter." So I'm sure giving you 10 7 instead of 5 minutes will make sure that your 8 questions are to the point and short.
9 So, okay. We will come back on the record 10 in 10 minutes. You all need to hand those -- actually 11 we'll come back on in about 12 minutes. You'll hand 12 those as soon as you get them done to our clerks. We 13 can come back on the record. Okay? Thank you. Or 14 are you going to email them?
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 10:40 a.m. and resumed at 10:59 17 a.m.)
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Dr. Stoddard, we're going 19 to do our best to get you out of here a little bit 20 late, but hopefully you'll still be able to make your 21 class. We've got a few questions we want to ask you 22 as follow up and then you can take off. Okay?
23 Judge Sager's going to ask them.
24 JUDGE SAGER: Looks like I got to be the 25 designated question asker. Should I tell them who the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
320 1 question is from?
2 CHAIR GIBSON: No. No, just --
3 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: No.
5 (Laughter) 6 JUDGE SAGER: All right. No, I can't tell 7 you, but you'll know.
8 (Laughter) 9 JUDGE SAGER: So to Dr. Stoddard here, 10 what is the -- let's see. I have to read it and then 11 try to translate it into my own -- so we talked 12 specifically about the migration of hypersaline water 13 near Biscayne Bay to the east. Is there any other 14 evidence of migration outside the CCS on the perimeter 15 or on the vicinity elsewhere?
16 DR. STODDARD: Well, to the west at this 17 point I believe one of the freshwater drinking wells 18 has recently been closed to the west. And we know 19 from work of Rene Price and others that the tritium 20 signature out there indicates that that's because of 21 hypersaline migration from the industrial waste 22 facility at Turkey Point.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Other questions from 24 the other Judges?
25 (No audible response)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
321 1 JUDGE SAGER: Let me move on then.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: To follow up --
3 JUDGE SAGER: You have any follow up, 4 Kennedy?
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, do you have a source 6 for that? Is there anything in the record that we 7 could point to? The closure of the well, I'm 8 thinking --
9 DR. STODDARD: The closure of the well?
10 No, I've only heard that recently, but I do have the 11 -- I do have the original scientific paper here on my 12 computer on the -- on the migration looking at --
13 looking at various tracers, trace elements.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thanks.
15 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So the next two 16 questions have to do with the ammonia and phosphorous 17 data that you presented. I believe the graph showed 18 a period after the L31 canal water was pumped in. And 19 then not long after you saw a rise in ammonia and 20 phosphorous in Biscayne Bay.
21 DR. STODDARD: That's right. And there's 22 -- there's other -- I mean, the tritium samples have 23 been recorded. They take about half a year to 24 analyze. So in -- within half a year we'll have those 25 data as well. So maybe by the time you're doing your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
322 1 ruling those data will be available for you.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So the question was 3 your assumption is that that is coming from the CCS.
4 Is there any data from the CCS that show elevated 5 phosphorous and ammonia?
6 DR. STODDARD: I don't have those data.
7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
8 DR. STODDARD: They may exist, but I don't 9 have them.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
11 DR. STODDARD: And -- and the reason for 12 that is that the data I got were from DERM --
13 JUDGE SAGER: Right.
14 DR. STODDARD: -- RER. And I don't 15 believe they do measurements within the CCS, so you'd 16 have to ask FPL if they have those data.
17 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. And the 18 next question is follow up on that. Are the readings 19 that you saw outside the normal seasonal variation of 20 those nutrients?
21 CHAIR GIBSON: When you say "those 22 nutrients," we're referring to ammonia and 23 phosphorous.
24 JUDGE SAGER: And phosphorous. Sorry.
25 DR. STODDARD: To the best of my knowledge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
323 1 they are.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Any follow up?
3 DR. STODDARD: In fact -- in fact, the --
4 the -- if you look -- if you look at them, they --
5 they spike very dramatically. You're not seeing a --
6 a 10-percent or a 15-percent elevation. You're seeing 7 an elevation of -- you know, in the hundred -- in --
8 in two or three orders of magnitude. It's -- it's 9 very striking. It's not what you would expect with 10 seasonal variation.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you. And I 12 think the last one on here is not really a question.
13 It's to ask you to provide the DERM data.
14 To whom, Judge Gibson?
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, the DERM data that you 16 referred to on which you based these demonstratives 17 that you showed us, if you could get us that data, 18 that would be very helpful. And what I would like you 19 to do is to give it to Mr. White and he will get it to 20 all of us. Okay? I don't think we can get that done 21 post-haste, so but if you --
22 DR. STODDARD: I could --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: -- do that within --
24 DR. STODDARD: I could -- I could put them 25 on a flash drive and give them to your IT assistant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
324 1 before I leave today and --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: That would be --
3 DR. STODDARD: -- and he could --
4 (Simultaneous speaking) 5 CHAIR GIBSON: -- fantastic --
6 DR. STODDARD: They're --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: -- if you could do that.
8 DR. STODDARD: -- they're massive files, 9 but I could -- I'd be happy to do that.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. White can get you the 11 flash drive later. Is that okay?
12 DR. STODDARD: I have --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Or do you want him to put 14 him on a hard drive and then you take the flash drive?
15 DR. STODDARD: I can -- I can transfer 16 from my hard drive to a flash drive to your -- your 17 assistant right here.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Let's do that. Okay?
19 DR. STODDARD: Yes.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: When we recess, when you 21 finish, we'll do that. Okay? Thank you.
22 DR. STODDARD: Happy to.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Now I've got one other 24 thing I want to ask you. I asked you a bunch of 25 questions about the source of the -- you gave me a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
325 1 whole bunch of crocodile studies that you referenced 2 in your testimony. I just want to ask are there any 3 of those studies that are not readily available? I 4 mean, like if you did a Google search or whatever, 5 could you get those studies right off the bat, or are 6 some of these obscure and difficult to obtain?
7 DR. STODDARD: I -- I -- they're either 8 available online free or through any university 9 library. I have access to the FIU library 10 collections, and so I -- I collected them from home, 11 but I may have logged into my university account in 12 order to get -- use my university's license. But --
13 and then I think most of them came up from Google 14 Scholar searches.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Are there any that 16 you think would not be readily accessible like that?
17 I'm just curious.
18 DR. STODDARD: Mr. Mazzotti's Ph.D.
19 dissertation --
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
21 DR. STODDARD: -- you might have to look 22 for, but I'm sure he'd be happy to provide it. Or you 23 can get it from -- from Penn State.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
25 Okay. Anything else?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
326 1 (No audible response) 2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. We didn't get you 3 out of here at 11:00, but 11:05.
4 DR. STODDARD: Very good. No -- no 5 further questions for me?
6 CHAIR GIBSON: No, I think we're okay on 7 that. If you can just work with Mr. Welkie on getting 8 your flash drive.
9 DR. STODDARD: I could do that.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: We'll take a five-minute 11 recess and we'll get back started on some other 12 things.
13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 14 off the record at 11:06 a.m. and resumed at 11:12 15 a.m.)
16 CHAIR GIBSON: I believe we're all 17 assembled now and we can go back on the record.
18 Ms. Klett, you oversaw the development of 19 the July 2014 environmental assessment, is that 20 correct?
21 MS. KLETT: That's correct.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: On page 44468 of the 23 environmental assessment it concludes, "Because the 24 cooling canal system is a manmade closed-cycle cooling 25 system, aquifer withdrawals are not likely to have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
327 1 significant cumulative effect on surface water 2 resources." Did I read that correctly?
3 MS. KLETT: I believe so.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
5 MS. KLETT: Give me a moment. I can pull 6 up the EA reference to verify.
7 (Pause) 8 MS. KLETT: Okay. Yes, Your Honor.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Great. So it 10 appears to me that one of the major assumptions you 11 made in the 2014 environmental assessment is that the 12 cooling canal system is a closed system. You wouldn't 13 dispute that, would you?
14 MS. KLETT: No, Your Honor, it -- but when 15 we say "closed," we mean that it's not directly 16 connected to Card Sound or Biscayne Bay.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Get to that in a 18 second. Because I looked up "closed system" in the 19 dictionary and a closed system typically means that 20 the system does not interact with the system's 21 surroundings. Do you think the dictionary definition 22 is incorrect?
23 MS. KLETT: I'm going to defer to Ms.
24 Grange.
25 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
328 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes?
2 MS. GRANGE: So we use the term "closed-3 cycle system" in this case to mean something 4 different. And -- and we are only indicating -- I'm 5 sorry. I don't know why this is making that noise.
6 By using closed-cycle system for the CCS we only are 7 referring to surface water connections, not to 8 groundwater connections. And we're doing that because 9 that's what the state had used. It used that term.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And that's indicated 11 in page 17 of the testimony that you all submitted in 12 this case, I believe, that you the term "closed" to 13 refer to the fact that the cooling canals no longer 14 discharge directly to Biscayne Bay. Is that right?
15 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Dr. Kennedy. Ms.
18 Grange, maybe at this point you could, or someone from 19 the staff could describe to the Panel what you mean by 20 "surface water resources." What would that encompass 21 for this particular license amendment request?
22 MS. GRANGE: Surface water resources would 23 encompass Card Sound and Biscayne Bay.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's all?
25 MS. GRANGE: I mean, and those flowing to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
329 1 the ocean. So that would also be included.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Does that include the 3 Biscayne Aquifer?
4 MS. GRANGE: No, sir, that's groundwater.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: So it would be fair to 7 consider the cooling canal system to be closed even 8 though it is not closed to groundwater, correct?
9 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I realize that this 11 is what you all said in the testimony at page 17, but 12 I looked through the EA to find where "closed system" 13 was defined, and I couldn't turn anything up. Did I 14 miss something?
15 MS. GRANGE: I don't believe so. I don't 16 recall specifically defining it in the EA.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: So recognizing that you all 18 used a different definition than one in the dictionary 19 and didn't define it specifically in the EA, it would 20 seem to me that a reasonable person reading the 21 environmental assessment would not understand that 22 distinction. Would you dispute that?
23 MS. GRANGE: I could see that that would 24 be a reasonable conclusion. We -- we do reference 25 several other previous NRC assessments, and those do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
330 1 go into more detail on the cooling canal system, and 2 those describe the connections to groundwater.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Did any 4 hydrologists or hydrogeologists work on the 5 environmental assessment?
6 MS. GRANGE: A hydrogeologist was 7 consulted during the preparation of the EA.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And who was the 9 hydrogeologist who was consulted?
10 MS. GRANGE: Kevin Folk. So I was 11 actually the preparer of the EA, and so I had a 12 conversation with him about the proposed action.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Could you spell his 14 last name?
15 MR. FOLK: F-O-L-K.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Mr.
17 Ford, you're a geologist with hydrological experience, 18 correct, sir?
19 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: In your professional 21 experience is the term "closed system" typically used 22 for water systems that interact with groundwater?
23 MR. FORD: I'm having trouble with the 24 question. Let me think about it just a second.
25 So the question is in terms of groundwater NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
331 1 -- is closed system things that interact with 2 groundwater? Usually the term "closed system," I 3 think would be that it's isolated.
4 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 5 Harris. Just for --
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Harris?
7 MR. HARRIS: -- a point of reference, in 8 the EA it doesn't use "closed system." It uses 9 "closed-cycle cooling system." So we may be getting 10 a little confusion as to the question, what you're 11 asking them to answer about a closed system versus a 12 closed-cycle cooling system versus an open-cycle 13 cooling system.
14 JUDGE SAGER: So, let me ask that.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, please.
16 JUDGE SAGER: So I think what you're 17 saying is that that is a technical term that refers to 18 a style of cooling system as opposed to a geological 19 term that defines the interaction with the 20 groundwater.
21 MR. HARRIS: I can't testify to that, but 22 that's --
23 JUDGE SAGER: No, you --
24 (Simultaneous speaking) 25 MR. HARRIS: -- I think that would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
332 1 worthwhile to delve into that sort of a little I think 2 confusion on the record.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: But basically that's a 4 technical term for the type of cooling system that's 5 used?
6 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: That's his point. I don't 9 know if this goes to you, Ms. Klett, or one of your 10 colleagues there, but in the July 2014 environmental 11 assessment you were focused on whether there was any 12 reasonably foreseeable environment impact of 13 increasing the maximum water temperature limit from 14 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Is 15 that correct?
16 MS. KLETT: That is correct.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: In A-42 and A-43 of your 18 testimony you stated that the staff considered the 19 impact of changes potentially resulting from the 2012 20 power up-rate, which we will discuss in greater depth 21 later.
22 Did the staff consider any potential 23 changes from 2012 other than the amount of heat being 24 discharged to the cooling canal system as discussed in 25 A-43?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
333 1 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. Yes, 2 sir, we did.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And what was that, 4 ma'am?
5 MS. GRANGE: We considered changes that 6 would happen in the cooling canal system such as the 7 algae growth, environment conditions such as lower 8 rainfall. And we also considered water withdrawals 9 that FPL had requested or were contemplating from 10 groundwater sources.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So when you looked 12 into your environmental assessment crystal ball in 13 2014, you could see that aquifer withdrawals would 14 likely be needed as mitigation measures in order to 15 reduce cooling canal temperatures, correct?
16 MS. GRANGE: My understanding of the 17 withdrawals were that they were part of a larger 18 action to mitigate cooling canal system conditions, 19 which included salinity as well as temperature and 20 that they would have happened regardless of the 21 proposed action. Or --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: They would have occurred --
23 MS. KLETT: -- I should say --
24 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm sorry. What do you 25 mean they would have occurred independent of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
334 1 action? I'm sorry.
2 MS. GRANGE: Well, the -- so FPL was 3 seeking out authorizations to withdraw cooling water 4 as part of their fifth supplemental agreement, and 5 that was a separate action from the license amendment 6 that they came to NRC with.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Okay.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Ms. Grange, so to the list 9 of things that the staff considered in addition to the 10 license amendment action you listed algae growth, 11 aquifer withdrawals. But now did you look at 12 increased salinity, increased CCS temperatures, 13 average temperatures within the canal?
14 MS. GRANGE: Yes, we considered the CCS 15 conditions as they were when the amendment was 16 submitted to us.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: But you really didn't have 19 any doubt that aquifer withdrawals would be needed, 20 did you? Because you were looking forward, you knew 21 aquifer withdrawals were going to be required, 22 correct?
23 MS. GRANGE: Correct. And we also knew 24 that FPL had -- had already sought authorization for 25 some of those withdrawals.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
335 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct. Correct. I was 2 able to locate only one mention in the environmental 3 assessment of aquifer withdrawals, and that was on 4 page 44468 of the environmental assessment. I was 5 unable to locate any discussion of the effects of 6 these withdrawals on the aquifers themselves. Did I 7 miss anything?
8 MS. GRANGE: No, sir, that's the only 9 mention.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So in your 11 professional opinion the NRC staff didn't need to 12 examine any environmental impacts on the aquifer, 13 correct? Had you needed to, you wouldn't have done 14 it, I assume.
15 MS. GRANGE: We did consider impacts of --
16 of the aquifer. We didn't write a detailed 17 discussion.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: You didn't write any 19 discussion, did you? I mean, I couldn't locate any 20 discussion in the EA.
21 MS. GRANGE: No, we did not write --
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
23 MS. GRANGE: -- a discussion.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So where is this 25 discussion memorialized? Is it in some document NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
336 1 somewhere?
2 MS. GRANGE: No, sir, it's not written 3 down.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Is it your position 5 that ongoing and projected future groundwater 6 withdrawals would have an insignificant effect on the 7 aquifers?
8 I'm sorry. I guess that's for you, sir.
9 I'm sorry. She looked over at you.
10 MR. FORD: So, William Ford.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, sir.
12 MR. FORD: Yes, we don't think that --
13 that -- you know, the aquifer withdrawals were 14 discussed in the EA, which was a snapshot in time, 15 that these aquifer withdrawals were from the Floridan 16 Aquifer. That was proposed and hadn't been approved 17 yet. And that was going to be from brackish water 18 quality.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
20 MR. FORD: And the other ones I -- as I 21 remember were from the Biscayne Aquifer, which was 22 salt water. So we didn't believe that there would be 23 any impact from those withdrawals on water --
24 freshwater supplies.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. But my point is you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
337 1 came to that conclusion, but you didn't put it in the 2 EA anywhere?
3 MR. FORD: Yes, that's correct.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: And you concluded it would 6 have no impact -- this is Judge Kennedy, sorry -- on 7 just freshwater supplies? Is that the only parameter 8 that was considered when you looked at aquifer 9 impacts?
10 MR. FORD: I think you can also -- when I 11 did my testimony, I based it on what the staff knew at 12 the time and the documents they referenced. And I 13 believe you also can conclude that the water quality 14 in the Biscayne Aquifer wasn't going to be changing as 15 a result of this brief temperature increase, this 16 small temperature increase for small periods of time.
17 So we looked at the water quality of the Biscayne 18 Aquifer.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: And did you just say that 20 the briefness of this temperature change was an 21 important consideration in your evaluation of the 22 aquifer impacts?
23 MR. FORD: Yes, that the -- it's difficult 24 for the -- for the CCS to, you know, hold a constant 25 temperature because there's a wide temperature range NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
338 1 of about 20 degrees. So you have a four-degree change 2 proposed, but you can't just hold it at four degrees.
3 So the other one is that there -- we knew 4 there was the same amount of energy going in the canal 5 system. So based on that you would assume that the 6 basic physics of the energy going in haven't changed, 7 but something else has changed within the CCS, which 8 was documented in the EA. But the groundwater system 9 itself, which is slower to change, it's reasonable to 10 assume that since the last time we looked at the CCS, 11 which was the power up-rate, that there wouldn't be 12 any significant changes in groundwater quality in the 13 Biscayne Aquifer.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: That seems to me to 15 presume an understanding that the conditions in the 16 canal would look like the conditions in the canal at 17 the power up-rate time. I mean, it seems to me 18 there's too many things that are being held constant 19 here when in fact this is a very temporal problem.
20 Conditions in that canal have changed, and at least at 21 the time of the EA were continuing to change.
22 MR. FORD: Yes, and we --
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's hard --
24 MR. FORD: -- we document in the EA that 25 the conditions in the canal had changed, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
339 1 since the power up-rate, but the assumption of the --
2 the conclusion was that the groundwater system hadn't 3 been affected by that change, hadn't significantly 4 changed since the last time we did an environmental 5 assessment.
6 JUDGE SAGER: Judge Kennedy, let me follow 7 up.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Please.
9 JUDGE SAGER: This is something that may 10 come up.
11 You mentioned this was a snapshot in time, 12 and I understand you had to work with the data you had 13 at hand. Can you tell me approximately when that was?
14 It was say second quarter of 2014 or something like 15 that?
16 MS. GRANGE: I just want to clarify.
17 You're asking when the staff prepared the EA?
18 JUDGE SAGER: Right. You had to --
19 MS. GRANGE: What timeline that was?
20 JUDGE SAGER: -- make the judgment at some 21 time. I'm asking kind of -- you made these judgments.
22 Then you had to write them down. Then you had to 23 publish them in the Federal Register. So I'm asking 24 about what time you had this information, what time 25 you were making decisions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
340 1 MS. GRANGE: Okay. I understand. We 2 received the license amendment in July, and we also 3 published the EA later that month. So all the 4 information we had was as of July 2014.
5 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess it's my turn.
7 I've got a number of questions here about the 8 categorical exclusion and the impacts of not taking a 9 categorical exclusion. Whether it's appropriate or 10 not, I've directed the question to Ms. Grange.
11 Certainly any staff witness is free to answer.
12 In this proceeding the staff determined 13 that the criteria for categorical exclusion were not 14 met. Is that correct?
15 MS. GRANGE: Correct, sir.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Specifically, the staff 17 determined that possible impacts on the endangered 18 American crocodile and its critical habitat were 19 special circumstances under 10 CFR 51.22(b) that 20 required a NEPA review. Is that correct?
21 MS. GRANGE: That's correct.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: If the water temperature 23 and the salinity got too high, might that endanger the 24 species?
25 MS. GRANGE: Yes, that could affect the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
341 1 species.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: And is that the basis for 3 not being able to take a categorical exclusion?
4 MS. GRANGE: Exactly. That was something 5 that we were concerned about, and so that's why we 6 felt an EA was appropriate.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So you then went 8 down the path of an environmental assessment?
9 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: If the proposed action met 11 the criteria in 10 CFR 51.20, the staff would have 12 gone ahead and prepared an environmental impact 13 statement?
14 MS. GRANGE: That's correct.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the staff concluded 16 that the proposed action did not meet that criteria?
17 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. On page 36 of your 19 testimony, Ms. Grange, you testified that the staff 20 determined that the most appropriate type of 21 environmental analysis for this action would be an EA.
22 I think you've just answered that, so I'll take that 23 previous answer.
24 And then depending on the results of this 25 EA an EIS could have been warranted, is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
342 1 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Once the staff determined 3 to perform an environmental assessment -- are all 4 environmental assessments fundamentally conducted in 5 the same manner?
6 MS. GRANGE: We follow the same process 7 for each environmental assessment, which is written 8 down in LIC-203 of the staff's guidance for preparing 9 EAs and -- and performing environmental reviews.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the initial scope of 11 the environmental assessment when you start is the 12 same once you walk down the environmental assessment 13 path?
14 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And NRC Exhibit 028 16 is the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's 17 procedural guidance for preparing categorical 18 exclusions, environmental assessments, and considering 19 environmental issues. Is that true?
20 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: And Section (b)(3) of this 22 document provides an analysis and checklist that can 23 be performed to determine if categorical exclusion is 24 appropriate, is that correct?
25 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
343 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Welkie, could you put 2 up NRC 028 and then hopefully page 42? I guess you're 3 doing it already.
4 So this page shows the categorical 5 exclusion checklist, is that correct? At least I --
6 yes. It appears to show that. Is that correct, Ms.
7 Grange?
8 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thanks. One of the 10 questions to be examined on this checklist; and I'm 11 not exactly sure where on this page it is, states, 12 "Would the project significantly impact water quality 13 to groundwater, surface water bodies, public water 14 supply systems or violate federal, state or tribal 15 water standards?"
16 Is that contained in this checklist? And 17 Mr. Welkie is going to look for it. There's one under 18 two, water resources. I think that's it.
19 So it would be item 2 on this checklist?
20 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So on page 7, 22 paragraph 2 of INT-006 it states that, "In a letter 23 dated April 16th, 2013, the South Florida Water 24 Management District notified FP&L of their 25 determination that saline water from the CCS had moved NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
344 1 westward of the L31E canal in excess of the amounts 2 that would have occurred without the existence of the 3 CCS, and pursuant to those provisions of the fifth 4 supplement agreement initiated consultation with FPL 5 for the mitigation, abatement or remediation of the 6 saline water movement."
7 Are you aware of that, or was the staff 8 aware of that?
9 MS. GRANGE: Can you repeat the exhibit 10 number, please?
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's the Intervenor's 12 Exhibit 006. And we could display it if you --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Page 7?
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's page 7, paragraph 2.
15 We could display it, if you would like. Yes, and Mr.
16 Welkie is doing so.
17 MS. GRANGE: This document appears to be 18 a 2015 document. Is that -- do I have the right one 19 open?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's see.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: You have to go all the way 22 at the end.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Go to the end? Yes.
24 Okay. Thank you for pointing that out.
25 So at the time you prepared the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
345 1 environmental assessment you weren't -- go ahead.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Could we get to page 7, 3 paragraph 2? I think this was a 2015 document, but I 4 believe there was a reference here to a April 16, 2013 5 letter somewhere in there. Right.
6 Okay. Could you search for a 2013 letter?
7 I think it's in here. Maybe it's not. Is 2013 not in 8 there?
9 MR. WELKIE: It's not a searchable 10 document.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: What?
12 MR. WELKIE: It's not a searchable 13 document.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, okay. We can't search 15 it. Okay. I tell you what we'll do, let's hold this 16 question and we'll come back to it. Okay? Because I 17 think that's an important point, but we've got to find 18 it.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. Apologize. We'll 20 look a little deeper and we'll discuss this later.
21 Thank you for your patience.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, good.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: We have a number of 24 follow-on questions to this April 13th letter, so 25 we're going to park those for now and I'm going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
346 1 move on to some groundwater bases questions.
2 MR. FORD: I --
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Go ahead.
4 MS. GRANGE: -- I actually found the 5 reference, if you --
6 (Simultaneous speaking) 7 CHAIR GIBSON: You did find the reference?
8 MS. GRANGE: It's on page 2. It's No. 7, 9 paragraph No. 7.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So we're dyslexic, I 11 guess.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Page 2, paragraph 7?
13 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: So now that I've found it, 16 I'm assuming we read it correctly. Did you highlight 17 it, Mr. Welkie?
18 I think this is the paragraph we're 19 talking about. And I guess what the Board is 20 interested in understanding is whether FP&L notified 21 the staff of this letter. In other words, was the 22 staff aware of this document?
23 So I don't know, FP&L, do you know if you 24 notified the staff of the existence of this document, 25 or the April --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
347 1 CHAIR GIBSON: The April 16, 2013 letter.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: The '13 letter.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
4 MR. SCROGGS: This is Steve Scroggs. I 5 don't have direct knowledge of notification, but this 6 is a very visible part of an ongoing CCS monitoring 7 program that was related to the up-rate. And this was 8 the logical conclusion of Water Management District's 9 review of that monitoring data. So I'm not able to 10 answer your specific question, but it's a very public 11 document and I would -- I would expect it was 12 available.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Were you all aware of the 14 April 16, 2013 letter when you all did the EA?
15 MS. GRANGE: I'd have to go back and look 16 at what that --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
18 MS. GRANGE: -- letter specifically is.
19 The -- in the context of this paragraph we were aware 20 that there was a saltwater plume --
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 MS. GRANGE: -- attributable to the CCS --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
24 MS. GRANGE: -- under the CCS.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So whether you were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
348 1 aware of the letter or not, you were aware of the 2 issue and you were aware of the -- as Mr. Scroggs just 3 testified, you were aware that this was an issue that 4 was being bandied about between the District and FPL, 5 correct?
6 MS. GRANGE: Correct, Your Honor.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: So it would be fair to say 8 that you knew about this, even if you hadn't seen the 9 actual letter?
10 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: So I guess really, again 13 following the same line, the Board is interested in 14 understanding if the staff ever considered the 15 requested higher temperature impact on saltwater 16 migration as requiring an EA rather than a categorical 17 exclusion?
18 MS. GRANGE: We -- we didn't look at that 19 before going down the path of the EA, and -- and that 20 was simply because we had identified the American 21 crocodile as an issue that might require the staff to 22 do an EA first. And once we determined that that was 23 enough to warrant an EA, we then, you know, looked at 24 all the other environmental resources that would be 25 affected in the context of the EA rather than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
349 1 determining whether groundwater issues would -- would 2 require an EA on their own.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. So again, we're 4 back to the same question: Once you go down the path 5 of the EA, the scope of the environmental assessment 6 has the same scope and foundation and basis. So you 7 walk down that road. But what you've helped us here 8 is understand maybe in the timeline that the staff was 9 aware of potential hypersaline conditions underneath 10 the plant and migrating outside the confines of the 11 CCS region. Right?
12 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: That's not a misstatement, 14 is it?
15 MS. GRANGE: No, that's not.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you. Because 17 the next thing we want to talk about -- I mean, I 18 think that the purpose of a lot of these questions is 19 the lack of any discussion within the environmental 20 assessment of groundwater resources and the impacts on 21 groundwater resources. So we've got another whole 22 series of questions that try to probe the staff's 23 understanding of what they understood about the 24 groundwater conditions and how they evaluated those 25 impacts.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
350 1 Again, this question is directed to Mr.
2 Klett, but the staff's free to provide a different 3 witness.
4 In your testimony on page 45 you provide 5 four reasons for concluding that the license 6 amendments are not likely to impact groundwater 7 resources near Turkey Point, is that correct? And 8 we'll give you a chance to check.
9 MS. KLETT: Yes, that is correct.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. So given that 11 understanding, let's start with the last reason. You 12 testify at page 45 that, "The state was already 13 directing the licensee to address the salinity within 14 the CCS." Did I read your testimony correct?
15 MS. KLETT: Yes.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it the position of the 17 staff that the staff is not obligated to consider the 18 impact of increased salinity in the CCS because of the 19 state's administrative order? In other words, FP&L 20 was already ordered to mitigate the salinity in the 21 canal?
22 MS. KLETT: I believe the environmental 23 assessment for the EPU had discussed the monitoring 24 effort going on with the state and FPL, and we did 25 reference that EA in our 2014 EA.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
351 1 CHAIR GIBSON: You referenced what in the 2 2014 EA? I'm sorry.
3 MS. KLETT: The -- the -- the 4 environmental assessment we did for the EPU.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Recognizing you referenced 6 it, did you reference it in conjunction with this 7 specific point?
8 MS. GRANGE: No, sir.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. That's what I 10 thought. So no tabula rasa reader would see it and 11 know what you were talking about unless they went back 12 and read the EA in terms of this groundwater issue.
13 That's all I'm trying to plumb. Okay. Sorry.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess, Mr. Ford, let's 15 turn to you for a minute. In your testimony on page 16 56 you testified that, "FP&L's pumping will reduce the 17 amount of salt available to be transferred from the 18 CCS to the Biscayne Aquifer." Did I read your 19 testimony correctly?
20 MR. FORD: Absolutely.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's page 56 of NRC-22 001.
23 MR. FORD: Just a minute. We'll get 24 there. Question 92? Could you repeat the question 25 again?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
352 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess I'm curious.
2 You testified that FP&L's pumping will reduce the 3 amount of salt available to be transferred from the 4 CCS to the Biscayne Aquifer. And I should have 5 written down instead of page 56 the particular 6 question. Maybe it's a little further --
7 MR. FORD: Yes, I see --
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
9 MR. FORD: -- where it is. Ninety --
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Ninety-one.
11 MR. FORD: -- ninety-one. Yes, that means 12 that reducing the salinities in the CCS -- the salt in 13 the CCS comes from Biscayne Bay via the Biscayne Bay 14 Aquifer or the Floridan Aquifer, and the loss of water 15 in the CCS can increase the concentrations of the salt 16 in the CCS water and -- some of that water and then 17 move out into the Biscayne -- back into the Biscayne 18 Aquifer. So if you reduce the salinity in the CCS, 19 that basically dropping it to a lower level such as 20 Biscayne Bay water quality, I mean, salinity values, 21 that that would mean lower salinity water would leak 22 out the bottom of the CCS back into the Biscayne Bay 23 Aquifer.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I think that's part 25 of where I get confused in this argument. From my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
353 1 perspective pumping more water into the canal doesn't 2 reduce the amount of salt in the canal, does it?
3 MR. FORD: Adding fresher water, water of 4 lower salt content into the CCS, which has a higher 5 salt content, you basically can think of it as 6 diluting the amount of salt. So now you have got more 7 water given the amount of salt, and so the 8 concentrations in the CCS of salt would go down.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess when I look 10 at the picture, it just seems to me you're adding 11 fresher water on top and the salt's all sitting in the 12 bottom. And maybe what you've changed is the gradient 13 through the canal, but you haven't taken salt out.
14 You've just diluted it. And to the extent that the 15 dilution's on the surface and not on the bottom, it's 16 not clear to me that this effect is very --
17 MR. FORD: So this --
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- a strong effect, if you 19 will. And I guess I'm looking for some --
20 MR. FORD: The statement here is if you 21 took all the water in the CCS and -- the salinity of 22 the -- you know, reduce the salinity in it. Now, I 23 can address -- these -- these canals are only --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess how would you 25 do that, though?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
354 1 MR. FORD: These canals are only two-and-2 a-half-feet deep, I think.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
4 MR. FORD: And so, I don't know much 5 stratification you get. And so, it might mix pretty 6 well, you know? And so, but basically this statement 7 says that if you could reduce the salinity in the 8 Biscayne -- I mean, the CCS, that you would reduce the 9 salinity of water leaking into the Biscayne Aquifer 10 many -- it's not like you've got a really deep 11 swimming pool.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. Yes, I think I'm 13 going to have to think about -- I hear you. I'm going 14 to have to think about it. Maybe -- I see Judge 15 Sager's looking at me.
16 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, I want to ask a 17 question here.
18 So, yes, if you don't mind, that brought 19 up a point that I hadn't really thought about before.
20 So how does salt get out of the CCS? Evaporation will 21 take the fresh water out and leave the salt behind.
22 You can add more water, but the salt -- where does the 23 salt go? How does it leave the canal system?
24 MR. FORD: Okay. Water can enter the --
25 the -- the system and it can leave by -- leave by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
355 1 evaporation, or it can leave by moving into the 2 Biscayne Aquifer. Salt tends to -- will move in, but 3 when water is evaporated, it's left behind. So there 4 is -- that accounts for the incretion -- the increase 5 in concentration in the CCS.
6 The if salt's going to move out of the 7 CCS, it's going to move out into the Biscayne Aquifer.
8 I don't know to what extent it might precipitate and 9 stay in the -- in the CCS.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, that's what I was 11 thinking. So thanks for confirming that.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I guess maybe 13 go back to Ms. Klett. Another reason you give for 14 concluding that there was no significant impact on 15 groundwater resources is that the increase in the 16 temperature limit reduces the plant's need to consume 17 additional water. That again is on page 45 of NRC-18 001. And I guess I'm first asking for confirmation 19 that that's what you testified.
20 MS. KLETT: Yes.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the follow-up question; 22 I mean, we're going to get back to salinity in the 23 canals, is there no downside of increased salinity in 24 the CCS with increased temperatures? I mean, we're 25 going to get into this later, and I don't know who's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
356 1 the right witness. This is the question of whether 2 increased temperature which reduces density or 3 increased temperature which increases evaporation 4 which increases the amount of salinity in the canal --
5 and the Board's got lots of questions here, and I 6 don't know when is the right time to have it.
7 Maybe this is the wrong time. Maybe we 8 need a break. But we're going to go back and forth on 9 this. Both FP&L witnesses and staff witnesses have 10 gone down the same path of trying to separate 11 temperature and density. And I don't know how we're 12 going to get to the bottom of this. And that's what 13 I'm trying to get to here. This may be too early, but 14 I'll --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: It's too early.
16 (Laughter) 17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Judge Gibson says it's too 18 early. I'm probably not making this clear. I mean, 19 people keep using these individual temperature density 20 arguments, and I never think of them as separable like 21 that. And I'm trying to figure out if someone --
22 maybe you can think about this.
23 What I'd be looking for is there a 24 competing effect? If you increase the temperature, 25 you get more evaporation, you get more density, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
357 1 I'm really -- none of these, either FP&L's argument 2 nor the staff's argument is compelling to me, but I 3 think all of you are passionately trying to tell me 4 something important. And I'm looking for some clarity 5 here. This is one point. Yes, I agree, if you heat 6 the water up, the density goes done, the driving force 7 is less. But as soon as you start heating it up, it's 8 going to start evaporating and the density is going to 9 go up.
10 Mr. Ford wants to help me. I can see it.
11 MR. FORD: I'll see what I can do. So let 12 me -- I'll -- I'll try and step through it as my 13 understanding, that basically salt water has a higher 14 density than -- than fresh water. So if you -- if you 15 -- if, you know, it goes in where it tends to mix or 16 comes together that the denser water, the water will 17 tend go underneath the less-dense water. So as 18 salinities increase in the CCS due to evaporation, the 19 density of the water as the salts increase should also 20 increase. So as the salt goes up, the water content 21 in the CCS, the density should go up.
22 Now, if evaporation increases due to 23 higher temperatures or more -- you know, for whatever 24 reason the evaporation increases, let's say a higher 25 temperature, then that would create more salt. But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
358 1 there's a competing phenomena, and that is as the 2 temperature goes up, even with salty water, the 3 density goes up. So if you didn't have this phenomena 4 of the temperature -- you know, the density going down 5 a little bit due to the increase in temperature, that 6 you would get more higher denser water on the bottom 7 of the CCS moving into the Biscayne Aquifer.
8 So the increase in temperature doesn't 9 stop the movement of saline water. It slows it down 10 some. And if these temperatures aren't going to be 11 for very long periods of time, then you're not going 12 to see that effect. You know, much -- much change.
13 By that I mean much change in terms of the -- the 14 salinities moving into the Biscayne Aquifer.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, I think we'll take 16 a break --
17 MR. FORD: And it slows -- it basically 18 for a short of period of time you're not going to get 19 as much.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. And this is the 21 same short duration that's referred to in the 22 temperature variation?
23 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: That there's a presumption 25 here that this is a short temporal event?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
359 1 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Maybe just while 3 you're speaking, what came to mind when you started 4 talking about the competing differences was your 5 discussion just a few minutes ago about the 6 shallowness of this canal and the expectation that 7 there wouldn't be a large gradient through this canal.
8 So I guess that -- again, I'm sort of stuck here. I 9 mean, I'm --
10 MR. FORD: No, the explanation was it 11 wouldn't be a lot of difference -- stratification.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Stratification.
13 MR. FORD: Stratification I think --
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
15 MR. FORD: -- was the word.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, but I thought I was 17 hearing you say that you need to think in terms of a 18 stratification or a gradient --
19 MR. FORD: Well --
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- through the canal.
21 MR. FORD: What I meant was in a broader 22 sense if you were in an -- an -- an aquifer that had 23 different water densities and salinities, that the 24 higher density water would tend to be at the bottom of 25 the aquifer --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
360 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, okay.
2 MR. FORD: -- rather than at the top.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: I think we'll take a break 4 for a little while and I'll think about this. And I 5 don't know if this is the appropriate time to come 6 back to FP&L, because I think FP&L uses the same 7 argument. So I don't know. We'll discuss among 8 ourselves if we want to keep going down this path.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: We're going to be in recess 10 for 10 minutes. We'll come back on the record and 11 then we'll take a lunch break in about an hour.
12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 13 off the record at 11:54 a.m. and resumed at 12:06 14 p.m.)
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Just for planning purposes 16 I think probably about 45 to an hour we'll take a 17 lunch break. Do you all need an hour? Do you all 18 need 45 minutes? What do you all need?
19 MR. HARRIS: An hour, Your Honor.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Hour?
21 JUDGE SAGER: I agree.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. We'll do that then.
23 Very well. Judge Kennedy? Judge Sager? Do you guys 24 have any more questions about this --
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: About temperature and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
361 1 salinity.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Density?
3 JUDGE SAGER: Could I try something just 4 to cut to the chase a little bit to Mr. Ford? I think 5 what he was trying to get at was the competing effects 6 of temperature and salinity on density. So increased 7 temperature makes the water less dense. Increased 8 salinity makes it greater density. I think he was 9 trying to get at some sort of picture of which is 10 dominant.
11 I think perhaps you refer to that in one 12 of your comments that the temperature makes it less 13 likely to sink. So given that there are infinite 14 number of combinations of increased temperature and 15 increased salinity, is the temperature a smaller 16 factor than the salinity on density?
17 MR. FORD: From the USGS report that I 18 referenced in my testimony the -- the -- the study 19 showed that -- you know, this is not looking at the 20 100, 104, this is the long-term operation CCS -- that 21 this it slowed the rate of movement, but it eventually 22 did move through. Groundwater still continued to move 23 into the CCS.
24 I might add that the temperature increases 25 in the CCS vary quite a bit from day to day, and so --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
362 1 and also seasonally. And so, we don't expect that 2 there would be a big increase in salinity for a long 3 time. These would be kind of shorter events.
4 MS. KLETT: If I -- if I may, Judge 5 Kennedy, you had asked me before the break about the 6 meaning behind the staff's testimony where we state 7 the increase in temperature limit reduces the plant's 8 need to consume additional water. If I may add --
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. Sure, please.
10 MS. KLETT: -- add to that? The -- the 11 concept behind is from an operational standpoint and 12 just purely from a temperature standpoint that the 13 additional water withdrawals would be needed to keep 14 the CCS at a cooler temperature; for example, at the 15 previous limit of 100 degrees. So if there was no 16 temperature limit, they wouldn't have a need to inject 17 water for the purposes of cooling to stay within a 18 tech spec limit. However, per the -- the state's COC 19 and their mitigation plan they are injecting water to 20 reduce salinity. But from the temperature standpoint 21 the amendment offered relief by not driving them --
22 for the -- to the need to inject water for the 23 purposes of staying within the temperature limit.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: So by raising the limit 25 you allowed them to run the canals hotter before they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
363 1 would have the need to inject water to bring the 2 temperature down?
3 MS. KLETT: Correct.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
5 MS. KLETT: Well --
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Oh, go ahead.
7 MS. KLETT: -- to continue -- yes, to 8 continue operation above 100 degrees.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: To continue operation, 10 right.
11 MS. KLETT: Yes.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Are you finished with 14 your --
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, I'm done. I'm passing 16 it on.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Judge Sager?
18 JUDGE SAGER: On to me? Okay. So I think 19 this question probably could go to anyone, but I think 20 Mr. Bolleter, it's probably in your wheelhouse.
21 In the documents that are referenced about 22 in -- well, in the documents that are provided there 23 are many citations of water being pumped out of 24 various groundwater resources and surface water 25 resources. Can you give me a snapshot of what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
364 1 sort of budget of water coming in and from what 2 sources? We've heard the Upper Floridan Aquifer, 3 Biscayne Aquifer, the L31E canal are all various 4 sources. And I gather some of them are intermittent 5 and some of them may not even be online yet. Can you 6 kind of give me a picture of the water that is being 7 pumped into the canal?
8 MR. BOLLETER: I can, but let me first 9 defer to -- to Pete Andersen. Pete's been handling 10 the water budget and can talk first about it. And 11 then if there's any other input I can certainly 12 provide as far as what currently is being pumped in, 13 or Mr. Scroggs.
14 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, this is Pete Andersen.
15 As a part of our studies and in looking at the --
16 primarily responding to the state's needs in terms of 17 reduction of salinity, we have taken the information 18 that is being generated under this monitoring plan 19 that -- that Jim is very familiar with and developed 20 a water and salt balance model, which is essentially 21 a spreadsheet model that looks at all the inflows and 22 outflows to the system and looks at them using 23 basically scientific principles and -- and physical 24 relationships.
25 And so, it -- it does some of the things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
365 1 with looking at how the different components interact 2 with one another, rather than some of the kind of 3 speculation that we tend to do as to if you do this, 4 what happens? This -- this is actually a 5 comprehensive water balance that affects -- that --
6 that looks at everything.
7 So I guess in terms of your question, you 8 know, there are kind of these -- these natural or 9 background effects such as, you know, you're adding 10 water through precipitation, which is the primary 11 input. You also have the Biscayne Bay input, which is 12 primarily up by the intake where you're pulling water.
13 So that's a Biscayne Aquifer pulling of water. You 14 have some water which is coming in from the west, some 15 groundwater seepage coming in from the west.
16 And in terms of the discharges, the 17 primary discharge is evaporation, which is pretty much 18 the -- the purpose of the cooling canal system. You 19 also have water flowing out of the cooling canal 20 system into the aquifer, into the Biscayne Aquifer as 21 a discharge, and that is -- that's -- that's something 22 that's expected and necessary in order to essentially 23 remove some of the salt.
24 So we have that -- that primary inputs and 25 outputs. And our model looks at a four-year period, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
366 1 and you can see how it's calibrated to temperature 2 changes, it's calibrated to stage changes in the 3 cooling canal system. So I think we have a pretty 4 good understanding of how it's operated in the past.
5 So what -- what we're able to do with that 6 model then is to look at a changed system; that is, 7 what happens if you add water? What happens if you 8 take water out? And we've looked at all those 9 components of -- of flow. So and -- and those -- I --
10 I have a memorandum that -- the exhibit number escapes 11 me on that, but we talk about the different sources.
12 I think right now the main source is that there was --
13 or it's actually ended now, but the L31E addition of 14 water. There is proposed and will take place a 14-15 million-gallon-a-day Floridan Aquifer addition. And 16 then there were some interim measures that took place 17 which were pumping out of some wells on Turkey Point 18 proper, which was the Biscayne saline source that was 19 added.
20 And so, there's -- it -- it -- it's --
21 it's no wonder that it's a little confusing, because 22 there are a number of different sources that have been 23 added and some -- some of which -- most of them are 24 actually not being added at the present time.
25 So -- so does that answer your question as far as the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
367 1 additions and subtractions are concerned?
2 JUDGE SAGER: Well, sort of. I mean, I'm 3 trying to get a picture. It seems like a lot of water 4 is being pumped in. And just thinking about the 5 system has -- well, instead of me making a statement, 6 let me ask you to be sure. It sounds like probably 7 precipitation and say groundwater exchange from the 8 outside in has never really been enough to offset the 9 evaporation and there's always been a need to add 10 water from the outside, pump some water from somewhere 11 into the canal. Is that correct?
12 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, there's a deficit 13 between evaporation and precipitation. There's more 14 evaporation than there is precipitation. That's made 15 up by that Biscayne Bay source that comes in, but 16 that's saline water, whereas the precipitation is --
17 is fresh water.
18 JUDGE SAGER: Right. So I'm just trying 19 to get a picture of the magnitude. Also often these 20 are quoted in rates. Fourteen million gallons per day 21 for five minutes doesn't mean much, but for a year 22 means a lot. So I was trying to get a picture for how 23 big that is that you have to pump other water in. And 24 I'm not sure that there's actually a simple answer to 25 that question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
368 1 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, I think that off the 2 kind of -- from memory I think that the evaporation is 3 on the order of about 35 million gallons a day.
4 JUDGE SAGER: Really? Okay.
5 MR. ANDERSEN: And then the precipitation 6 would be something less than that, probably in the 20s 7 or so.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So that does give us 9 a good idea of what you have to have in there to make 10 up for the difference? Okay. I think that's good 11 enough.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Good. Thank you.
13 Mr. Ford, I take you are familiar with 14 INT-004, which is the Florida Department of 15 Environmental Protection's administrative order to 16 FPL.
17 MR. FORD: I think I've seen it. I need 18 to look at the screen, though.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Okay. I believe 20 that's an email. The administrative order. There we 21 go. I think that's it. There you go. That's our 22 administrative order. You're familiar with this, sir?
23 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Good. Now this 25 administrative order requires Florida Power & Light to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
369 1 pump water into the cooling canal system in order to 2 reduce the salinity in the cooling canal system, is 3 that correct?
4 MR. FORD: Yes, it is.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: When the environmental 6 assessment looked at the fact that Turkey Point Units 7 3 and 4 would need to use additional water, it did not 8 take into account the net effect of the state's 9 requirement for more pumping to reduce salinity, did 10 it? You can -- oh, you're the one to answer that?
11 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. The 12 environmental assessment did take into account that we 13 -- that FPL was anticipating an administrative 14 order --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
16 MS. GRANGE: -- from the state to 17 authorize additional withdrawals from the Floridan 18 Aquifer.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: And where is that discussed 20 in the environmental assessment?
21 MS. GRANGE: Let me take a look at that 22 and I'll give you a reference.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Please do.
24 MS. GRANGE: That would be on page 44468 25 of the environmental assessment, which is NRC-009.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
370 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
2 MS. GRANGE: So the center column is 3 titled, "Aquifer Withdrawals." And if you look down 4 to the second paragraph under --
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you hold on a second?
6 Let me see if we can get that here.
7 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Where is this column now?
9 Its' 44468? Keep going, Mr. Welkie. Two more pages.
10 Keep going. We're looking for a table.
11 MS. GRANGE: It's -- it's right -- the 12 center column of text.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Center column? Okay.
14 MS. GRANGE: So --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: It's not in a table?
16 MS. GRANGE: Correct. The paragraph 17 starts, "FPL also anticipates the FDEP --
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
19 MS. GRANGE: -- "to issue an 20 administrative order."
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: And again, there's nothing 23 mentioned there about any potential impacts on 24 groundwater? It talks about surface water resources, 25 aquatic resources and crocodiles?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
371 1 MS. GRANGE: So the question is that 2 there's no --
3 (Simultaneous speaking) 4 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, I guess --
5 MS. GRANGE: -- discussed about 6 groundwater specifically?
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. So I guess the 8 question is was the impact of aquifer withdrawals on 9 groundwater resources looked at? And if so, where?
10 And if so, how? Maybe how and then where?
11 MS. GRANGE: Since -- maybe I should back 12 up and say in the context of this discussion, which is 13 within the cumulative impact discussion --
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
15 MS. GRANGE: -- we only addressed the 16 environmental resources that we -- or we only 17 specifically addressed the environmental resources 18 that we found there may be impacts in.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: And those were?
20 MR. FORD: And those were aquatic 21 resources, surface water resources, and the 22 crocodiles, I believe.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: And groundwater was not one 24 of them?
25 MS. GRANGE: No, groundwater was not. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
372 1 had concluded earlier in the EA that we didn't 2 anticipate significant environmental impacts, so it 3 would follow that we would also not anticipate 4 significant cumulative impacts to groundwater.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, I guess that 6 assessment of how the environmental resources were 7 limited to those three -- is there discussion in the 8 environmental assessment that talks about how you went 9 from a laundry list of say 11 or 12 potential 10 environmental resources down to focusing on those 11 three? Is there a discussion in the EA of how you got 12 to that?
13 MS. GRANGE: We do describe that briefly.
14 I -- I can give you a reference. Let me take a look 15 and let you know.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
17 MR. FORD: So the reference is page 44466.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Can we go back to 19 44466, Mr. Welkie?
20 Okay. Now we're on 44466. Is this it, 21 ma'am?
22 MS. GRANGE: And so, if you scroll down on 23 the first column of text under "Environmental Impacts 24 of the Proposed Action" --
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
373 1 MS. GRANGE: -- the very last paragraph 2 there that starts, "As previously discussed" --
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Right.
4 MS. GRANGE: -- we describe the proposed 5 action and then we list a number of resources there 6 that we have determined would not have significant 7 environmental impacts as a result of the proposed 8 action.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
10 MS. GRANGE: And then we exclude those 11 from --
12 CHAIR GIBSON: And that would be coming 13 over into the next column?
14 MS. GRANGE: Exactly.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
16 MS. GRANGE: And so there that's where we 17 -- we exclude a number of resources from further 18 consideration. And groundwater is one of those 19 resources.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Got it. Okay. Thank you.
21 You got anything else on that point?
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: No.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: You got anything else on 24 that point?
25 (No audible response)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
374 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. As a practical 2 matter whether or not FPL would need to pump more 3 groundwater under the license amendment depends on how 4 much water the plant would need to pump to reduce 5 temperature minus how much water the plant needs to 6 pump to reduce salinity, is that correct?
7 MS. GRANGE: Directly related to the 8 proposed action NRC only has a temperature 9 requirement.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: I recognize that.
11 MS. GRANGE: Okay.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: I recognize that. I'm just 13 asking a question. Whether they would need to pump 14 more groundwater under the license amendment depends 15 on how much water the plant would need to pump to 16 reduce temperature minus how much the plant needs to 17 reduce salinity, correct?
18 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
20 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. I heard it wrong 21 the first time.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: That's okay. That's okay.
23 The net pumping effect would also need to consider the 24 extent to which Florida Power & Light would need to 25 add more water to reduce salinity caused by increased NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
375 1 temperature, correct?
2 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: So it's possible that FPL 4 would need to consume additional water as a result of 5 the increased temperature to reduce salinity in line 6 with the state's order that we just discussed, 7 correct?
8 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: It's also possible that FPL 10 will need to pump so much water to reduce salinity 11 that FPL would not actually need to pump any more 12 water to reduce temperature irrespective of the 13 license amendment, correct?
14 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: I searched the EA and the 16 NRC staff testimony for any discussion of this net 17 pumping comparison between reducing temperature and 18 reducing salinity and I couldn't find anything. Did 19 I miss anything?
20 MR. FORD: Let's see. So --
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, it's --
22 MR. FORD: -- I'm not sure, but we'll --
23 we'll give it a shot. This is Bill Ford.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: In the EA or the testimony 25 that addresses this? I'm not asking you what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
376 1 answer is. I'm saying --
2 MR. FORD: Yes.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: -- there's no discussion in 4 the EA or your testimony about this net pumping 5 effect, is there?
6 MR. FORD: It's -- it's mixed, because the 7 discussion is that they're going to pump to reduce 8 salinity and they could also -- you know, and reduce 9 temperature.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
11 MR. FORD: But -- but it's logical to 12 assume that if you're having to pump to reduce 13 salinity, that that would also have the impact of 14 reducing the temperature.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, in your 16 testimony where the staff says that the increase in 17 the temperature limit reduces the plant's need to 18 consume additional water, that is limited to a 19 scenario in which Florida Power & Light does not need 20 to pump water to reduce salinity, correct?
21 MR. HOBBS: Correct. That answer was 22 primarily focused on temperature.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, sir. And yet we 24 know that Florida Power & Light has to pump water to 25 reduce salinity pursuant to the state's order. So the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
377 1 statement in the testimony that the increase in the 2 temperature limit reduces the plant's need to consume 3 additional water is really purely theoretical, isn't 4 it, because of Florida Power & Light's obligation to 5 pump groundwater to reduce salinity?
6 MR. HOBBS: Yes, the answer is mostly in 7 a hypothetical sense that if the temperature were to 8 possibly increase that high.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you, sir. Mike?
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: You're read for heat load, 11 right?
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Hobbs, since you've 14 started testifying, we have additional questions for 15 you. So welcome to the proceeding.
16 (Laughter) 17 JUDGE KENNEDY: We have a bunch of 18 questions about the heat load, and I think we're 19 trying to get our arms around the specific license 20 amendment request that relates to the temperature 21 increase.
22 Mr. Hobbs, your conclusion that raising 23 the water temperature limit reduces the need to 24 consume additional water is based on the assumption 25 that FP&L would address high temperatures by adding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
378 1 additional water. Is that correct? I know you just 2 answered that, but yes.
3 MR. HOBBS: Yes, that's --
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. On page 53 of your 5 testimony the other alternative to increasing intake 6 temperature limit for Turkey Point 3 and 4 you 7 mentioned is to shut down the plant. Is that correct?
8 Is that another potential outcome?
9 MR. HOBBS: Yes, if the temperature were 10 to increase above the limit, then they would have to 11 shut down.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: So did the staff examine 13 whether Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 could have reduced 14 the intake temperature by down-rating the units? Did 15 you look at that at all?
16 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. I'll 17 answer that. Yes, we did. We considered that in the 18 no-action alternative.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Where is that mentioned in 21 the no-action alternative? I'm just curious. Is it 22 just a passing reference or is there some examination 23 of the actual effect of down-rating the units would be 24 in the no-action alternative?
25 MS. GRANGE: I'm looking for that page NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
379 1 reference for you now.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.
3 MS. GRANGE: That page reference is page 4 44469.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Would you call that up, 6 please, Mr. Welkie? Whoop, went too far.
7 MS. GRANGE: And it's the center column of 8 text. And scroll down until you see "Alternatives to 9 the Proposed Action."
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the answer is impacts 11 to grid reliability? Is that what you're pointing us 12 to?
13 MS. GRANGE: I was pointing you to a 14 discussion of a situation where FPL might need to shut 15 down. I think maybe you had an additional question, 16 if you could restate it, if that would be helpful.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So what was the basis for 18 rejecting the no-action alternative?
19 MS. KLETT: This is Audrey Klett. During 20 the processing of the amendment Turkey Point did come 21 in with the request for enforcement discretion. And 22 one -- one of the reasons behind that was the impact 23 of shutting the plants down on grid reliability. So 24 that was primarily the basis for granting the Notice 25 of Enforcement Discretion.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
380 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So if the question 2 was what's the basis for the no-action alternative, is 3 it the same basis that you just quoted for the 4 enforcement discretion?
5 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. Yes, 6 sir.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
8 Just out of curiosity, did I understand you to say you 9 granted the requested discretion?
10 MS. KLETT: Yes. Yes, we did.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: This is a question much 12 later in the testimony, but at this point it brings me 13 to wonder. There's a lot of discussion in the staff's 14 testimony about the short duration of this temperature 15 rise in the canal. Did it surprise the staff at all 16 that FP&L came in for a license amendment request 17 after having asked for discretion on operating above 18 the tech spec temperature?
19 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange again.
20 The amendment was requested before the Notice of 21 Enforcement Discretion was requested.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: So does that mean it's 23 just a timing thing?
24 MS. GRANGE: I guess I'm -- I'm maybe 25 confused. If you could restate the question?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
381 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Overall I guess if this is 2 such a short duration problem, I'm wondering why the 3 process of going down a license amendment request was 4 asked. And maybe I should ask FP&L. I mean, I'm 5 surprised by this. The staff thinks it's a short 6 duration, yet you asked for an amendment request.
7 Could you help us understand a little bit what was in 8 your thinking for asking for an amendment request?
9 MR. SCROGGS: I can tell you that -- that 10 the events that precipitated us asking for the 11 enforcement discretion and the amendment request came 12 on fairly quickly --
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
14 MR. SCROGGS: -- as a result of -- of 15 algae issues as well as the hypersalinity. And our 16 concern was a lot of this is driven by ambient 17 temperature and weather conditions. Not knowing what 18 those ambient and -- temperature and weather 19 conditions would be in the future, our timeline for 20 resolving this and our potential need for an elevated 21 upper -- ultimate heat sink temperature limit was 22 determined that it would be most prudent to go ahead 23 and ask for that since our modeling showed us that 24 that was capable.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you, sir. I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
382 1 think I need to rephrase the question. I think I got 2 to the right party.
3 MS. GRANGE: Great.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: But thank you for your 5 patience.
6 This is becoming a pattern, Mr. Scroggs.
7 FP&L's root cause evaluation that the canal's 8 exceeding 100 degrees, which is NRC Exhibit 025 -- I 9 have a bunch of questions about heat load, but in the 10 root cause evaluation I wanted to clarify what units 11 were being discussed there in terms of the temperature 12 problem. Is it just 3 and 4? Is it for other units?
13 MR. SCROGGS: No, at the time of the root 14 -- and -- and let me make sure I'm addressing the 15 correct root cause evaluation. Is this a root cause 16 evaluation from July of 2014 conducted by Turkey Point 17 staff?
18 CHAIR GIBSON: If we could call up NRC-19 025? I think that's it. Does this refresh your 20 recollection, sir?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, probably. If you could 22 just keep going down. Yes, this does. It does 23 refresh my -- so this -- at the time of conducting 24 this evaluation, root cause evaluation there were 25 three units that provided -- or relied on the cooling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
383 1 canal system for heat dissipation, Units 3 and 4 and 2 Unit 1, which is a fossil fueled-fired boiler from the 3 1960 time frame. Unit 5, a gas-fired plant, provides 4 blowdown from a forced draft cooling tower into the 5 cooling canal system, but does not rely on it for heat 6 dissipation. Unit 2 had been decommissioned and was 7 being used in synchronous mode, but didn't rely on the 8 cooling canal system for heat dissipation. So there 9 were three units, the two nuclear units and Unit 1, 10 that were being considered when this -- conducting 11 this root cause evaluation.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So it was 1, 3 and 13 4 then was the subject of that? Okay.
14 Just for clarification, so then Unit 5 15 provides no heat load to this canal?
16 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct, sir.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. I think 18 I'm good with all the heat load questions.
19 How about the blowdown from Unit 5? Does 20 that go into the canal?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
23 MR. SCROGGS: And that's at -- you know, 24 at temperature in the 80s, you know, close to ambient 25 out of a -- out of the blowdown basin in the forced NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
384 1 draft cooling towers.
2 JUDGE SAGER: How much of that water is 3 there? It's been treated as insignificant. Do you 4 have an idea about how much it is?
5 MR. SCROGGS: It's -- it's on the order of 6 1,000 gallons per day or so. I'm -- I'm -- you know, 7 it's just --
8 JUDGE SAGER: So it's really --
9 MR. SCROGGS: -- infrequent. I mean, 10 there's --
11 JUDGE SAGER: -- orders of magnitude 12 smaller then?
13 MR. SCROGGS: Significantly --
14 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
15 MR. SCROGGS: -- smaller.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Staff, I want to get 17 to the timeline of the extended power up-rate that's 18 discussed in your testimony. In October 2010 Florida 19 Power & Light applied for an extended power up-rate 20 that would allow Florida Power & Light to increase the 21 outputs of Units 3 and 4 from approximately 700 22 megawatts to 804 megawatts per unit. Is that correct?
23 MS. KLETT: Yes, that is correct.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: At the time FPL predicted 25 in its site certification application, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
385 1 Florida Power & Light Exhibit 35, that the total 200-2 megawatt increase would lead to about a 1-degree 3 Fahrenheit increase in temperature at the intake 4 location. Is that correct?
5 MS. KLETT: I believe so, Your Honor, yes.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Now at the time FP&L 7 applied for the extended power up-rate it planned it 8 stop using Unit 2 for power generation. Is that 9 correct?
10 MS. KLETT: At the time of the EPU 11 application, I'm -- that I do not know.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
13 MS. KLETT: I -- I thought that the EPU 14 application assumed all four units were operating.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you clarify that for 16 us?
17 (Laughter) 18 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir. The -- the -- the 19 decision to decommission Unit 2 had not been 20 completed --
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
22 MR. SCROGGS: -- at the time of the up-23 rate. So at the time of the up-rate there were four 24 units --
25 CHAIR GIBSON: You anticipated using all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
386 1 four?
2 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
4 When was the decision made to decommission 5 Unit 2, or whatever the word is -- discontinue using 6 it?
7 MR. SCROGGS: The end of 2013.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: And when did you make the 9 decision to do that?
10 MR. SCROGGS: Sometime during the course 11 of 2013.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: During 2013?
13 MR. SCROGGS: It had not operated since 14 2010 --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
16 MR. SCROGGS: -- as a thermal unit, but 17 the final decision and dismantling began --
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
19 MR. SCROGGS: -- in 2014.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So it hadn't been 21 operating. It wasn't operating in 2010 or '11 or on, 22 but you hadn't made the decision yet to discontinue 23 using it until 2013? And then you made that final 24 decision later that year --
25 MR. SCROGGS: Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
387 1 CHAIR GIBSON: -- that you were not going 2 to use it? Is that correct?
3 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. On page 39 of your 5 testimony you indicated that the total amount of heat 6 discharged to the cooling canal system from Units 1 7 through 4 has decreased since implementation of the 8 extended power-rate. Is that correct?
9 MS. KLETT: That is correct.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: The reason for the total 11 amount of heat discharge to the cooling canal system 12 decrease was the phase out of Unit 2, correct?
13 MS. KLETT: Yes, Your Honor.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: And it is your testimony 15 that the phase out of Unit 2 more than compensated for 16 the increased heat load produced by the up-rate of 17 Units 3 and 4, correct?
18 MS. KLETT: That is correct.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Given the timing we just 20 discussed then, would it be more accurate to say that 21 the total amount of heat discharged from Units 1 22 through 4 has decreased since FPL applied for the 23 extended power up-rate as opposed to since it 24 implemented the power up-rate?
25 MS. KLETT: I believe when it applied for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
388 1 the up-rate that was before they stopped using Unit 2 2 as a power generator.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: They hadn't made the 4 decision yet to stop using 2, right?
5 MS. KLETT: Well, they had not made the 6 decision yet and I -- the application came in before 7 December 2010, which is when I believe they shut down 8 Unit 2.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. If the water 10 temperature had increased since the extended power up-11 rate, that would still be included in the 12 environmental assessment as part of the environmental 13 baseline, is that correct?
14 MS. GRANGE: I just want to clarify that 15 you --
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
17 MS. GRANGE: -- mean the license amendment 18 for the ultimate heat sink tech spec, that 19 environmental assessment? Because we're talking about 20 two now.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Why don't you explain to 22 me --
23 MS. GRANGE: Okay. Yes.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: -- what you're getting at, 25 and then maybe I can ask a follow-up question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
389 1 MS. GRANGE: We --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Because I'm not sure I can 3 reformulate my question --
4 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: -- in light of what you 6 just said.
7 MS. GRANGE: Of course. So we did 8 consider the -- the -- the conditions as they were in 9 the cooling canal system, which included increased 10 temperature when we wrote the 2014 EA. And that was 11 included in the environment baseline.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: For 2014?
13 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. All right. Just got 15 a few more here and then we'll break for lunch.
16 At page 45 of the staff testimony we find 17 the first two explanations you give for no impact on 18 groundwater. And they are: No. 1, the change in the 19 temperature limit and Florida Power & Light's 20 mitigating actions do not impact saltwater intrusion.
21 And the second is the time that the cooling canal 22 system was expected to exceed the previous temperature 23 limit was of short duration. Is that right?
24 MS. KLETT: Yes, sir.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Just to be clear, when you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
390 1 say Florida Power & Light's mitigating actions, you're 2 referring to the pumping of groundwater that the state 3 requires of Florida Power & Light to reduce salinity, 4 is that correct?
5 MR. FORD: I believe we're -- we're 6 referring --
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, hold on just a 8 minute. Okay. Now I just want to be sure you're 9 speaking into the microphone, sir.
10 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. So this is Bill 11 Ford. We're referring to the pumpings that we knew 12 about at the time of the EA. So that would be pumping 13 from the Floridan Aquifer and the salt water from the 14 Biscayne Aquifer.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that would constitute 16 all foreseeable aquifer withdrawals that were on the 17 horizon?
18 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, those are the ones 20 you were aware of?
21 MS. GRANGE: At the time we prepared the 22 EA those were the withdrawals we were aware of, the 23 withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer and the Floridan 24 Aquifer.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
391 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Are there any other 2 mitigation actions that the staff considered?
3 MS. GRANGE: The staff was also aware that 4 withdrawals from the L31E canal were a possibility.
5 At the time we were reviewing the license amendment 6 request FPL had not requested authorization for those 7 withdrawals from the state. And I believe at the time 8 they also hadn't made use of the Biscayne Aquifer 9 withdrawals. And so, given that there was still a 10 possibility for further withdrawals to mitigate 11 cooling canal system conditions, we didn't consider 12 the -- that the possibility of the L31E withdrawals 13 would be likely since FPL hadn't submitted a request 14 at that time. But we now know that they have -- that 15 they received authorization for those withdrawals.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So you knew at the 17 time that they were considering these other things, 18 but you considered them to be of such an insignificant 19 likelihood that you didn't address them? Is that a 20 fair statement?
21 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Now why did the staff 23 conclude that the temperature increase has no 24 significant impact on groundwater?
25 MR. FORD: The temperature increases would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
392 1 -- would be of short duration because there's a big 2 temperature swing from day to night that -- and then 3 seasonally with the amount of water that's put in, so 4 that we -- given that the energy going into the system 5 was the same or less that we figured that these 6 conditions were kind of unusual for the canal system 7 and the people were taking -- to try and take 8 corrective action. We talked about that, the 9 corrective actions the company was planning on taking.
10 Basically the salinities aren't going to 11 -- and the temperature's going to change that much 12 across the -- for a long period of time be operating 13 at above 100 degrees. It would be for short 14 durations. And these durations would be short enough 15 that the salinities aren't going to change for -- over 16 the long run in that -- in the canal system. And the 17 groundwater system itself is slow to change. So it's 18 going to be responding mostly to long-term changes in 19 the CCS, not changes of a few days or hours, or a week 20 or so.
21 So considering that, you -- you assume 22 that -- it's reasonable to assume that groundwater 23 conditions aren't going to change as a result of the 24 power up-rate. It's a small temperature increase that 25 is small relative to the routine changes that occur in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
393 1 the canal system.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: But we're talking here not 3 about a power up-rate. We're talking about an 4 increase in the temperature limit in the cooling canal 5 system, aren't we, sir?
6 MR. FORD: Yes, that's what I was talking 7 about.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, I heard you 9 say "power up-rate."
10 MR. FORD: That's it.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Maybe I --
12 MR. FORD: I'm sorry. I misspoke.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: -- misheard you, sir.
14 MR. FORD: I misspoke. I'm sorry.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: That's okay.
16 MR. FORD: I meant the ultimate heat sink.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Why did the staff conclude 18 that the mitigating actions have no significant impact 19 on groundwater?
20 MR. FORD: The impact of the mitigating 21 actions were if you pumped Biscayne water -- Biscayne 22 water near the site and put that water into the canal 23 system, that what you would effectively do is you'd be 24 pumping basically saltwater. And so you're not 25 impacting a freshwater resource, that the freshwater NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
394 1 resources are located far away from where these wells 2 would be pumping water and you would not increase the 3 rate of saltwater intrusion from Biscayne Bay into the 4 aquifer.
5 The -- with respect to the Floridan 6 Aquifer, the water quality in that aquifer is 7 brackish, so that we're not pumping from freshwater 8 supplies. It's brackish over a very large area. And 9 as a result you're not going to be increasing 10 saltwater intrusion from that source, or definitely 11 not in the Biscayne Aquifer, which is the aquifer 12 we're primarily talking about.
13 The site has pumped from the Biscayne for 14 a long time anyway and at the -- for Unit 5 without --
15 you know, little impact or changes in water quality 16 coming out of that well. It's still primarily pretty 17 close to the same brackish water quality it has been 18 for many years.
19 So those would be the primary reasons.
20 You haven't -- you know, we weren't aware of any 21 impact at the time on the local wells in terms of 22 water level withdrawals.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: I think Judge Sager may 24 have a question, but I've got something I want to ask 25 just one quick follow-up first.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
395 1 MR. FORD: Yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: It sounds to me like the 3 conclusion you reached that there will be no impacts 4 on saltwater intrusion depend on your assumption that 5 100-plus temperatures will be of short duration.
6 That's a fair statement, isn't it?
7 MR. FORD: Yes, that -- and they're going 8 to be of short duration, won't be for long periods of 9 time.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Okay.
11 MR. FORD: Yes.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
13 JUDGE SAGER: I'm good.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: You're good?
15 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. On page 45 of the 17 staff testimony you all give four specific reasons for 18 finding no significant impact on groundwater 19 resources. Does the environmental assessment's 20 finding of no significant impact depend on all four of 21 these reasons acting together? And is one or more of 22 them dominant?
23 MR. FORD: I'd say it was the -- that the 24 -- the change in -- the dominant one was that you 25 expect that the temperature increases --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
396 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
2 MR. FORD: -- would be of short duration.
3 It wouldn't be a long --
4 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
5 MR. FORD: -- period of time, followed up 6 by the mitigating actions that we knew about, don't 7 impact saltwater intrusion.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: So two is the most dominant 9 and one would be the second-most important. Is that 10 correct?
11 MR. FORD: Yes, and I would say the 12 state's knowledge -- that the state knew from previous 13 environmental -- we -- the -- the knowledge that the 14 staff had from previous environmental assessments, 15 that there were agreements with the state and local 16 bodies --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
18 MR. FORD: -- to mitigate and correct any 19 impacts on the groundwater from higher salinities also 20 figured in the decision.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Got anything else, 22 Judge Kennedy, do you want to follow up there, or are 23 you going to get started here?
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: (No audible response) 25 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you want to do that or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
397 1 do you want to break for lunch?
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's up to you.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Why don't we break for 4 lunch? It's now 12:50. We'll be back at 1:45. If 5 you guys are ready then, we'll get started. If you're 6 not here until 1:50, well, we'll cut you five minutes.
7 But we would like to keep moving today. Thank you.
8 We stand in recess for an hour.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 10 off the record at 12:50 p.m. to resume at 1:52 p.m.
11 this same day.)
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Please be seated. Thank 13 you. Back on the record.
14 Mr. Ford, just to follow up on one 15 question I had for you when we broke, you would not 16 dispute that the environmental impact could be 17 significant if these high water temperatures between 18 100 degrees Fahrenheit and 104 degrees Fahrenheit were 19 not of short duration, would you?
20 MR. FORD: First, I want to correct 21 something I said earlier, which is that we didn't rank 22 which is most important in terms of the impacts. We 23 considered them all. So, all those points we talked 24 about before we considered in total.
25 As far as the -- so the question is would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
398 1 there be significant impact if it was above 100 2 degrees?
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Let me make sure you 4 understood my question. I'll read it again. You 5 would not dispute that the environmental impact could 6 be significant if the high water temperatures between 7 100 degrees Fahrenheit and 104 degrees Fahrenheit were 8 not of short duration, would you?
9 MR. FORD: First of all, I want to say 10 this. That it is unusual -- I think it would be very 11 unusual if that were the case that it is difficult to 12 hold an open system like that at a constant 13 temperature. It is affected by climate, day, and 14 light, and the amount of precipitation. So, I think 15 that would be very unusual if it were to be up above 16 that for 104 degrees for an extended long period of 17 time.
18 So, would they be significant? Between 19 100 and 104 degrees it is a small temperature 20 increase. From what I have seen, I don't know if the 21 salinities are going to increase that much, you know 22 from looking at some of the other exhibits in this 23 testimony.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: But it sounds like you are 25 saying that it would not be significant, then.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
399 1 MR. FORD: I don't think so.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think Judge 3 Kennedy has some other questions for you about short 4 duration.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm fascinated by short 6 duration.
7 Mr. Ford, just to clear the record, you 8 were not one of the authors of the environmental 9 assessment. Is that true?
10 MR. FORD: That's correct.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: But I take it you are 12 familiar with the contents of the environmental 13 assessment?
14 MR. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
16 I'm not sure this question is directed to 17 you but I am going to ask it and maybe any one of the 18 staff witnesses can answer.
19 The EA at page 44466 concludes that the 20 canals could experience temperatures between 100 and 21 104 degrees at the intake location for short durations 22 during periods of peak summer air temperature and low 23 rainfall. And again, this in the EA. I am looking 24 for clarification that I read that correctly.
25 I don't want to put you on the spot, Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
400 1 Ford, if you didn't participate in the EA. Let's see, 2 Mr. Welkie is putting the particular site up there.
3 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, what you 4 just said is an accurate statement.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. And, again, I 6 think this, again, brings it back into focus the 7 question of short durations. I'm looking for some 8 quantification of what the staff means when it states 9 short duration. Is it a few weeks? Is it calendar 10 time? Is it time at temperature? I mean this is a 11 little different than the question I have. But the 12 more I listen to you talk, Mr. Ford, I'm wondering if 13 we are talking about something that goes on over a 14 long period of time in a fluctuating manner or it is 15 the time at the elevated temperature and which of 16 those this duration question is trying to -- the short 17 duration classification is trying to point to. This 18 is too hard.
19 MR. FORD: Well, we know, historically, 20 that there has been very few instances where it went 21 over 100 degrees. Maybe, Audrey, you could give some 22 more details.
23 MS. KLETT: To my knowledge, prior to the 24 summer of 2014, the temperature had not exceeded 100 25 degrees. Before we issued the amendment, I believe it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
401 1 went above 100 degrees on five occasions and, on each 2 of those occasions, it was less than eight hours in 3 duration.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, is the important issue 5 here, then, the maximum temperature? I mean we are 6 going to go around and around about whether four 7 degrees is significant in the context of a 20 degree 8 daily swing. I mean one picture I have is that you 9 authorized the plant to operate above its previous 10 limit. I could see that as the whole canal 11 temperature could be elevated, just by argument sake, 12 by four degrees. So, it is an average temperature 13 increase over the next 35 years.
14 I mean that, to me, I worry about that.
15 I am concerned about small degree temperature 16 variations on average over a long period of time 17 having an impact on salinity and migration and leading 18 to more aquifer withdrawals and this whole thing just 19 going on, and on, and on. But yet, I heard the staff 20 being focused on say a peak temperature and a peak 21 temperature that only occurs for a small period of 22 time.
23 I'm really trying to understand your 24 perspective as to why you feel that is the most 25 important issue to address here. Because I see it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
402 1 different.
2 I see the staff has authorized a plan to 3 operate possibly at a higher temperature, on average, 4 for the rest of the life of the plant. And I don't 5 see that discussed, considered, but yet we have a lot 6 of testimony on the importance of the short duration 7 of this problem.
8 MS. KLETT: I think for the peak 9 temperature, for it to peak above 100, that is a short 10 duration. And given the natural variation of the CCS 11 system, the temperatures range between somewhere in 12 the 70s to typically in the mid-90s. So, the four 13 degree increase we thought, in the maximum peak, was 14 within the natural variation of the system and it can 15 vary 20, 25 degrees naturally throughout the year.
16 And given that FPL is addressing the algae 17 bloom, which I think escalated the temperature issues, 18 I think when that issue is addressed, the CCS 19 conditions would -- I guess the average temperatures, 20 I would assume, would return back to what they were 21 prior to the algae bloom.
22 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. I 23 would like to add to that response.
24 So, another thing to consider is that we 25 weren't looking at increasing the average temperature NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
403 1 by four degrees but just increasing the allowable 2 temperature at one measuring point by four degrees.
3 There is no extra heat going into the system and there 4 were a lot of contributing factors at the time that 5 were responsible for the increased temperatures, 6 including low rain fall and the algae bloom.
7 And so what we have seen since we issued 8 the amendment was that the temperatures have actually 9 not exceeded 100 degrees except for a couple short 10 durations in August of 2014. And, in fact, in 2015, 11 they have been back within the normal range of 12 temperatures that preceded the license amendment 13 request.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's great. I'm 15 glad that it has sort of been fixing itself. But if 16 I am sitting, as you point out before, you had to draw 17 a time line that said, at this point in time, I am 18 going to look forward and see what the environmental 19 impacts of making this tech spec change could be.
20 You know I struggle with what should be a 21 reasonable expectation that this would fix itself and 22 what could you rely on. I don't think in the four 23 factors that were quoted that mitigative effects were 24 -- you know I'm really -- I just don't get it.
25 To me, on one hand, the importance of not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
404 1 violating a technical specification, I get that but 2 that is for a whole other set of problems. Now, to 3 allow this tech spec change to go forward and to grant 4 the license amendment request, the staff has to look 5 at a host of environmental resources and environmental 6 effects. And I think the Board just continues to 7 struggle with trying to understand what the staff 8 relied on to not at particular resources or to not 9 look at particular magnitudes of effects.
10 So, I think the rest of today's questions 11 and going in possibly to tomorrow really try to get to 12 that backdrop of what did the staff rely on, where is 13 it documented in the environmental assessment, and 14 what those -- so we can understand what perspective 15 and what context the staff used to understand either 16 the lack of environmental impacts or the magnitude of 17 the environmental impacts that you did look at.
18 I don't mean to be testifying but I'm 19 trying to give you some context as to what is 20 troubling me. And I still, I am not getting an 21 acceptable answer in understanding the short duration, 22 nor do I even understand the short duration was in the 23 staff's consideration when it wrote and documented the 24 environmental assessment.
25 MS. GRANGE: Well, I can speak a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
405 1 bit to why we decided to look at it from the 2 perspective of the short duration, if this might be 3 helpful to you.
4 One thing we take a look at during NEPA 5 reviews is what is likely to happen, rather than 6 looking at the worst case scenario. We don't look 7 whether the impacts of it operating at four degrees 8 higher for the rest of the operating license but what 9 do we think is reasonable to occur in the future.
10 And so given that temperatures naturally 11 vary in the CCS and there is fluctuations throughout 12 the year, and that we had a lot of compounding issues 13 at the time, we expected that those conditions could 14 happen again in the future, perhaps, and that there 15 would be times where the temperatures would be 16 elevated in the cooling canal system again but that, 17 in the context of other things that were happening, 18 like FPL working with the state on mitigative actions 19 to reduce salinity in the cooling canal system, as 20 well as the fact that there wasn't any additional 21 power input as a result of the license amendment, we 22 didn't expect there to be anything that would make us 23 want to look at the environmental impacts of 24 continuous or long-term, long duration, elevated 25 temperatures.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
406 1 So, we were looking at what would the 2 impacts be in the context of these conditions 3 happening for short periods of time here and there 4 over the rest of the life of the license.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, I mean I guess, as I 6 understand what you just said, and you have mentioned 7 this earlier in your testimony that the staff relied 8 upon the implementation of various mitigation measures 9 that the State of Florida was going to impose on FP&L.
10 MS. GRANGE: Correct, that was one thing 11 we considered.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: And did you -- I think you 13 may have answered this before but I have forgotten.
14 Is that documented in the environmental assessment at 15 all?
16 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir, it is. I can find 17 the reference for you again, if you need it.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, that's fine. I 19 thought you had answered that before.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. Scroggs -- you have got 21 something you need to say Mr. Bolleter?
22 MR. BOLLETER: Well, just as a --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: I don't want you to explode 24 there.
25 MR. BOLLETER: Just as a follow-up. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
407 1 again, I can't speak to what NRC looked at but we did 2 a separate evaluation. I did an evaluation that was 3 more focused on what we're -- using actual data that 4 we are seeing, we can speculate all kinds of things 5 and so forth but taking and looking at actual data, 6 including some conservatism in what we are looking at.
7 Pete, in a minute, can talk a little bit 8 about he actually looked at, assuming a worst case 9 scenario that you added four degrees of heat to the 10 overall system, which is not going to occur. So, what 11 I ended up doing is we have a very extensive 12 monitoring network in and around the cooling canal 13 system. We have a station that is about a half a mile 14 upstream of the intake and we get temperature readings 15 every hour, unless the probe goes bad or whatever.
16 So, we said, just as an illustrative 17 example, let's just say that that is where the intake 18 is. That is a conservative assumption because you are 19 going to get additional cooling as that water gets 20 down to the intake.
21 So, we looked at the record from when NRC 22 action was approved up until, we took a cutoff date 23 of, September of 2015. We counted the number of hours 24 that we had a temperature in excess of 100 degrees.
25 It was, I think, 61 hours7.060185e-4 days <br />0.0169 hours <br />1.008598e-4 weeks <br />2.32105e-5 months <br /> total and that was out of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
408 1 8,000 some-odd records. I think it was like 0.7 2 percent of the time.
3 So, NRC is right on in terms of the 4 frequency of that occurring is very low. And as a 5 matter of fact, it is my understanding since the NRC 6 action, the temperature at the intake never exceeded 7 100 degrees. So, this is a somewhat conservative 8 assumption.
9 Even if you were to double the number, 10 double the frequency or triple it, the percent is 11 very, very small. And again, keep in mind, the 12 temperature in the cooling canal is a function the 13 operation of the plant, atmospheric temperatures, 14 rainfall and so forth, and things like that. So, it 15 would have to be a very, very unusual event for those 16 temperatures to stay elevated for an extended period 17 of time. From the day that we look at, we don't see 18 that occurring.
19 We also went an extra step and just said 20 okay, let's just say what kind of effect does this 21 additional temperature, heat that has been added to 22 the system, how does that affect the overall salinity?
23 Because the feeling is, because it doesn't occur that 24 often, it is not going to have a very notable effect 25 on salinity but I don't know what that is. We wanted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
409 1 to try to quantify that.
2 So, again, as an illustrative example, we 3 basically looked at, came up with an average, using 4 all the data that we have in the cooling canal system, 5 and came up with an average temperature for that 6 period of time. That includes all the temperatures 7 over 100 degrees at that particular location that we 8 are going to say, for conservative purposes, at the 9 intake.
10 We then said okay, what happens if NRC did 11 not allow that to occur and did not allow that 12 additional heat at that location to be added to the 13 system. We then subtracted that amount of heat out of 14 the whole cooling canal system and came up with a 15 revised average. I had to go to three decimal places 16 in order to determine it. It's like -- I can't 17 remember the exact number -- 91.005 or something. It 18 was like 0.005 degrees difference allowing that 19 additional heat into the system. I can't even measure 20 that.
21 So, it is something that, again, from a 22 frequency standpoint in relation to duration is maybe 23 an hour or two. It could be half a day. I don't 24 remember the exact duration. But these are just like 25 when you look in the summertime a really high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
410 1 temperature, you are going to see a potential spike 2 that has occurred.
3 And also Mr. Scroggs can testify some of 4 that data is during a period when the cooling canal 5 was not operating very effectively. We were not 6 getting very good cooling. There was algae bloom.
7 The salinity was higher. We felt there was heat being 8 retained in the system. So, the cooling canal was not 9 cooling as well.
10 So, again, we think some of that is, 11 again, the assessment is somewhat conservative.
12 Because that was pretty poor conditions in the cooling 13 canal from a heat dissipation standpoint.
14 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, this is Peter 15 Andersen.
16 Just to follow-up with what Jim was 17 saying, I took kind of a book-ending approach or kind 18 of a worst case analysis and I looked at what would be 19 the net effect of a four degree rise that just took 20 place in perpetuity so that you would have these 21 spikes that were over the 100 degrees but you would 22 also have just a hotter cooling canal system that may 23 be below this level. And I related it to the energy 24 balance calculations that were done on the uprate, 25 which showed that for a 2.5 degree rise, there would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
411 1 be, in the hot part of the cooling canal system, there 2 would be a 3.6 psu salinity rise. And so just doing 3 a ratio on proportion on that, I came up with a rise 4 of 5.8 psu for the four degree rise.
5 So, as Jim has said, that is not really 6 the intent of the license amendment but, nevertheless, 7 it kind of shows kind of the worst case or the 8 bookending of this and then, in reality, it will be 9 much less, as Jim has done the calculations for.
10 JUDGE SAGER: So, let me clarify, I think 11 what you said was if you ramp the whole system up 12 permanently four degrees, it would end up being what 13 was it 5 psu, something like that?
14 MR. ANDERSEN: 5.8, 6 psu, yes.
15 MR. BOLLETER: And just keep in mind, 16 still with the administrative order, FPL would have to 17 still keep the salinity down, you know have a much 18 lower salinity.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, those salinity 20 increases and those temperature profiles, they are 21 dominated by the environmental conditions that the 22 cooling canals seize, ambient temperatures, rain, all 23 that sort of stuff. Is that what I am supposed to 24 take away from that discussion?
25 Do you want to talk about the condition of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
412 1 the cooling canal system?
2 MR. BOLLETER: Yes, there was a period of 3 time where we had a very significant algae bloom. It 4 was a very unique algae, very filamentous algae, also 5 with the salinity being very high. We saw more 6 retention of heat and the cooling canal system was 7 just not cooling as effectively.
8 Also, just based on some assessment FPL 9 had done, there was not uniform distribution of 10 cooling in the cooling canal system and so they have 11 implemented a dredging program to try to help improve, 12 again, sort of the better distribution of flow to get 13 better cooling in the system.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't know who is the 15 right person at FP&L to answer this but how should we 16 view the drought conditions in 2014?
17 MR. SCROGGS: I think --
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: The usual, extraordinary 19 won't happen again.
20 MR. SCROGGS: Well, actually, the system 21 behaves based on multiple years of response. So, in 22 2014, we experienced a drought and rainfall really 23 didn't occur in normal precipitation amounts until the 24 July time frame. That was the second of three years 25 that had high drought conditions or low precipitation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
413 1 conditions, high evaporation conditions. So, that was 2 helping to drive the salinity problem.
3 And I think the biggest learning is the 4 summer of 2015. We actually had a D3 drought 5 classification of extreme drought in Southern Florida 6 during the summer of 2015. We didn't receive 7 appreciable rainfall as you saw in some of the earlier 8 data until late August. Yet, the improvements that we 9 were able to make by improving the sediment and flow 10 distribution in the canal system and some of the 11 Biscayne Marine aquifer water, allowed us to stabilize 12 the system, maintain temperatures below 100 degrees, 13 even with those drought conditions and full-time, full 14 power operation of all units; whereas, in the summer 15 of 2014 we actually came off power a couple of times 16 because of temperature conditions.
17 So, I think you can see that we have 18 exerted quite a bit of managerial control over the 19 conditions in the canal system. In doing so, we have 20 moved ourselves away from the upper heat sync 21 temperature limit. We expect that to be the case 22 when, back to our question earlier, the reason that we 23 asked and continue to pursue the license amendment was 24 with climatic changes as they have been observed to 25 be, we don't know what combination of factors we will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
414 1 experience in the future. We wanted to be able to 2 have the margin that the increased temperature limit 3 allowed but we have demonstrated, particularly in 4 2015, the ability to exert control over the cooling 5 canal system thermodynamically, water quality ways, so 6 that we are now moving ourselves -- we are providing 7 margin for ourselves through our physical actions in 8 the system.
9 That is a little bit of a rambling answer 10 to your question.
11 MR. BOLLETER: And we also had a drought 12 in 2011 that was pretty significant that probably some 13 of our lower water levels in the groundwater were 14 probably observed during that time period and there 15 was not an issue with temperature in the cooling canal 16 at that time. But we did, the water was much better 17 condition. We were getting much more effective 18 cooling at that time. We didn't have an algae bloom.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I'm good.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: I want to turn to the root 21 cause analysis which was NRC-025. Now, actually I 22 think it is referenced in that document but, anyway, 23 the root cause analysis that you all did indicated 24 that after temperatures reached 100 degrees, you 25 concluded that historically a general guidance has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
415 1 existed that a reduction in 200 megawatts equates to 2 a one degree Fahrenheit reduction in the CCS UHS 3 temperature.
4 Is that -- do I understand that correctly, 5 that is what the historical data suggests?
6 MR. SCROGGS: That is a historical rule of 7 thumb that operations has been able to glean, looking 8 through the data control system information. I will 9 add, though, that the response time for that is 10 considerable. If you come down 200 megawatts, that 11 molecule of water has two days before it comes around 12 to your enzyme.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: It's not instantaneous.
14 But there is just the general long-term trend if you 15 do that. Correct?
16 MR. SCROGGS: That was what has been used 17 as a rule of thumb to make judgments as to whether or 18 not down-powers would be effective for temperature 19 control.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, is the inverse true?
21 If you increase by 200 megawatts, does that equate to 22 about a one degree Fahrenheit increase in the CCS UHS 23 temperature?
24 MR. SCROGGS: Again, all other factors 25 equal and you are just isolating the thermal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
416 1 component.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
3 MR. SCROGGS: That is approximately 4 correct.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, the root cause 6 analysis indicated that the organizational drivers of 7 the canal temperature reaching 100 degrees, talk about 8 the organizational drivers for that but I couldn't 9 locate in there whether you all determined the actual 10 technical or scientific cause of the rise in the 11 cooling canal temperature. Did you all figure out 12 what it was?
13 MR. SCROGGS: Not in this document.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Then I was not wrong 15 in not finding it.
16 MR. SCROGGS: We recognize that the root 17 cause evaluation process, as you well know, is very 18 self-spotlighting on managerial or human factors and 19 it is a human factors root cause analysis. So, the 20 human factors focused on what organizational failings 21 or limitations could have contributed.
22 In the intervening year and a half that I 23 have been involved doing this and Mr. Andersen, Mr.
24 Bolleter, and other experts have been working to 25 really understand, it is a complex ecosystem, subject NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
417 1 to multiple external factors but at base, it is a heat 2 exchange. And the heat exchanger needs to have the 3 proper level of water, the proper quality of water, 4 and the proper surface area to function as designed.
5 And a great deal of the efforts involved to restore 6 the heat rejection capability of the cooling canal 7 system has been focusing on those basics. There is 8 also a groundwater salinity issue and that is more the 9 focus of our interactions with the state and local 10 regulators.
11 And so the good news is lowering the 12 salinity in the cooling canal system helps all those 13 things. It helps concerns over crocodiles and other 14 wildlife. So, all answers point in the same 15 direction.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. This is for the 17 staff. The EA at page 44466 states that canal 18 temperatures are typically about 2.5 degrees warmer 19 than the ambient air temperatures.
20 I searched both the EA and the NRC staff 21 testimony for any discussion of the data to support 22 that claim and couldn't find anything. Did I miss 23 anything?
24 MS. GRANGE: I would have to go back and 25 look but I believe that this is a general value that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
418 1 we based on the findings in the 2012 EPU EA.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, you may have 3 discussed it in the 2012 power uprate EA but you 4 didn't discuss it here, you just made a reference to 5 that as a sort of axiomatic statement. Is that a fair 6 statement?
7 MS. GRANGE: It was intended to just 8 describe the system. If you need any more 9 clarification, I would need to go back and look at the 10 EPU EA, which I am happy to do.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well, rather than 12 take a lot of time right now, we will hold that. I 13 may want you to do that for us later.
14 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: In fact, maybe I will let 16 you find that for me later. How about that? Give us 17 an answer later but don't try to find it right now.
18 MS. GRANGE: Okay.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: So, to the extent that 20 there is historical air trend data, it would not have 21 been analyzed in conjunction with this but you would 22 have been relying on what you did with the power 23 uprate EA.
24 MS. GRANGE: We also considered what had 25 happened since the EPU EA. There was information in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
419 1 FPL's license amendment submittal that we considered.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And was that 3 basically consistent with what it had been or was the 4 temperature going up -- ambient temperatures going up 5 or going down?
6 MS. GRANGE: Are we talking about air 7 temperature?
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, we are just talking 9 ambient air temperatures, right.
10 MS. GRANGE: You know I don't remember off 11 the top of my head.
12 CHAIR GIBSON:
13 MS. GRANGE: That is something else I 14 would need to look up as well. I know one of the big 15 drivers was rainfall. So, I was a little more focused 16 on that.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. Do you all happen to 18 know whether the ambient air temperatures went up 19 after the 2012 to -- I guess it would just be 2013 to 20 2014, right?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Just in the limited 22 information that in my mind over the last several 23 years, I don't think we have seen any appreciable 24 change in ambient air temperatures or wind speeds or 25 directions, which are also influential.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
420 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Inputs. Okay, thank you.
2 Okay, you said you looked more closely at 3 rainfall than at ambient temperature. Did you assume 4 that precipitation trends would remain just the same 5 as that had been experienced in Turkey Point operating 6 history or did you anticipate they were going to 7 change?
8 MS. GRANGE: Well, we considered natural 9 variation that would occur, which would also include 10 drought years, like Florida has been experiencing.
11 So, in general, there is a lot of 12 variation and we considered that variation.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and is that primarily 14 memorialized in the EPU environmental assessment or 15 did you do some separate independent analysis for this 16 one?
17 MS. GRANGE: That was part of the 18 environmental baseline that we considered for the EA.
19 I don't believe that we -- we don't have anything 20 written down where we are specifically describing 21 future rainfall trends that we are anticipating. We 22 were looking at it a little more qualitatively, 23 knowing what we have seen in past and knowing we would 24 see similar variation in the future.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Well then, good, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
421 1 didn't miss something.
2 In answer 78 on page 51 of the staff 3 testimony, you attribute the high temperature of the 4 cooling canal system to summer temperatures in 5 drought. Did you consider the drought at the time an 6 extraordinary one?
7 MS. GRANGE: Can you please repeat that 8 answer number?
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure. Did you consider the 10 drought at the time to be an extraordinary one?
11 MS. GRANGE: Oh, I'm sorry. I meant in 12 the staff testimony it was --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry. On answer 14 78 on page 51.
15 MS. KLETT: There's nothing on our 16 screens. I don't know if --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Andy, could you pop that up 18 there?
19 JUDGE SAGER: Judge Gibson, if you don't 20 mind.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: No.
22 JUDGE SAGER: Our rationale here is what 23 we are trying to figure out is whether you consider 24 this an extraordinary event that won't happen again 25 and, therefore, discount this sort of behavior of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
422 1 system in the last couple of years.
2 MS. GRANGE: Well, we didn't consider the 3 drought itself to be extraordinary, I guess you could 4 say then. We considered the combination of factors to 5 be unique and that was low rainfall, combined with the 6 algae bloom, combined with the fact that FPL had noted 7 that the algae had been having some saline issues in 8 the condensers that were decreasing the efficiency of 9 the cooling canal system. And so those things 10 together were the extraordinary circumstance. We 11 didn't think that rainfall alone would be an 12 extraordinary circumstance in the future.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Do you need any 14 follow-up to that, Judge Sager?
15 JUDGE SAGER: No, I'm good.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Did you consider climate 17 change in figuring out what the rainfall and ambient 18 temperature was going to be on a going forward basis?
19 MS. GRANGE: I mean we considered in the 20 context of what the expected variations in the future 21 are going to be. There isn't anything in the EA that 22 specifically describes climate change as its own 23 section, if that is what you were looking for but it 24 is incorporated into the baseline assumptions that the 25 staff made about the remainder of the operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
423 1 license.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Did anyone with 3 expertise in atmospheric science review the 4 environmental assessment?
5 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, no, there 6 was not someone that had that specialty or that 7 specific specialty. We had a number of people that 8 are NEPA experts that reviewed the document.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, we have talked about 10 several things here. Were there any other factors, in 11 your estimation, that influenced the temperature of 12 the cooling canal system that staff considered but 13 that were not discussed in the EA?
14 MS. GRANGE: I believe we covered 15 everything that we knew at the time to be contributing 16 to the temperatures.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
18 MS. KLETT: And Your Honors, I found the 19 document that discusses the 2.5 degree Fahrenheit 20 above average ambient air temperature statement.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 MS. KLETT: That was from FPL's license 23 amendment application dated July 10, 2014. So, it is 24 letter number L-2014-216, which was referenced in the 25 issuance of the amendments.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
424 1 CHAIR GIBSON: And that was where the 2.5 2 number came from?
3 MS. KLETT: Yes. This is the average 4 intake. I don't have the exhibit number.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, well, we can find the 6 license amendment request. That's fine.
7 MS. KLETT: Okay.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, we were talking a 9 little bit about the FPL-036. Could you put that up?
10 We have got some follow-up questions to 11 some things that you said earlier. FPL-036, Mr.
12 Welkie.
13 This is a temperature analysis using CCS-6 14 as a surrogate for the TS monitoring location exhibit.
15 You referred earlier to some temperatures.
16 Now the temperatures you were referring to did not 17 include the July 2014 temperatures. Correct?
18 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct. We could 19 have gone back to that period but we just took it from 20 when NRC action occurred and that was reported or the 21 action was reported until the end of September.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And when you say EPA 23 action was approved, was this to afford you some 24 relief on a temporary basis from the 100 to -- 100 25 degree temperature limit on a temporary basis while NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
425 1 they were reviewing the amendment?
2 JUDGE SAGER: NRC can -- when was the 3 amendment approved?
4 CHAIR GIBSON: I thought that was in 2015, 5 wasn't it?
6 MS. KLETT: The amendment was approved 7 August 8, 2014.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, so this is August 8, 9 2014. I stand corrected. Thank you.
10 Okay, so this was after the amendment.
11 MR. BOLLETER: And I believe we started 12 looking at the data the day after what we understood 13 everything to be approved.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
15 MR. BOLLETER: And even if you look at 16 temperatures, just as maybe a follow along with 17 climate change or whatever, even if you look at 18 temperatures, if you were to count temperatures over 19 99 degrees, between 99 and 100 degrees, it only 20 equates to about another, I think, 0.6 percent. So, 21 and if you even look at 98 degrees, it is a very small 22 percentage of the temperatures that exceed even 98 23 degrees.
24 So, even if you have some climate change, 25 there is still the frequency of temperatures being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
426 1 really high at that particular location and, again, 2 they will be cooler by the time they get to the 3 intake, is low but you could still, on occasion, have 4 a spike that occurs for a very short duration.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, the peak 6 temperature, though, was before this, the date of 7 this, right? The peak temperature was 102.5, I 8 believe.
9 MR. BOLLETER: I believe that is correct.
10 I don't have the data in hand.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you -- if you add in the 12 July numbers, does that really change these numbers 13 significantly or is it just a spit in the ocean?
14 MR. BOLLETER: I suspect it is a spit in 15 the ocean. We can look at it.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, good.
17 All right, let's talk a little bit about 18 the migration out of the system. Now, on page 17 of 19 the staff testimony, you state that an exchange of 20 water exists between the canal system and the 21 groundwater because the canals are in-lined. I take 22 it by this that what you are referring to is the fact 23 that water can flow from the canals into the 24 groundwater, as well as from the groundwater into the 25 canals. Is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
427 1 MS. KLETT: Yes, that is correct.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, I searched the 3 EA for discussion of this exchange but the only thing 4 I could find was on page 44467, where the EA refers to 5 the groundwater recharging the canals. And I was 6 unable to find any discussion about the possibility of 7 water migrating out of the canals into the 8 groundwater. Did I miss anything?
9 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. We 10 also talk about the water withdrawals from the 11 Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers later. And given the 12 context of those withdrawals that they are intended to 13 mitigate salinity in the aquifer, it is inferred there 14 that there is exchange in both directions. We also 15 reference several documents at the beginning of the 16 environmental assessment, including the 2012 EPU EA 17 and the license renewal environmental impact 18 statement, both of which describe in more detail that 19 exchange happens in both directions.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: If one were to look at the 21 EA, this EA, they would have to go back. There is no 22 specific reference to a page number, correct, is there 23 to the original EPU?
24 I'm just curious how one would know that 25 is implicit. I mean it is implicit for you, perhaps, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
428 1 but I am trying to understand what a reasonable person 2 picking this up would see. I'm trying to understand 3 how they would know that.
4 MS. GRANGE: Understood. We don't -- I 5 think my understand when we incorporate a document by 6 reference under NEPA is that we can assume that the 7 facts that are in that document are as if they are in 8 the current document. So, I think that is why we 9 didn't describe in more detail the system here.
10 So, you are correct that no, we don't go 11 into detail about the groundwater exchange in both 12 directions in this document but there was an 13 assumption by staff that we were able to assume those 14 details were there because of NEPA's allowance for 15 incorporation by reference.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Mr. Ford, on page 48 of 17 your written testimony, you opine that water from the 18 cooling canal system has migrated into the Biscayne 19 Aquifer but it has not migrated into the Floridan 20 Aquifer. Is that your testimony, sir?
21 MR. FORD: Yes, sir.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: I searched the EA for some 23 technical analysis supporting your opinion that water 24 from the cooling canal system has migrated into the 25 Biscayne Aquifer but not into the Floridan Aquifer and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
429 1 I couldn't find anything. Can you point me to where 2 the technical analysis shows up in the EA for that?
3 MR. FORD: It is not in the EA. It is in 4 reference documents.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: And what reference 6 documents are those, sir?
7 MR. FORD: It would be in the documents 8 for the EPU and I believe you will find it in the 9 environmental reports for the COL, the new reactor.
10 There is one in 2009 and '13 referenced in the EA.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Report for what in 2009 and 12 2013?
13 MR. FORD: The two new reactors. The two 14 new reactors that are proposed for Turkey Point.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: You are talking about the 16 combined operating license applications, 6 and 7, is 17 that right? Okay.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just to make sure I 19 understand, so this EA points to the EPU EA, which 20 then points to some assessment that was done for the 21 combined operating license?
22 MR. FORD: No, it is in the references in 23 the ultimate heat sink EA for the 2014.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So, it is in the 25 references but not discussed in the text or is it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
430 1 MR. FORD: I don't know if it is discussed 2 in the text.
3 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. The 4 EUP EA is discussed in the text at the beginning of 5 the EA. That is one of the documents that is 6 incorporated by reference. The COL application is 7 cited for some factual information and that is 8 provided as a citation in a couple places throughout 9 the document. And then in the list of references, it 10 is included at the back of the EA.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: And you are saying that the 12 COL EA addressed the issue of migration into the 13 Biscayne Aquifer but not into the Floridan Aquifer?
14 MS. GRANGE: Well, I will need to correct.
15 There was no EA for the COL. So, what we referenced 16 was the environmental report.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm sorry, the 18 environmental report?
19 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: And it discussed the 21 migration into the Biscayne Aquifer but not into the 22 Floridan Aquifer.
23 MS. GRANGE: You know I would have to go 24 back and look at what that document specifically 25 references. I know that the EA for the EPU describes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
431 1 groundwater interchange, as well as the license 2 renewal environmental impact statement, both of which 3 were incorporated by reference. So, those discuss the 4 different aquifers and their connections to the 5 cooling canal system or --
6 MR. FORD: Biscayne Aquifer. It discusses 7 the, I guess in this case, the lack of communication 8 between the Floridan Aquifer, which is the underlying 9 aquifer and the Biscayne Aquifer. So, it describes 10 the confining units. It describes the water quality 11 in the two aquifers.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Because there is a 13 confining layer between the two, therefore, there 14 would be no communication between the CCS and the 15 Biscayne Aquifer.
16 MR. FORD: Anytime under --
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Is that what you are 18 saying? I just want to make sure what you are saying, 19 sir.
20 MR. FORD: Yes. It is more than 800 feet 21 of sediment. It is low permeability that doesn't 22 allow vertical flow between the two units.
23 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I think you meant 24 the Floridan Aquifer.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
432 1 MR. HARRIS: You said Biscayne Aquifer.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, I'm sorry. Well, 3 thank you for correcting me. I'm trying to make sure 4 I understand what you are saying.
5 Let me ask you a question, okay? And then 6 don't anticipate what I am going to say. Let me see 7 if I can get it right.
8 You are saying that there is a confining 9 layer that serves to prevent water from the CCS that 10 could migrate down, even if it could interchange with 11 this upper aquifer. The lower one, it couldn't get to 12 because of this confining layer. Is that a fair 13 statement?
14 MR. FORD: No, sir. What --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: No, that is not what you 16 are saying.
17 MR. FORD: What I am saying is that water 18 from -- I will describe it. Water from the CCS could 19 flow into the Biscayne Aquifer.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct.
21 MR. FORD: And but water from the Biscayne 22 Aquifer is not flowing into the underlying Floridan 23 Aquifer --
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
25 MR. FORD: -- because of the confining NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
433 1 unit between those two aquifers.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, well, I think 3 we are saying just about the same thing but I will 4 accept your correction. Okay?
5 I will let you answer in just a second.
6 Okay and you are saying that this 7 addressed in the environmental reports for the COL.
8 Is that correct, sir?
9 MR. FORD: What I am saying is that this 10 confining layer and the idea that these two aquifers 11 are not in hydrologic interconnection, that water 12 can't flow between them --
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
14 MR. FORD: -- is described in these other 15 documents, yes.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: And these other documents 17 --
19 CHAIR GIBSON: -- is COL environmental 20 reports.
21 MR. FORD: Yes.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Is that correct?
23 MR. FORD: Yes.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay. Now, you had 25 something you wanted to say, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
434 1 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes. I agree with 2 everything Bill is saying. In addition, too, that 3 there is an upward hydraulic gradient from the 4 Floridan to the Biscayne. The Floridan is under 5 pressure. Therefore, you have flow from the Floridan 6 into the Biscayne and not vice-versa.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
8 MR. BOLLETER: Well, and also just adding 9 on, furthermore, there is water quality data from the 10 Floridan Aquifer that it is not -- I mean it is 11 brackish water. It is low salinity.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct. Well, I just 13 wanted to make sure I understand what the source of 14 the information was, that's all. But thank you.
15 MR. FORD: And I have one correction.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
17 MR. FORD: Well, based on my 18 interpretation that if they were connected, the heads 19 might drive the Floridan water upward into the 20 Biscayne but they are not hydrologically connected.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, fair enough.
22 Go ahead. Did you want to ask him a 23 question? Go ahead.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just to keep this 25 confusion going, at least the confusion in my mind.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
435 1 So, now we have got communication between the canal 2 system and the Biscayne Aquifer. Is that what I 3 heard?
4 MR. FORD: Yes, they are in hydrologic 5 communication.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, so if there is a 7 potential pathway for salt migration from the canal 8 into the Biscayne Aquifer, and maybe that is not what 9 you are saying but there is a hydrologic communication 10 and earlier in today's testimony I heard that the 11 Biscayne Aquifer is referred to as a groundwater 12 resource, now I am back to asking if the impact of the 13 canal, the higher salinity in the canal was looked at 14 by the staff and its impact on that groundwater 15 resource. And if so, where?
16 MR. FORD: Well, you know in the earlier 17 documents you have already referenced, the power 18 uprate in the COL, that the groundwater in the 19 Biscayne Aquifer at the site is about a 140-foot thick 20 aquifer, that most all of it is salt water. There is 21 a little bit of brackish water near the surface. And 22 that regionally, the Biscayne Aquifer is an aquifer, 23 a good water producer. But in this area and in the 24 area of the CCS, it is all salt water.
25 So, I'm going to lose my train of thought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
436 1 there. So, you could see that yes, salt is moving 2 into the CCS and you can mix -- and basically no 3 freshwater supplies are immediately in danger beneath 4 it.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, is that another way 6 the salt water that has migrated at least downward and 7 possibly somewhat laterally you are saying can't move 8 far enough that would impact any freshwater?
9 MR. FORD: We are saying that, as we have 10 said before, the salinity changes are going to be very 11 small as a result of the power uprate -- I'm sorry, 12 the ultimate heat sink. Sorry I didn't get that 13 right. And, therefore, you are not going to see a big 14 change in salinities.
15 Now the changes that you see in salinities 16 are a result of the long-term operation of this 17 facility for 43 years.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, this salinity problem 19 that evidenced itself in the 2014-2015 time frame is 20 more the result of things other than the license 21 amendment request, that is, all the stuff that was 22 discussed by the FP&L?
23 We keep going around.
24 MR. FORD: And from what --
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: It seems like there were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
437 1 things going on and all we want to point to is the 2 temperature change.
3 MR. FORD: Yes, the previous EAs 4 considered -- the environmental assessments prior to 5 the ultimate heat sink considered the operation of the 6 CCS. But in my opinion, the interactions you are 7 seeing with the state and people worrying about these 8 salinity conditions, this is a result of the long-term 9 operation of the CCS and would be going on independent 10 of this power uprate decision.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: But are you suggesting 12 that it wouldn't need to be looked at as part of the 13 environmental assessment?
14 MR. FORD: Sorry, I meant the ultimate 15 heat sink power. Corrected here.
16 So, I'm sorry. Could you repeat your 17 question again?
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, and I sort of 19 interrupted you. I guess I get it. I mean I know 20 there seems to be a focus on this temperature change, 21 the tech spec limit change but yet, there was a lot of 22 environmental things going on at the same time. And 23 I guess from my perspective, I see some obligation on 24 the part of the staff, unless you can convince me 25 otherwise to look at all what is going on here. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
438 1 I'm trying to understand why the temperature change 2 plus all what is going on wasn't part of all that 3 needed to be looked at, as part of this license 4 amendment request and from a NEPA perspective.
5 MS. GRANGE: Maybe I can take a stab at 6 that question from a NEPA perspective.
7 So, because we had done previous 8 assessments that had looked at the impacts of the 9 plant operating, including groundwater impacts, when 10 we were looking at the license amendment, we were 11 looking at what would be the change between the plant 12 continuing to operate as it had been operating and the 13 NRC granting that license amendment.
14 So, if we allowed the temperature to 15 increase by that four degrees, what impacts would we 16 expect to see, given that the temperature would be of 17 short duration but there were a lot of factors that 18 were influencing the temperature to be driven higher 19 in the cooling canal system when FPL came in for the 20 amendment?
21 And so for groundwater specifically, we 22 didn't see that there were going to be any measurable 23 impacts beyond what was already occurring during the 24 operation of the plant and we didn't expect it to 25 effect the saltwater that was migrating into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
439 1 Biscayne Aquifer. We didn't expect it to affect the 2 saltwater-freshwater interface west of the plant.
3 And so because NEPA allows us to describe 4 things in a relative way in the context of an EA, we 5 didn't feel that going into a very long description 6 about all those things we had already described in 7 previous assessments would really be helpful to the 8 reader or the decision-maker because we had determined 9 that there really wouldn't be measurable impacts to 10 groundwater as a result of the license amendment 11 itself. We weren't saying that there aren't impacts 12 to groundwater as a result of continued operation, in 13 general.
14 Does that help you understand?
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm trying to 16 think it through. Are you saying that in previous 17 environmental assessments the increased salinity in 18 the canals shows up somewhere in those assessments?
19 It just seems like it has disappeared from the horizon 20 here that we had -- there was the EPU and its 21 environmental assessment. There is some of the stuff 22 that Mr. Ford talked about on the COL in various 23 communications or lack of communications. But I am 24 not hearing anywhere where the increased salinity 25 content due to higher elevated temperatures, albeit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
440 1 potentially mitigated at some point, but that just 2 doesn't seem to show up in any of the documents here.
3 MS. GRANGE: I believe that maybe when you 4 think about it in the context of because the 5 temperature, and I am coming back to temperature 6 again, because we believe that that would be of such 7 short duration, we don't anticipate an appreciable 8 change in salinity that would then result in 9 environmental impacts from that four degree change.
10 So, we didn't look at salinity in great detail because 11 of that.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: But you are not saying 13 that the increased salinity was part of the 14 environmental baseline that you adopted for this EA.
15 MS. GRANGE: I guess -- can you clarify 16 whether you are talking about the increased salinity 17 that would result from a four degree increase or the 18 increased salinity that was already occurring in the 19 cooling canal system?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I don't know how to 21 separate the two.
22 MS. GRANGE: Okay.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: That is a good point. I 24 think that to me they are tied together.
25 MS. GRANGE: Because we do describe the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
441 1 increase in salinity that was already happening as 2 part of the environmental baseline. We describe it in 3 the proposed action and the need for the proposed 4 action. So, we do address it there.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: I think maybe we ought to 6 take a break. Ten minutes and we will come back on 7 the record then.
8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 9 off the record at 2:54 p.m. and resumed at 3:10 p.m.)
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Please be 11 seated.
12 I believe Judge Sager has some questions.
13 JUDGE SAGER: Judge Sager has some 14 questions when he can find them.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: There you go, sir.
16 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. And Mr. Welkie, could 17 I get you to bring up INT-003 on the screen?
18 So, this is a plot of salinity. So, I 19 have some questions about this. And Mr. White, I am 20 going to wake you up because I have to ask you about 21 them, since you submitted this.
22 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, it would be 23 objectionable to have Mr. White testifying.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: I don't think you will 25 object to these questions when you hear them. Just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
442 1 keep your powder dry for a minute, okay?
2 MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE SAGER: I just wanted to ask this.
4 It is not very well defined. Where did these data 5 come from?
6 MR. WHITE: Okay, forgive me. Just give 7 me the name of that --
8 CHAIR GIBSON: It's right on the screen 9 there. Can you see it?
10 JUDGE SAGER: It says data sources FPL --
11 MR. WHITE: Oh, this is coming from DERM, 12 from the Department of Environment Regulation, 13 Miami-Dade County.
14 JUDGE SAGER: And this is salinity 15 measured somewhere. Where is it measured?
16 MR. WHITE: The data source is FPL00 --
17 see that second line, there, sir?
18 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
19 MR. WHITE: That is the -- I believe that 20 is the well number, is it not, FPL? Yes, it is FPL's 21 monitoring system.
22 All of this data is based on data provided 23 to DERM by FPL. They didn't collect any of the data.
24 It is all an analysis and in fact that whole exhibit 25 of extensive graphs and charts if all DRM data based NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
443 1 no FPL data.
2 JUDGE SAGER: Right. What I am trying to 3 establish is it is obviously salinity. It says 4 salinity in parts per thousand and it has date across 5 the bottom. It goes back until August of '73.
6 MR. WHITE: Right.
7 JUDGE SAGER: But I'm trying to establish 8 where the measurements were made. Were they in the 9 CCS? Were they in a well beneath the CCS?
10 MR. WHITE: I would defer to FPL on that, 11 sir, because their data source is FPL0001562 NPDES and 12 that data came from FPL.
13 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, can someone from FPL 14 help me out?
15 MR. SCROGGS: No.
16 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
17 MR. SCROGGS: With no more indication than 18 is on this, I can't tell you the nature, origin. I 19 would imagine, given the time frame, it is several 20 monitoring -- I would imagine the FPL nomenclature 21 might be a letter that FPL provided. That might be a 22 letter serial number that FPL provided but it is not 23 indicative of a monitoring station.
24 MR. WHITE: Sir, I would be happy to 25 contact the DERM and find out exactly where that data NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
444 1 came from.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: That will be your homework 3 for tonight, Mr. White. You can tell us first thing 4 in the morning. Okay?
5 MR. WHITE: Well, I will have to call the 6 gentleman at home.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Maybe you can. Yes, if you 8 can get a hold of him.
9 MR. WHITE: Yes, please.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, I tell you what. We 11 will table those.
12 Why don't you go ahead and start on the 13 next one, Judge Sager, and we will come back to that 14 when we have some information from Mr. White.
15 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Mr. Welkie, can we 16 see FPL-013, please? Is that 013? All right, maybe 17 I have the wrong one.
18 MR. BLAIR: That's INT-013.
19 JUDGE SAGER: Right. We want FPL. It is 20 a map of -- there it is -- groundwater.
21 S o , t h i s i s t h e 22 groundwater-saltwater-freshwater interface, I believe.
23 And so I believe this is defined -- let's see, who 24 should I be asking this question? I think it goes to, 25 since FPL's exhibit, it probably goes to Mr. Bolleter NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
445 1 or someone else. So, that looks like it is labeled at 2 the 1,000 milligrams per liter isochlor.
3 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
4 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, it says that on the 5 bottom.
6 All right, so we have been talking psu and 7 now this is milligrams per liter. Can you give me the 8 conversion factor?
9 MR. BOLLETER: Well, let me just tell you 10 the source of this information. This source comes 11 from the USGS and that is how they define the 12 saltwater intrusion line, the 1,000 per liter chloride 13 line.
14 Drinking water standard, just for 15 reference, is 250 milligrams per liter. So, again, it 16 doesn't mean right at that line it is now fresh 17 potable water that meets drinking water standards.
18 JUDGE SAGER: So, it is a slight gradient 19 but they are going -- so, this is a standard 20 definition used by the USGS as 1,000 milligrams per 21 liter.
22 MR. BOLLETER: Right. Correct and that 23 doesn't necessarily mean that is the extent of FPL 24 water. I mean that is just there is saltwater that 25 predates the cooling canal being built.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
446 1 The conversion from chloride to salinity 2 just, and again, I have to just do this in my head, 3 but again, for chloride is probably 19,800 milligrams 4 per liter and salinity at 35. So, it is kind of like 5 you can kind of sort of do the math, sort of.
6 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, I think it is about 7 1,000 is about one. Does that sound about right?
8 MR. SCROGGS: Recognize that this is 9 milligrams per liter chloride not milligrams per liter 10 of salinity.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Right. Oh, that's right.
12 Right, right.
13 MR. SCROGGS: So, what Mr. Bolleter is 14 explaining is the chloride versus salinity.
15 JUDGE SAGER: Right. Sorry. Thanks for 16 pointing that out. I was thinking salinity and that 17 is not the totality of it the salt.
18 Okay. But I guess one of things that I --
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Just a minute. Is that 20 1,000 milligrams per liter?
21 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Of chloride.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Chloride.
25 JUDGE SAGER: Remember salt has sodium, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
447 1 chlorine, and a number of other small --
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, good. I just wanted 3 to be sure. Thank you.
4 MR. ANDERSEN: Just for a real rule of 5 thumb, I normally think of if you have 1,000 6 milligrams per liter, I normally say that that is 2P 7 issue in terms of the TDS. Just divide by 1,000 8 multiply by 2.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, the back of the 10 envelope.
11 MR. ANDERSEN: It is not exact but that is 12 the back of the envelope.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, fair enough.
14 JUDGE SAGER: I was just trying to get an 15 idea of how salty that really is. And as you stated, 16 this is not a sharp interface, it is a gradient of 17 some width.
18 MR. BOLLETER: Typically that is the case 19 but we do see between, say there is overlying 20 freshwater lens or a much fresher lens over top of the 21 salt, there is a very distinct gradient. It is not a 22 gradual gradient. It is very distinct.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you. And I was 24 looking for a trend here. Do you see any trend for 25 the salinity interface on this map?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
448 1 MR. BOLLETER: No, it just kind of goes 2 back and forth.
3 JUDGE SAGER: So, it is affected by 4 yearly, annual changes in rainfall and things like 5 that?
6 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
7 JUDGE SAGER: How much pumping, how much 8 draw-down, a number of factors.
9 And the earliest one here is at what date?
10 CHAIR GIBSON: I think Mr. Scroggs wanted 11 to add something.
12 MR. SCROGGS: I would just say that it 13 includes manmade factors such as water control 14 decisions that were made in the '50s is quite 15 different than how water is managed today in surface 16 canals, structures, as well as weather.
17 JUDGE SAGER: In fact, I think I see on 18 here that there is a light blue line for 1951 and it 19 kind of runs through the middle of that pack. So, 20 that would be well before there was any CCS or even a 21 Turkey Point plant.
22 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. I think that is all 24 I wanted to ask about that.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, good.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
449 1 Mr. Ford, on answer 18, page 24 of your 2 written testimony, you state that the 3 freshwater-saltwater interface is located 4 approximately six to eight miles west of Turkey Point.
5 I was unable to find any technical 6 analysis in the EA or in the testimony of any NRC 7 staff witnesses on that as to why the 8 freshwater-saltwater interface is six to eight miles 9 west of Turkey Point. Did I miss anything?
10 MR. FORD: No, it is in the previous 11 documents that I talked about earlier, which is the 12 power uprate EA and the environmental reports from 13 2009 and '13 and the COL --
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
15 MR. FORD: -- environmental report.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. Just bear with 17 me a second.
18 Are you familiar with FPL-037, which was 19 the administrative order from the State of Florida 20 that was, I believe, the last document admitted in 21 this case?
22 MR. FORD: Yes, sir, I am.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Could we get that, Mr.
24 Welkie?
25 If we could turn to page 13, paragraph 41.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
450 1 It states the saline -- I'm sorry -- paragraph 42.
2 The saline water interface is generally where 3 groundwater with greater than 1,000 milligrams per 4 liter total dissolved solids meets groundwater with 5 less than 10,000 milligrams per liter total dissolved 6 solids. Is that right? Do you see that? Paragraph 7 42.
8 MR. FORD: Yes, so this is how they have 9 defined it in this document. I can't -- you know 10 10,000 milligrams per liter. When I defined saline 11 water in my testimony, I cited the test definition of 12 salt water and brackish water. There, I used saline 13 water would be 19,000 parts per thousand -- I mean 19 14 parts per though, 19,000 parts per million or 15 milligrams per liter.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you speak into the 17 microphone?
18 MR. FORD: Sorry. So, in my testimony, I 19 defined salt water as 19,000 parts per thousand 20 chlorine and that is based on state Florida 21 definitions of saltwater.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, the 23 freshwater-saltwater interface, six to eight miles 24 west of Turkey Point, to which you referred in your 25 testimony, is that the same saline water interface NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
451 1 that is referred to here in paragraph 42 or are we 2 talking about two separate things? That is what I'm 3 trying to understand, Mr. Ford.
4 MR. FORD: So, I'm not sure I can answer 5 that question, Your Honor.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, that's okay. If you 7 don't know, it's all right.
8 Okay, on answer 30 on page 28 of your 9 written testimony, you testified that salinity in the 10 Biscayne aquifer, underneath the cooling canal system 11 has increased in that water with higher salt content 12 has moved from the cooling canal system into the 13 Biscayne Aquifer.
14 I searched the EA for some technical 15 analysis supporting your opinion that salinity in the 16 Biscayne Aquifer underneath the cooling canal system 17 is increased in that water with higher salt content is 18 moved there into the Biscayne Aquifer but I could not 19 find anything.
20 Is there anything in the EA that you can 21 refer to me in that regard?
22 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor, this would be 23 another description that was incorporated by reference 24 and was described in previous NRC documents.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: And this would be in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
452 1 EPU EA and in the environmental reports for the COL.
2 Is that right?
3 MS. GRANGE: The EPU EA and the NRC 4 staff's environmental impact statement for the license 5 renewal were the documents, two of the documents 6 incorporated by reference.
7 The COL environmental report, although it 8 was referred to, is just a reference. It wasn't 9 incorporated by reference under NEPA, to just clarify 10 what I had said earlier.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think that is the 12 first reference I have had you make to the 13 environmental impact statement for the license 14 renewal. Is that what you just said?
15 MS. GRANGE: I have mentioned that 16 earlier, Your Honor.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, I did not pick up on 18 your saying that. Okay. And when was that done?
19 MS. GRANGE: When was that environmental 20 impact statement done?
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
22 MS. GRANGE: I believe it was 2006 but I 23 can take a quick look for you and let you know what 24 year that was for sure.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, yes, please do.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
453 1 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor, it was January 2 2002.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: 2002, okay, very well.
4 Mr. White, did you have something you 5 needed to say, sir?
6 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. We spoke with the 7 staff at DERM and they said that information was 8 gathered at the Uprate Monitoring Well northwest 9 corner of the CCS.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Northwest corner?
11 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, very well.
13 Thank you for that clarification, Mr. White.
14 Just one second, please.
15 All right, we almost had a coup there, I 16 see. I don't give over my presiding officer 17 responsibilities that easily, Judge Kennedy.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: I moved quickly.
19 (Laughter.)
20 CHAIR GIBSON: All right. Okay, I have 21 got some questions, I think, for FPL.
22 At page -- answer 32 on page 20 of your 23 testimony, you opine that saltwater interface at the 24 base of the Biscayne Aquifer is approximately six to 25 eight miles inland. Is that right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
454 1 If you didn't let us know what it should 2 be. It's okay.
3 MR. BOLLETER: Well, whatever the USGS 4 defines. I mean some of these different numbers that 5 are being thrown out, like the 10,000 milliliter per 6 liter of chloride has nothing to do with the saltwater 7 intrusion line. That typically is not used. That is 8 really for a totally different purpose because it 9 defines Class 2 and Class 3 groundwater.
10 So, if the total dissolved solids, which 11 means it tends to be more salty is higher than 10,000 12 milligram per liter, it is not -- it is classified 13 differently. The USGS does not use that at all. I 14 mean that is much higher than the 1,000 milligram per 15 liter chloride line. So the USGS, and I don't know 16 why they ever decided to use 1,000 milligram per liter 17 chloride line but that is what they used to define 18 salt water intrusion. So, basically, whatever that 19 distance is from the -- whether you take it from the 20 western edge of the cooling canal or you take it from 21 the coast, until you get inland, until you get to the 22 USGS line, that is the distance inland of the 23 saltwater intrusion line, as defined by the USGS.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
25 MR. BOLLETER: And is at the base of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
455 1 aquifer. You do have a shallower lens, fresh lens, 2 that overlies the more salty water.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Scroggs, you 4 were grabbing the microphone like you needed to say 5 something. It's just fine. Go ahead.
6 MR. SCROGGS: I just wanted to let -- in 7 direct response to your question, yes, you will see 8 that we reference FPL-013 immediately followed by a 9 description of the USGS line six to eight miles 10 inland. So, yes, that is what we are talking about.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you for that 12 clarification.
13 Maybe if we got that -- that is FPL-013, 14 is that right? Maybe if we got that up, Mr. Welkie.
15 This is what you were referring to earlier. This is 16 the same diagram, isn't it? Okay.
17 Okay. Now, was this done in 2008, 18 FPL-013?
19 MR. SCROGGS: It says it is excerpt from 20 our 2012 monitoring report.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
22 MR. SCROGGS: So this figure --
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Is 1951 through, is that 24 2008?
25 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, correct, 2008.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
456 1 CHAIR GIBSON: So the data, basically, you 2 may have done it in 2012 but the data would have been 3 through 2008. Has there been any update of this since 4 2008, that you are aware of? Not necessarily this 5 particular diagram but I mean in terms of the 6 saltwater-freshwater interface?
7 MR. BOLLETER: Not that I have seen.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
9 MR. BOLLETER: It could be the USGS 10 routinely goes out but, as you can see, between the 11 time intervals, there is a fair amount of time.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
13 MR. BOLLETER: But they, I am sure, go out 14 once a year, other different wells, and take chloride 15 levels.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay but you haven't seen 17 any update from them since then.
18 MR. BOLLETER: I have not looked, yes.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: This is the most recent 20 data you guys have anyway.
21 MR. BOLLETER: That we have looked at, 22 correct, that we have used.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Do you 24 have an opinion as to whether or not it would have 25 moved inland or not since 2008 or do you think it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
457 1 probably somewhere in the same range that it was in 2 2008?
3 MR. BOLLETER: I would suspect it is 4 somewhere in the same range.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
6 MR. BOLLETER: But we do see variations, 7 based on drought and other conditions. But the 8 monitoring data that we have for stations that are 9 further to the east, plus those that are close to the 10 edge here, we don't see a lot of change. You know 11 specific conductance or salinity or chloride levels, 12 a few wells, we will see a little bit of change.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well.
14 Okay, returning to staff. In answer 63 on 15 page 47 of your written testimony, you state that for 16 the cooling canal system to impact the 17 saltwater-freshwater interface, higher salinity 18 groundwater would have to move six miles west. Did I 19 read that correctly?
20 MR. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: So, is it your testimony 22 that the cooling canal system would have no 23 significant impact on the saltwater-freshwater 24 interface due to the distance of the cooling canal 25 system from that interface?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
458 1 MR. FORD: Well, the answer in the short 2 is yes, higher saline groundwater, groundwater of 3 higher concentrations in salt or salinity, would have 4 to move six to eight miles west before the freshwater 5 interface would start to feel it. And that then might 6 cause it to move farther west, the freshwater 7 interface. But we are not expecting significant 8 salinity changes from the decision that we made. So, 9 we don't expect the changes from 100 to 104 degrees to 10 basically change the salinities that are going on in 11 the CCS.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: If we could return to 13 FPL-037. We talked about 42. Could we go to 14 paragraph 46? Okay.
15 Now, read along with me, here. It says 16 the hypersaline plume extends two or three miles west 17 of the CCS and continues to move westward. It is 18 pushing the saline water interface, which is now four 19 or five miles west of the CCS further west. The 20 saline water interface is moving westward at the rate 21 of 400 to 600 feet per year. Is the state wrong in 22 paragraph 46?
23 MR. FORD: I can't confirm that.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Well --
25 MS. GRANGE: May I add a statement?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
459 1 CHAIR GIBSON: In a minute. Why do you 2 say you can't? Do you have no opinion one way or 3 another, sir?
4 MR. FORD: Just from looking at the power 5 uprate monitoring reports, I don't see a big increase 6 in salinity out that far but I don't know where this 7 information -- what they relied for this statement.
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Yes, Ms. Grange?
9 MS. GRANGE: I was going to add that this 10 paragraph should be seen in the context of continued 11 operation of Turkey Point. And so --
12 CHAIR GIBSON: In the context of what 13 operation?
14 MS. GRANGE: Continued operation --
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Continued operation.
16 MS. GRANGE: -- rather than just the 17 license amendment at hand. So, we don't expect that 18 the license amendment that we approved would change 19 this statement. We don't think that it would create 20 a higher salinity that would then push water into the 21 already saline aquifer that would then extend the 22 plume out any farther than it is already extended and 23 that, in turn, that that would not impact the 24 freshwater-saltwater interface that is six to eight 25 miles west.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
460 1 JUDGE SAGER: Pardon me. Let me butt in.
2 So, this will go back to -- we will forget 3 about that graph that I was looking at because you 4 mentioned within the operating conditions as they 5 existed prior to the uprate. And so I think I have 6 seen it mentioned elsewhere in the testimony. I don't 7 have the page numbers but the operating conditions of 8 the CCS has been around 60 parts per thousand plus or 9 minus. Is that correct in recent years?
10 I think that graph would show it would be 11 about the last decade or so.
12 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I think it is from 13 about 2003 until about 2014. That 60 was what the 14 equilibrium appeared to be.
15 JUDGE SAGER: And so the question I was 16 going to ask to FPL was that graph starts off at 17 around below 40 parts per thousand, which would have 18 been near normal salinity and seems to slowly climb 19 up. Is that a fair description of what has happened 20 over the last four years?
21 MR. SCROGGS: I'd say no.
22 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
23 MR. SCROGGS: Over the last four years, 24 there has been a notable increase at the end of 2013.
25 JUDGE SAGER: All right, I said 40.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
461 1 Sorry.
2 MR. SCROGGS: I'm sorry.
3 JUDGE SAGER: So, when it first started, 4 it was not that much over normal oceanic salinity. Is 5 that correct?
6 MR. SCROGGS: That is correct.
7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. And for some reason, 8 it has climbed up to where it is 60 but that is not a 9 cause for alarm?
10 MR. SCROGGS: Well, if we look at time 11 series over the last 40 years of salinity behavior, 12 you see there are periods where, after multiple dry 13 years, there will an inordinate increase in the 14 average annual salinity level and then it will level 15 back out again.
16 So, we have looked at different things, 17 different metrics to tell us what is going on in the 18 system, including heat exchange or efficiency and 19 other things. When we see those, we go back and we 20 look at the situation and we see, as we have seen in 21 the time period from the early 2000s to approximately 22 2013, a fairly flat annual average salinity response.
23 So yes, in the big picture, we have seen 24 an escalation since day one but are we seeing a new 25 equilibrium that is still able to be maintained or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
462 1 managed or something more dynamic? And up to 2013, it 2 was the former. I would say there was a significant 3 departure in late 2013-2014 in salinity behavior.
4 JUDGE SAGER: Thank you. That is what I 5 would have seen on that graph as well.
6 Do you have an explanation for why it has 7 climbed up over all those years? Yes, it goes up and 8 down. There is a lot of variability for various 9 factors. Does FPL have a rationale for why it has 10 climbed up?
11 MR. SCROGGS: I think Mr. Andersen has 12 talked about kind of the effect of the deficit, the 13 rainfall deficit over time. And then in my portion of 14 testimony, page 15, I go into a specific discussion of 15 the multiple factors affecting the recent excursion in 16 salinity. But Pete, do you want to --
17 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I think your question 18 is more of a very long term, over 40 years, why do you 19 see that continued rise. Or I guess the way I would 20 characterize it more from inception, that went from 21 about 40 to some equilibrium of around 60, where it 22 remained for about ten years or so. I think that rise 23 from 40 to 60 is a direct result of that difference 24 between evaporation and precipitation, in that it 25 essentially generates salt or leaves behind salt as a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
463 1 result of evaporation. And so there is that slow 2 buildup that takes place.
3 If that deficit is erased, then that 4 salinity goes down. But if it goes in the other 5 direction, then, certainly, it goes up, as I think we 6 have seen in the past couple of years, not just 7 because of precipitation but other factors as well.
8 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, thanks. And so let me 9 then take that over to the staff. Maybe, Ms. Grange, 10 let me ask you.
11 So, I think what you have been saying is 12 that there is this plateau where it has been operating 13 for some time and within that historical context, you 14 didn't see any cause that salinity was going to be a 15 big issue.
16 MS. GRANGE: Correct. We didn't see that 17 the license amendment itself would create any more --
18 would not further exacerbate the salinity conditions.
19 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, could we get INT-004, 21 Mr. Welkie?
22 I don't know who, maybe FPL could help us 23 with this one. This is an administrative order from 24 the State of Florida's Department of Environmental 25 Protection to the Turkey Point facility. Is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
464 1 correct?
2 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct. It was 3 issued in December 2014 but was subsequently 4 challenged and has been the subject of an 5 administrative law hearing.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: And has that administrative 7 law hearing been resolved?
8 MR. SCROGGS: It has been completed but 9 the recommended order has not been issued.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well.
11 Recognizing that you all may be contesting 12 this matter and if you need to say we are contesting 13 that matter and I can't speak to that, that is okay.
14 I just want to know if you can clarify a couple of the 15 facts that are alleged to be -- things that are 16 alleged to be facts here.
17 On page 2, paragraph 10, it says there is 18 a freshwater lens northwest and west of the cooling 19 canal system, which extends from the surface to 20 approximately 15 to 20 feet below the surface near the 21 cooling canal system and increases in thickness with 22 distance. Is that an accurate description of that 23 freshwater lens?
24 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you. And is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
465 1 this freshwater lens distinct from the 2 saltwater-freshwater interface that we just discussed 3 as being depicted on the map with the saltwater 4 intrusion lens drawn that was FPL-013?
5 MR. BOLLETER: This is, yes, different.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, continuing on 7 in paragraph 10 on page 2, it states that there is a 8 deep well associated with the monitoring well cluster 9 TPGW-7 that has experienced an increasing trend in 10 salinity and specific conductants beginning in 11 September 2013.
12 Is that an accurate description of that 13 fact, alleged fact?
14 MR. BOLLETER: That is correct.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, good. Okay, thank 16 you.
17 Okay, now, could we bring up FPL-014A, Mr.
18 Welkie? And could you bring up page 1-18, which I 19 believe is page 60 of the PDF? Okay.
20 I assume you are familiar with this 21 document, Mr. Bolleter?
22 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and this is a map that 24 shows the various locations of groundwater monitoring 25 stations at or near the Turkey Point site. Correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
466 1 MR. BOLLETER: Correct.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: If we could look at cluster 3 TPGW-7, which we just, the one that was identified in 4 that order that is being contested.
5 MR. BOLLETER: Right.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: It is west of the estimated 7 extent of saltwater intrusion. Is that correct?
8 MR. BOLLETER: Based on the 2008 line or 9 whatever that the USGS had.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And you don't think 11 that 2008 line has changed much?
12 MR. BOLLETER: I don't think it has 13 changed much. I mean much is all relative but it has 14 changed.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: The freshwater lens would 16 still be about where it is relative to that line at 17 this point in time, in your opinion. Is that correct?
18 MR. BOLLETER: In that general area, 19 correct.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well. Thank 21 you.
22 MR. BOLLETER: I will probably just add 23 on, you may end up asking the question but at TPGW-7, 24 we have seen an increase in the deep well and specific 25 conductance in salinity. It is still low. I'm before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
467 1 it was fresh. It is still fairly low but we have seen 2 an increasing trend. That tritium data that we have 3 for that well does not show any commensurate increase 4 in tritium. So, that change, we can't necessarily 5 readily attribute to cooling canal.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, thank you.
7 Okay, that, hopefully, will help me ask 8 these questions of the staff because I needed to get 9 there. So, thank you.
10 If we could turn to the environmental 11 assessment at page 44466, it states that the NRC 12 previously assessed the environmental impacts of 13 continued of operations of Turkey Point in NUREG-1437, 14 Supplement 5 and the EA and final FONSI for the EPU 15 and implementation of the proposed license amendments 16 would not result in any impacts beyond those already 17 characterized in these documents.
18 Did I read that correctly?
19 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: And that NUREG-1437 was 21 published in January 2002. Is that correct?
22 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: And this is the 24 environmental impact statement for the license renewal 25 to which you referred just a little while ago. Is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
468 1 that correct?
2 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And the final 4 finding of no significant impact for the EPU was 5 completed in March of 2012. Is that correct?
6 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Recognizing that INT is 8 being contested by Florida Power and Light but 9 focusing only on the alleged facts that we have 10 essentially got agreement, those were not incorrect 11 statements, that administrative order, which is 12 INT-004, states at page 2, page 10 that the monitoring 13 well cluster TPGW-7 has experienced an increasing 14 trend in salinity and specific conductants beginning 15 in September 2013.
16 Now, what this suggests to me is that the 17 staff review did not include consideration of 18 monitoring well cluster TPGW-7 or of any other well 19 readings in preparing the environmental assessment.
20 You would not disagree with me about that, would you?
21 MS. GRANGE: Well, the statements that you 22 just read are indicative of the fact that the staff 23 didn't find that impacts that would result from the 24 license amendment would be significantly different 25 than those that were already characterized by the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
469 1 previous assessments.
2 So, the descriptions of the kinds of 3 impacts and the magnitudes of impacts that would occur 4 to groundwater in the license renewal environmental 5 impact statement, for instance, are not going to be 6 significantly different than what we would find 7 occurring if the plant continues to operate under the 8 license amendment conditions.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: It sounds to me like what 10 you are saying is that you considered them and 11 dismissed them as insignificant because they had 12 previously been characterized and nothing had changed 13 since the previous reports. Is that a fair statement?
14 MS. GRANGE: Yes, that would be correct.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, I searched through the 16 EA for any discussion of monitoring well readings that 17 noted the increased trend in salinity but I came up 18 empty. Did I miss anything there?
19 MS. GRANGE: No, Your Honor, the EA 20 doesn't go into detail on that.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And the only place 22 that the saltwater-freshwater interface itself is 23 referenced is in this 2002 EIS. Is that correct? It 24 is not referenced in any of these other documents. Is 25 that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
470 1 MS. GRANGE: I believe it is also in the 2 2012 EPU EA.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
4 MS. GRANGE: But you are correct that it 5 is not discussed in the 2014 EA and that was related 6 to the fact that the staff found that because 7 groundwater was not going to be affecting the 8 saltwater-freshwater interface as a result of the 9 proposed amendment, those were details that we decided 10 didn't need to be described in detail in this 11 assessment.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, I also searched the EA 13 for any mention of the impact of the temperature 14 increase on the freshwater lens located northwest of 15 the cooling canal system but I struck out there. Is 16 there any discussion of it that I missed?
17 MS. GRANGE: You didn't miss anything and 18 for the same reasons as I previously described.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Again, sticking with the 20 administrative order INT-004, if we could turn to 21 that, Mr. Welkie. Page 2, paragraph 11 says the 22 freshwater lens in the Southeast Miami-Dade County is 23 an important natural resource that supports critical 24 marsh wetland communities and is utilized by numerous 25 existing legal water uses, including irrigation, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
471 1 domestic self-supply, and public water supply.
2 You don't dispute this characterization of 3 that freshwater lens, do you?
4 MS. GRANGE: No, sir.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
6 Okay, I think I would like to take a 7 ten-minute recess, at this point, and we will come 8 back on the record.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 10 off the record at 3:55 p.m. and resumed at 4:15 p.m.)
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Please be seated. We're 12 back on the record.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you so much.
14 Let's start with another question for the 15 staff and it is aquifer withdrawals. Maybe we could 16 put -- I guess in discussing cumulative impacts of the 17 aquifer withdrawals, the EA states on 44468, so three 18 fours six eight of the EA. That is one of our 19 favorite exhibits there, Andy.
20 And I am quoting. Because the CCS is a 21 manmade closed-cycle cooling system, aquifer 22 withdrawals are not likely to have significant effect 23 on surface water resources.
24 And I think you are going to tell me we 25 have had the answer to this but I am just curious what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
472 1 the basis for the statement is. So, because the CCS 2 is a manmade closed-cycle cooling system, aquifer 3 withdrawals are not likely to have a significant 4 effect on surface water resources.
5 MS. GRANGE: So, I can answer that. This 6 is Briana Grange. So that goes back to our discussion 7 earlier today about the fact that the cooling canal 8 system is a closed-cycle system. So, it doesn't have 9 any cooling water or rather, it doesn't have any 10 connections to surface waters. And so, -- did you 11 need to ask me --
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, no, go ahead. I'm 13 sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.
14 MS. GRANGE: And so aquifer withdrawals 15 would not enter the cooling canal system and then flow 16 into other surface water resources or something like 17 that would be an example of if there were connections 18 the kind of impact we might expect.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: So said another way, can 20 I infer from that that there is no communication 21 between the aquifers and surface water resources?
22 MS. GRANGE: No, I don't think you can 23 conclude that. There are connections between the 24 aquifers and surface water resources. There is not a 25 direct connection between the cooling canal system and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
473 1 other surface waters.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, aquifer withdrawals 3 are certainly wrapped into this license amendment 4 request, I mean whether they are mitigative measures.
5 Certainly, the staff looked at various aquifer 6 withdrawals from the Biscayne Aquifer and from the 7 Upper Floridan Aquifer. Did you explore any potential 8 effect on the surface water resources because of those 9 withdrawals?
10 MS. GRANGE: For the withdrawals 11 themselves, we relied on the state, which as part of 12 the authorization process, the state has to ensure 13 that there aren't impacts to fish and wildlife 14 resources or other surface water resources in their 15 authorization. So, that is what we relied on in 16 stating that there wouldn't be impacts from 17 withdrawals specifically to other surface water 18 resources.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, you relied on the 20 State of Florida and their assessment of this issue.
21 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. What about the 23 aquifers, themselves? And again, this may be another 24 question that was asked earlier this morning. Was the 25 impact on the aquifers themselves due to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
474 1 withdrawals assessed?
2 MS. GRANGE: That would be another impact 3 that we would have relied on the State for, because 4 they are the ones that would authorize those 5 withdrawals. And so we assumed that they would have 6 determined the amount of water that could be withdrawn 7 without impacts like long-term degradation to the 8 aquifers.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, so the significant 10 effect -- not likely to have significant effect both 11 on the aquifers and surface water resources relies on 12 State actions or assessments.
13 MS. GRANGE: Correct. Right and that is 14 also related to the longer term mitigative actions 15 that FPL and the State have been pursuing under the 16 conditions of certification for the operate project.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
18 I'm going to address a question to FP&L.
19 It just struck me on page 63 and 64, maybe we could 20 put up the FP&L testimony, FPL-001, I guess. And it 21 is the response to question 106, which is a pretty 22 lengthy response.
23 And as I see it, FP&L identifies a number 24 of points that they, personally, regard as having been 25 considered in the EA; however, at least in reading it, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
475 1 I see no mention of any water withdrawals from any of 2 the aquifers in this list. Furthermore, there doesn't 3 appear to be any mention of any analysis of 4 groundwater impacts due to aquifer withdrawals.
5 I guess I'm not sure the value in this 6 question but I am just curious if FP&L has a view as 7 to why this is still a good environmental assessment 8 without those impacts being assessed.
9 MR. SCROGGS: Well, I think, in general, 10 I would say that we are recognizing the short duration 11 of the time periods that this elevated ultimate heat 12 sink temperature would be experienced and the 13 potential frequency, meaning multiple years between 14 periods when you might see this, we felt that the 15 incremental effect is not expected to require the 16 groundwater resources and such. Those are being 17 required for other purposes, salinity management, 18 primarily.
19 So in that same vein, as the staff has 20 explained, that is essentially how we were looking at 21 it.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: So you look at it as well 23 that the salinity problem is separable from this 24 temperature increase for the license amendment.
25 MR. SCROGGS: Absolutely.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
476 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you. I'm 2 good.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: I think this is probably 4 for Florida Power and Light. If you can't recite this 5 off the top of your head, this is not a test, so you 6 can get it together tonight, if you need to. I'm just 7 curious because I was unable to put this together 8 myself.
9 We were wondering if you could describe 10 which sources Florida Power and Light was authorized 11 to withdraw from, how much water it was authorized to 12 withdraw, and when those authorizations were given.
13 Would that be possible?
14 If you know it off the top of your head, 15 that is great.
16 MR. SCROGGS: We can certainly take a stab 17 at it.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Perfect. Why don't you do 19 that? And then if there is something you misspoke on, 20 you can clear it up tomorrow morning. Okay?
21 MR. SCROGGS: Okay. When we looked at 22 opportunities for resource water to address salinity 23 issues in the cooling canal system in 2014, we already 24 had existent on-site three Upper Floridan Aquifer 25 wells that were providing up to 14 million gallons per NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
477 1 day of service to Unit 5 cooling tower. Unit 5 did 2 not require that full amount. So, we were able to 3 divert three to four million gallons per day through 4 a chiller, pass that water into the ICW inlet for 5 Units 3 and 4 to provide a little extra cooling. And 6 in that way, Upper Floridan water on the order of 7 three to four millions gallons per day was put into 8 the system based on existing wells.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: And this was, you said, in 10 2014?
11 MR. SCROGGS: 2014, yes, sir.
12 So beyond that, we looked at opportunities 13 to make use of excess surface waters in regional 14 canals. The L31 E system flows approximate to the 15 cooling canal system and then discharges through three 16 gates north of FPL. Those gates are managed to retain 17 a certain amount of water in the water basin to the 18 west of these gates. And then when tidal conditions 19 and basin level conditions are appropriate, water is 20 released out to Biscayne Bay.
21 The Water Management District manages this 22 release and is required to meet a certain allocation 23 for the Biscayne Bay to obtain a certain amount of 24 freshwater. We allowed to be allowed to pump from 25 that canal system into a feeder canal that runs along NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
478 1 the western periphery of the cooling canal system and 2 then from that canal into the cooling canal system, 3 volumes of water that were excess or beyond what was 4 necessary for the Biscayne Bay to meet its allocation.
5 So, the Water Management District, in 6 2014, granted us an emergency order to obtain those 7 volumes and they would coordinate with us daily to 8 predict or grant authorization each day of how much 9 water we could move from those northern canals down 10 into the canal system. That provided us, from the 11 period of late July to -- well actually it was in 12 September and October of 2014, a period of about 21 13 days, on average, 20 million gallons per day.
14 It was determined that the wet season 15 would end in mid- to late October. So, they had us, 16 by their decree, cease pumping in October of 2014.
17 We asked, at that point in time, had 18 already applied for six Upper Floridan Aquifer wells 19 to be dedicated to provide 14 million gallons per day 20 into the cooling canal system to make up the rainfall 21 deficit that we have identified. That modification 22 request went to the State and was being processed. It 23 was one of the orders that was granted in December of 24 2014 but challenged thereafter and we have not acted 25 on that. That also went through an administrative law NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
479 1 proceeding and we are awaiting the recommended order 2 from that activity. So, we have never done the Upper 3 Floridan wells from that activity.
4 In the spring of 2015, we sought, once 5 again, to have the Water Management District grant us 6 access to excess L31 canal system water. So, we were 7 able to obtain an emergency order that allowed us to 8 access that, essentially, as of June 1, subject to 9 certain constraints and flows. Because of the extreme 10 drought condition in the State of Florida in that time 11 period, we did not satisfy those other flow 12 constraints until August 27th, essentially, which was 13 the first period of continuous pumping.
14 I think the volumes that were received --
15 and the wet season was determined to end November 30th 16 of 2015. So, between August 27th and November 30th, 17 2015, we were granted access to excess storm water 18 flows and, on average, I would say it was between 35 19 and 40 million gallons per day. That, coupled with 20 natural precipitation into the system that occurred 21 during that same time frame, allowed us to reduce 22 salinity from 95 parts per thousand in the July time 23 frame to today I think we are at about 36 parts per 24 thousand.
25 So, at the same time, we were doing other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
480 1 flow balancing and sediment management activities in 2 the canal system that made the radiator work better.
3 So, all those combined efforts allowed us 4 to stabilize the thermal situation in the canals, 5 improve the water quality, and allow us to operate 6 without approaching the upper heat sink limit in the 7 summer of 2015.
8 Now, that brings us up to date. Oh, go 9 ahead.
10 MR. ANDERSEN: Did that cover the marine 11 water?
12 MR. SCROGGS: Thank you for reminding me.
13 During the work for Turkey Point 6 and 7, 14 we did quite a bit of hydrogeologic definition on-site 15 under the site itself and in an area that we had 16 identified for an alternative water source radio 17 collector wells. Those test wells gave us an 18 opportunity to tap marine water, essentially, 35 parts 19 per thousand water in the Biscayne Aquifer, and we 20 consulted with the Water Management District and DEP.
21 Because it is marine water, it is not a regulated 22 water source and we were given authority or 23 essentially given a letter saying that they don't 24 regulate it. And we applied for well permits through 25 the county Department of Health, which was the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
481 1 authorization that allowed us to drill two additional 2 wells plus the test well for a combined output of 3 about 40 million gallons per day of marine water.
4 That water flowed, essentially, from the first of June 5 to the beginning of September time frame.
6 And as we have said, we started receiving 7 freshwater and L31 water through precipitation and 8 pumping and no longer needed to rely on that marine 9 water at that time. So, we have not accessed that 10 source since the September time frame.
11 So, that brings us up to present. Going 12 forward, the order that was FPL-037, is the order that 13 grants us an L31 permit for 2016. And we have entered 14 into a consent agreement with Miami-Dade County. That 15 now looks at other wells, wells that would not be used 16 for cooling canal system makeup but would be used to 17 extract some of the hypersaline groundwater from the 18 Biscayne Aquifer and dispose of that water.
19 So, we have moved from managing the 20 cooling canal system as a physical system to now 21 turning to start to address the hypersalinity in the 22 groundwater that has emanated from the cooling canal 23 system.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: That was great. Thank you.
25 That really helps understand the picture. I just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
482 1 didn't have it. Do you have some follow-up question, 2 Judge Sager?
3 JUDGE SAGER: No, I think that -- so my 4 take on that, after I lost track of all the numbers, 5 correct me if I am wrong, you have got this system and 6 it takes a lot of water. And you had to get very 7 creative in going out to find sources of water to try 8 to remediate the issues that you have had.
9 MR. SCROGGS: That's correct.
10 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.
11 MR. BOLLETER: And let me just add, too, 12 as far as getting approval for those sources of water, 13 we can't impact other -- the freshwater groundwater 14 resources impact Biscayne Bay.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: Very well. Thank you.
16 I'm just going to get a little water here.
17 Just a second.
18 JUDGE SAGER: All that talk about water 19 has made you thirsty.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: That's right. I don't 21 think it is hypersaline. So, I think I'm okay.
22 I would like to talk a little bit about 23 the characterization of some of the aquifers that you 24 all made in the testimony.
25 On answer 32 on page 20, if we could get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
483 1 that, Mr. Welkie. I'm sorry, Florida -- FPL. Sorry.
2 If we could go to page 20, answer 32. There we go.
3 It actually starts on page 19 but I think what I want 4 is on page 20.
5 In that testimony, it seems to be you are 6 saying that while the Upper Floridan Aquifer is a 7 major source of potable groundwater in other parts of 8 Florida, the water withdrawn in southeastern Florida 9 is brackish. Is that correct?
10 MR. ANDERSEN: That's correct.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: And on page 48, answer 80 12 of that testimony, page 48, answer 80 -- okay, there 13 we go. You testify that the salinity of the water in 14 the relevant portion of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is 15 approximately 2.5 practical salinity units or psu. Is 16 that correct?
17 MR. ANDERSEN: That's correct.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, what is seawater?
19 What is the psu of seawater?
20 MR. ANDERSEN: About 35.
21 CHAIR GIBSON: About 35. So, what would 22 freshwater be in psu?
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Freshwater would be, 24 essentially, zero to about 0.5 psu.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: 0.5 or lower?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
484 1 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you.
3 Could we get out the State of Florida's 4 groundwater classification regulations? I don't think 5 anyone put these in. I would like to make this a 6 Board exhibit for us. I assume nobody has any 7 objection to the groundwater classification 8 regulations. We'll get copies out to everybody.
9 While they are handing those out, Mr.
10 Welkie, could you get to page 4, the PDF of Board 11 Exhibit 1?
12 Mr. Andersen, now, according to Board 13 Exhibit 1, Class G-I, groundwater is defined by the 14 State of Florida as potable water use groundwater in 15 single source aquifers which has a total dissolved 16 content of less than 3,000 milligrams per liter. How 17 many psu would that be?
18 MR. ANDERSEN: Three psu.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: So, the water that Florida 20 Power and Light is withdrawing from the Upper Floridan 21 Aquifer would be defined as Class G-I groundwater by 22 the State of Florida. Is that correct?
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, I think we are kind 24 of mixing two designations. We are calling brackish 25 and then we are calling the G designations. So, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
485 1 think we are right at that level, where you would be 2 between a G-I and a G-II.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
4 MR. ANDERSEN: Of course, the G-II 5 encompasses anything that is below 10,000.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Right.
7 MR. ANDERSEN: So, I don't think it has 8 been designated down to that where it changes to 3,000 9 it all of a sudden becomes a G-I. I think that, in 10 general, it is just understood that that is a brackish 11 water aquifer and not potable in that area.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So --
13 MR. ANDERSEN: Right. Yes, but the other 14 part is that potable water use groundwater in single 15 source aquifers which has a total dissolved solids 16 content of less than 3,000.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: So, what you are saying is 18 that yes, it does a total dissolved solids that would 19 meet that classification but it is not from a single 20 source aquifer. Is that what you are saying? It 21 distinguishes that from a Class G-I?
22 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, that, and what I said 23 earlier in that I don't think they split it down to 24 looking at it. You know one, it changes from 10,000 25 to 3,000.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
486 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, brackish could 2 be -- it could be brackish and be G-I, though, if we 3 did meet that single source aquifer, apparently.
4 According to the state at least. Is that correct?
5 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, according to this 6 designation, yes. But I don't think you would want to 7 drink water of 3,000 milligrams per liter TDS. The 8 standard is 250 chloride, which is about 500 or 0.5.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm just curious. Do you 10 have any idea what the history is behind this G-I 11 classification?
12 MR. ANDERSEN: I have been focused more on 13 the difference between G-II and G-III. So, I am not 14 really that familiar with why it is set at 3,000 or 15 that high.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay.
17 Now, where would you pinpoint the 18 saltwater-freshwater interface for the Upper Floridan 19 Aquifer in relation to Turkey Point? Do you have any 20 idea where that would be?
21 MR. ANDERSEN: I don't. I just know it is 22 further inland than where FPL is withdrawing with 23 their Unit 5 wells.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Not wanting to put words in 25 your mouth but would it be fair to say that in your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
487 1 estimation it is so far away as not to be relevant to 2 our discussion of saltwater intrusion?
3 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, I would -- yes.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: So, the sole 5 freshwater-saltwater interface that should be of 6 concern to us is in the Biscayne Aquifer. Is that 7 correct?
8 MR. ANDERSEN: Correct.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: This is for the staff. On 10 page 49, answer 69 of your written testimony, you 11 indicate there that FPL was authorized to withdraw 12 approximately 5 million gallons from the Upper 13 Floridan Aquifer. Is that correct?
14 MR. FORD: Yes.
15 CHAIR GIBSON: And you also testified 16 there that the EA discussed the possibility that the 17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection might 18 issue an administrative order requiring FPL to install 19 new wells to pump approximately 14 million gallons of 20 water a day from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Is that 21 correct?
22 MR. FORD: Yes, Your Honor.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, where does this 24 fit in with the withdrawals that you talked about 25 earlier? Can you help me pinpoint that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
488 1 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir. The approval, the 2 Water Management District approval in the 5 million 3 gallons per day I referred to as use of existing 4 Floridan Aquifer wells. It was granted approval 5 reallocating up to 5 million gallons per day for use 6 that I described. In practical terms, we used about 7 3 to 4 million gallons per day.
8 The other, we were talking about the other 9 administrative. The administrative order is a 10 Department Direction asking FPL to take action to 11 achieve certain objectives. One of the first things 12 is we would produce a salinity management plan 13 describing those activities. It, itself, doesn't 14 provide us the authorizations to put in wells. We 15 have to go out separately and that was the subject of 16 the Upper Floridan well Site Certification Mod that 17 was applied for in September of 2014, had its 18 administrative law hearing just recently and we are 19 awaiting the recommended order on that.
20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
21 MR. SCROGGS: So, that Site Certification 22 Modification would be a state-issued permit under the 23 Power Plant Siting Act to do those six Upper Floridan 24 wells providing up to 14 million gallons per day.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: So, you know I don't want NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
489 1 to -- you know I know you can never tell what a 2 regulatory agency might do but if you do get the 3 relief that you are seeking, I take it then that you 4 could be allowed to pump as much as 14 million gallons 5 a day. Is that correct?
6 MR. SCROGGS: Again, we are in an odd 7 situation a bit --
8 CHAIR GIBSON: I know.
9 MR. SCROGGS: This is the state agency 10 ordering us to take action and we are defending that 11 action.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
13 MR. SCROGGS: But the bottom line is we 14 have done the math. We have done the modeling. Other 15 agencies have looked over our shoulder and confirmed 16 the modeling.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
18 MR. SCROGGS: The 14 million gallons per 19 day is going to be a good long-term resource, allows 20 us not to use the L31 or other surface waters and make 21 up that precipitation deficit so that we can exert 22 long-term salinity management over the canal system.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, you said that 24 that is still pending; there has not been a final 25 resolution of that. Is FPL-028 not related to that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
490 1 Could you get that Mr. Welkie, FPL-028?
2 Or is this the one that is stayed, pending 3 the administrative hearing?
4 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, within our Site 5 Certification Modification request, there were several 6 things.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
8 MR. SCROGGS: The first thing was an Upper 9 Floridan well that would be dedicated to emergency use 10 for Fukushima backup water use and the formal State 11 reallocation of the existing Upper Floridan wells --
12 so, not only the Florida Water Management District but 13 the State had to confirm that -- and the other Upper 14 Floridan wells. Of those three components, only the 15 other Upper Floridan wells were eventually contested 16 by intervenors. So, the state was able to issue a 17 final order, partial, that authorized the Fukushima 18 well to be installed, although not used to provide 19 water to the cooling canal system, and for the 20 reallocation of the Turkey Point or the Upper Floridan 21 water for other use on-site.
22 So, this May 15, 2015 order was a 23 resolution or was resolving a blanket intervention, 24 narrowing that blanket intervention to just the other 25 Upper Floridan wells and allowing the other two NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
491 1 components to proceed.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: And so the final approval 3 to do this 14 million withdrawal just hasn't been 4 finalized yet and it certainly is still up to the 5 approval of the State agency.
6 MR. SCROGGS: Correct.
7 CHAIR GIBSON: But that is what you are 8 anticipating, at least at this point in time.
9 MR. SCROGGS: They have issued their 10 modification approval. It has been challenged. The 11 administrative law judge held his hearing and we are 12 awaiting that recommended order.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, thank you.
14 That is very helpful because I have to tell you, it is 15 a little hard to follow this without a program.
16 MR. SCROGGS: I sympathize.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Just one 18 clarification in the 14 million gallons a day 19 withdrawal that is pending. In your estimation, is 20 that not going to affect the quality of the Upper 21 Floridan Aquifer, if you get that approval?
22 MR. SCROGGS: Again, that was part of the 23 process by which our application required us to do 24 modeling to demonstrate that it wasn't. The Water 25 Management District participated with their modelers NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
492 1 to confirm that they agreed with that and DEP accepted 2 both of those as demonstration that we would not.
3 Now, they are monitoring conditions that 4 would have us keep an eye on that.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
6 MR. SCROGGS: But based on the analysis 7 and the information and the experience we have had 8 with the Floridan Aquifer in that area, we do not 9 expect those to affect or degrade the quality of the 10 Upper Floridan Aquifer in that area.
11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well.
12 There is a reference, there is some 13 reference there to the 250 milligrams per liter 14 chloride isochlor. I am just curious if you could 15 speak to that, sir.
16 MR. SCROGGS: In this March 2015 document?
17 If I could see that.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, in terms of what the 19 impact of this 14 million gallon withdrawal would be, 20 if any.
21 MR. SCROGGS: I would ask if I could see 22 that language and maybe between the three of us, we 23 can do it.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure, it is on answer 82 on 25 page 48. I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
493 1 MR. SCROGGS: In our testimony?
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, on the FPL testimony, 3 FPL-001, I think. Okay, testimony page 48, answer 82.
4 There you go. There you go.
5 I'm just trying to understand what the 250 6 milligram per liter chloride isochlor has to do with 7 this. That was the part that I just didn't quite get.
8 What is the significance of that number?
9 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, it is kind of more of 10 a regulatory type of thing in that we are talking 11 about whether we will cause saltwater intrusion. And 12 the thing that the Water Management District is 13 involved with or interested in is the movement of the 14 250 milligram per liter isochlor. So, what we are 15 basically saying is it is somewhat of a moot point 16 because you are already over 250, so you can't move 17 the 250.
18 It is just that simple. We are relating 19 back to the District criteria for saltwater intrusion 20 and it is less than that or it is already over that 21 amount.
22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Court reporter, did 23 you get all that, by the way? Okay. Mr. Bolleter was 24 anxious to speak and took the microphone away from Mr.
25 Andersen. So, I wanted to be sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
494 1 (Laughter.)
2 CHAIR GIBSON: I wanted to be sure that 3 you got that.
4 Okay, yes, Mr. Bolleter.
5 MR. BOLLETER: I was going to just add 6 that the 250 milligram per liter chloride line is the 7 drinking water standard and so that is why there is an 8 interest from DEP for the 250. And again, we were 9 talking earlier about USGS and 1,000.
10 CHAIR GIBSON: Right, right.
11 MR. BOLLETER: You know so we have got 12 these different numbers floating around but that is 13 where the 250 comes from.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, that is a different 15 saltwater-freshwater interface.
16 MR. BOLLETER: Yes.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: We are talking now about 18 where is the drinking water number. If it goes above 19 250, then it could not be drinkable or whatever but if 20 it is below 250, then it is. And that is the concern 21 that the State of Florida is expressing about this.
22 Is that a fair statement?
23 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and they want to be 25 sure that that is not going to be exceeded by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
495 1 withdrawing this water from the aquifer, these 14 2 million gallons. Is that a fair statement?
3 MR. ANDERSEN: Correct.
4 CHAIR GIBSON: It is really scary when I'm 5 asking questions and the technical judges don't follow 6 up. So, okay, I guess I must be doing okay.
7 Okay, now, let's assume that you do get 8 the 14 million gallons a day approval. You know to 9 us, that sounds like a lot of water to be removed. If 10 you remove it, doesn't other water have to replace it?
11 MR. SCROGGS: Well, in essence, that is 12 what the groundwater modeling that is done to support 13 the permitting analyzes. What is the effect of 14 removing that groundwater? And the answer has been, 15 there is no negative effect from doing that, that 16 amount, that volume of removal from that location.
17 MR. ANDERSEN: If I could follow up on 18 that.
19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
20 MR. ANDERSEN: You know part of, again, 21 the State regulatory process is to assess that. And 22 so we created a or actually used a Water Management 23 District model to look at the effect in the Floridan 24 Aquifer withdrawing 14 million gallons a day. And so 25 you do get this decline in water levels, mostly marked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
496 1 where you withdraw from and then less with further 2 distance away from the well. It is called a cone of 3 depression.
4 So, what that does is it lowers the water 5 levels. And the objective of the District, then, is 6 to look at how much does it lower the water levels and 7 is that lower, does that affect anybody.
8 And so we look at the extent of this cone 9 of depression. We look at who it might affect. I 10 think there were about three or four users that were 11 within a ten-mile area and we determined that it would 12 not affect their ability to produce water.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
14 JUDGE SAGER: In fact, I think that is 15 FPL-027, page 76, Mr. Welkie, if you could bring that 16 up. Correct me if I am wrong but I think this what 17 you are talking about, this modeling right here.
18 MR. ANDERSEN: That's correct, yes.
19 JUDGE SAGER: So does that actually create 20 an incline on the surface? When you are near the 21 vadose zone, you can pull down the water surface but 22 this a buried aquifer beneath a confining layer. Does 23 it actually develop this surface?
24 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, like you said, this 25 is 1,000 feet underground and so it is a confined NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
497 1 aquifer under pressure. And so what these numbers 2 represent is really a decline in water pressure.
3 (Simultaneous speaking.)
4 MR. ANDERSEN: It is a pressure that is 5 equivalent to or expressed in terms of a water level.
6 JUDGE SAGER: Right. So, if I read this 7 correctly, it looks like one of these is combined. I 8 think that is the one on the right combines the FPL 9 proposed withdrawals with other South Miami and 10 whatever FKAA is. And it shows, in effect, like 20 11 miles out of five feet of drawdown, something like 12 that. Does that sound about right?
13 MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, that is the cumulative 14 impact of all of those users, FPL, the new 15 withdrawals, as well as the existing Unit 5 16 withdrawals. And these are permitted quantities. So, 17 everyone doesn't always use their allocated amount but 18 this is what they are allowed to use.
19 JUDGE SAGER: So, it is fair to say it is 20 a fairly wide impact here.
21 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, it is a fairly wide 22 impact but it is also a fairly limited impact, in 23 terms of they are interested in feed of drawdown but 24 that may not really affect anybody.
25 CHAIR GIBSON: Got it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
498 1 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Got anything else?
3 JUDGE SAGER: I think I wrote this 4 question, so I should ask it but I don't really 5 remember it anymore.
6 (Laughter.)
7 JUDGE SAGER: This goes to Mr. Ford. I 8 think you said in the NRC-001 that you did modeling of 9 the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Is that correct?
10 MR. FORD: I didn't do modeling.
11 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, then maybe I mistook 12 it. I didn't remember it.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Did anybody do modeling for 14 the staff?
15 MR. FORD: Not that I am aware of.
16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, so you were 17 basically, whatever modeling -- did you see the 18 modeling that was done by Florida Power and Light for 19 the State?
20 MS. GRANGE: This is Briana Grange. Yes, 21 we relied on models that FPL had done, as well as 22 historical data from the site.
23 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. And these models 24 were done when?
25 MR. ANDERSEN: The models that we did were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
499 1 for the Site Certification of the mod. And so I 2 believe that was in May of 2014.
3 CHAIR GIBSON: And the -- okay. Okay.
4 And that was when you did the modeling. Were these 5 outputs we just saw on this model, were those 6 presented in May of 2014 or did those come later?
7 MR. ANDERSEN: They may have come later 8 because I think what I am citing is the date on the 9 memorandum. So, I was done with my memorandum. I was 10 done with my work at that time and I don't recall when 11 that was actually released.
12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, do you have any idea?
13 MR. SCROGGS: The modification, the 14 application to the State, including all this 15 information, was September of 2014. It preexisted 16 because we had been talking with several agencies 17 about possible alternatives.
18 CHAIR GIBSON: Sure.
19 MR. SCROGGS: So, Mr. Andersen's work 20 preceded the actual turning it in to an application 21 and submitting it the State. So, I don't know if it 22 was shared with the NRC staff prior to being part of 23 the Site Certification Modification.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you know when you all 25 received it?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
500 1 MS. GRANGE: If we are talking about the 2 models we were just looking at, I'm not sure but we 3 did not have those before we made the license 4 amendment decision.
5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Just one more 6 follow-up question.
7 We were talking about if you get the 8 approval to do the 14 million gallons per day. Will 9 the water source affect the salinity of the water in 10 the aquifer?
11 MR. ANDERSEN: You mean as far as where it 12 is coming from?
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Correct.
14 MR. ANDERSEN: Well, one of the reasons 15 why the Upper Floridan Aquifer is such a desirable 16 source is that the salinity of that aquifer is fairly 17 low, as we have talked about, the 2.5 psu. The reason 18 why that is attractive is that you are introducing a 19 low salinity water into the cooling canal system. If 20 you, like the marine water that we talked about, a psu 21 of 35, if really not that attractive to put in because 22 it doesn't offer that -- there is salt being added, 23 whereas, with the Floridan Aquifer water, there is 24 very little salt being added. So, the source does 25 greatly affect it, mainly, depending on what its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
501 1 salinity is.
2 MR. SCROGGS: And just to expand, the 3 addition of that Floridan Aquifer water at low overall 4 salinity actually reduces the amount of marine water 5 that comes in to replace it because it is a whole 6 water balance. And when that Upper Floridan Aquifer 7 water is going to be available, the head in the 8 cooling canal system is not going to draw in as much 9 Marine water as before. So, you get kind of two 10 bonuses. You are replacing the water with lower salt 11 water and you are preventing more of the 35 psu water 12 from coming in.
13 CHAIR GIBSON: Just curious. We haven't 14 talked much about algae. Is the algae better for you 15 now, since you have been making these changes?
16 MR. SCROGGS: Yes and no. In the summer 17 of 2013 and '14 we had a cyanobacteria, which is a 18 blue green algae, that was very aggressive and high 19 salinity supported blue green algae. As we have 20 reduced the salinity, we have seen a significant shift 21 in the population away from that blue green algae but 22 another algae has started growing. And the core issue 23 is there are nutrient levels in the system because of 24 all the vegetation surrounding it and that is what is 25 keeping the algae going and that is our longer term NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
502 1 challenge.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. If we could take a 3 break for about ten minutes. You all are okay going 4 to six tonight? Seeing no fundamental complaints, we 5 will go ahead and do that, then. Thank you.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7 off the record at 5:02 p.m. and resumed at 5:17 p.m.)
8 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Please be 9 seated. All right, we are back on the record.
10 I believe Judge Kennedy has some questions 11 for the staff.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: I do. Thank you.
13 These all relate to the license amendment 14 request that the staff offered up in their pre-filed 15 testimony related to ultimate heat sink temperature 16 tech spec changes.
17 Ms. Grange, you testified on page 34 of 18 your written testimony -- I guess we are going to do 19 a bunch of stuff on the staff, so INT-001 -- that in 20 the past, the staff had found that the license 21 amendment request at other facilities involving 22 increases in the ultimate heat sink technical 23 specification limit meet the NRC criteria for 24 categorical exclusion, citing the regs at 10 CFR 25 51.22. Is that correct? Is this the page, 34?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
503 1 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor, that is 2 correct.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Specifically, you 4 testified that in this case, the NRC staff used 5 categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), correct?
6 MS. GRANGE: Correct, sir.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, that exclusion 8 applies to changes to a facility component within the 9 restricted area, correct?
10 MS. GRANGE: Yes.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: And cooling canals within 12 a restricted area would be considered a facility 13 component. Is that correct?
14 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, yes.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: However, categorical 16 exclusion 10 CFR 51, identified at 51.22(c)(9) does 17 not apply if there is a significant change in the 18 types or amounts of any effluence that may be released 19 offsite. Is that correct?
20 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is heat an effluent?
22 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor, I believe 23 so.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is salt considered an 25 effluent?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
504 1 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, the exclusion would 3 not apply if there were a significant change in the 4 heat or saltiness of water that migrated offsite?
5 MS. GRANGE: Since we identified that we 6 would be doing an environmental assessment pretty 7 early on in the process, you know I don't know if that 8 would meet the criteria of a categorical exclusion or 9 not because I didn't have to ask that specific 10 question, whether it would meet that criteria at 11 (c)(9). So, I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure 12 right now without looking at the information.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess I was going 14 to follow that up with were you aware of evidence 15 showing that this cooling canal system waters have 16 migrated outside the canals but it sounds like you 17 didn't even get to that question. Well, not that 18 question but the exclusion question.
19 MS. GRANGE: For groundwater specifically, 20 no, we didn't.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Now, in support of that 22 statement, the staff has used categorical exclusions 23 to increase ultimate heat sink temperature limits for 24 other plants. You cited NRC-029, NRC-030, NRC-031, 25 and NRC-043. I think those are a number of license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
505 1 amendment request tech spec changes.
2 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
4 If we take a look at, first, at NRC-029, 5 this is a license amendment for the Hope Creek plant.
6 I don't think we have to call it up. I have just got 7 some questions about that specific license amendment.
8 This amendment allowed for continued plant operation 9 if the temperature of the ultimate heat sink exceeds 10 89 degrees, provided the ultimate heat sink 11 temperature averaged over the previous 24-hour period 12 is verified at least once per hour to be less than or 13 equal to 89 degrees and the ultimate heat sink 14 temperature does not exceed a maximum value of 91.4.
15 I am hoping that that is correct. It is 16 a lot of words. But if you want to take a look at it, 17 we can call it up here.
18 MS. GRANGE: Are you asking me if I want 19 to take a look at it?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I guess I am asking 21 you.
22 MS. GRANGE: From my recollection, yes 23 that is correct.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that is that amendment 25 request.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
506 1 So, prior to this license amendment, Hope 2 Creek's ultimate heat sink temperature was 89 degrees?
3 MS. GRANGE: I believe so.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: And Hope Creek's ultimate 5 heat sink, is that the Delaware River?
6 MS. GRANGE: The Delaware Estuary, which 7 leads to the Atlantic Ocean. So, it is basically 8 between the Delaware River and the Atlantic Ocean is 9 the estuary stock portion. It is considered the 10 Delaware Estuary.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. I guess just 12 another fact that may be relevant here. Hope Creek 13 has a cooling tower?
14 MS. GRANGE: Correct.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that water is used for 16 helping to generate power or cool the plant to 17 generate power?
18 MS. GRANGE: Right. It is a cooling tower 19 system that cools the Hope Creek plant.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, the water used for 21 Hope Creek, again, I think this ultimate heat sink 22 tech spec amendment refers to the temperatures of the 23 cooling water that is used to cool Hope Creek's safety 24 systems and not the power generation portion.
25 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
507 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, is that a once-through 2 system?
3 MS. GRANGE: No, Hope Creek is a closed 4 cycle system. It has a cooling tower.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess now I am getting 6 confused. Are you suggesting that the water that --
7 this 89 degree tech spec change relates to the basin 8 water in the cooling tower?
9 MS. GRANGE: I would need to go back and 10 review the details of that license amendment. I think 11 in the context of that license amendment, why I 12 brought that up in the testimony is to show that in 13 the past the staff has looked at small changes in 14 ultimate heat sink temperatures and determine that 15 those were categorical exclusions, in general. So 16 that it was meant to be a broader example, rather than 17 a specific one, one for one kind of example. I wasn't 18 saying that Hope Creek is the same or a similar system 19 as Turkey Point.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right and as the nuclear 21 engineer on the Board here, I guess I got curious how 22 you selected those cases. We really have pages of 23 questions here, trying to ascertain the applicability 24 or the commonality between the license amendment 25 request that you cited and the one here for Turkey NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
508 1 Point. And it just seems to me, again, I guess I am 2 getting ahead of this, but instead of reading five 3 pages worth of questions, all these questions really 4 point to, there seem to be significant differences to 5 me between all of these tech spec amendment requests, 6 other than the fact that they are minor temperature 7 changes. But some are once-through, some are direct, 8 they are closed cycle, some are not closed cycle.
9 Some have salt involved. Some don't have salt 10 involved.
11 So, maybe in a broader question -- I'm 12 trying to understand. Was the only commonality that 13 you selected these a small temperature change?
14 MS. GRANGE: That is the main commonality.
15 I mean another factor was that we wanted to cite more 16 recent examples. And so these were also some of the 17 more recent examples that we could find for this kind 18 of action.
19 So, they were really intended to highlight 20 the staff's process for determining what kind of NEPA 21 review is most appropriate for license amendments 22 involving small changes in ultimate heat sink 23 temperatures.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: If you were to pick one of 25 these license amendment requests that you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
509 1 selected, and I know you didn't take the categorical 2 exclusion for this case but I'm trying to -- I think 3 this gets, in some manner, to how you treated the 4 license amendment request in evaluating the NEPA 5 aspects.
6 Which of these license amendment requests 7 do you think is closest to Turkey Point's situation?
8 MS. GRANGE: You know I wouldn't be able 9 to answer that without looking back at those licensing 10 requests because Turkey Point is a very different 11 system, as you have indicated. So, I don't think the 12 intent was to say that the tech spec changes were 13 identical.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I think the Board was 15 trying to figure out what we needed to glean from this 16 and I mean I can read all these questions but we are 17 going to get to the same point.
18 MS. GRANGE: Sure.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm really trying to help 20 the Board understand what the takeaway is from those 21 examples. Is it merely that they are small 22 temperature increases? Is that the most common 23 factor?
24 MS. GRANGE: I think the takeaway that I 25 intended was that for license amendments in the past, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
510 1 that have been those small changes in ultimate heat 2 sink temperatures, when the staff has looked at the 3 kind of NEPA review that it needed to do, it has 4 followed its process in like two or three, as well as 5 the regulations of Part 51, and it has found that 6 those types of actions have met the categorical 7 exclusion criteria, as cited in the testimony. It 8 wasn't to say that any of the technical details were 9 identical but just more to show that the staff has a 10 process that it has consistently followed in the past 11 and that that process has led us to a categorical 12 exclusion for that kind of action.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: I hear everything you are 14 saying but I mean I see enough differences between all 15 these cases. And if I take Hope Creek and Indian 16 Point, I think they are very similar in terms of plant 17 design and they are asking for upper heat sink 18 temperatures increases for small, I think, open cycle 19 systems, as opposed to, in Turkey Point's case, where 20 they are looking to change the cooling water 21 temperature for something that is used for both power 22 generation and for cooling their safety equipment.
23 The closest example I came would have been 24 Millstone. Any thoughts?
25 MS. GRANGE: I mean I wasn't trying -- I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
511 1 mean I guess I don't -- I wouldn't be able to give you 2 one that you should be looking to for those technical 3 details because that just wasn't the intent of my 4 statements there.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, let me cut to the 6 chase, then. I mean I think we could debate back and 7 forth the merits of all of these. I mean I think the 8 one commonality is the slight temperature change. I 9 get that, that these aren't requests for large changes 10 in parameters.
11 Do any of these four plants use aquifer 12 withdrawals to replenish water in their cooling 13 systems?
14 MS. GRANGE: Not to my knowledge, no.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: In any of these four 16 examples, did anyone challenge the categorical 17 exclusion or the environmental assessment?
18 MS. GRANGE: To my knowledge, no.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: In any of these four 20 examples, has a plant been found in violation of state 21 water quality standards in relation to the ultimate 22 heat sink?
23 MS. GRANGE: I mean that would be 24 something I would have to look up but, to my 25 knowledge, no, they have not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
512 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean that sort of avoids 2 large pages of questions to try to get to the 3 differences between the various plant conditions.
4 So, I mean I think I will just leave you 5 with those thoughts. I mean I get what you are trying 6 to do in terms of temperature increase but I think 7 there is such differences between these license 8 amendment cases that I struggle to find the true value 9 in the citation.
10 So, I appreciate your answering the last 11 three questions, which really is sort of the 12 culminative part of this, looking for the basis. So, 13 thanks.
14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think what we 15 would like to do is to stay in recess until nine 16 o'clock tomorrow morning.
17 Over the evening, I do have some homework 18 for Ms. Grange. First, we were unable to locate any 19 incorporation by reference of the COL environmental 20 report. If there was such an incorporation by 21 reference, I would like you to provide that citation 22 to me.
23 MS. GRANGE: I can answer that one now.
24 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.
25 MS. GRANGE: We did not incorporate that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
513 1 by reference.
2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.
3 MS. GRANGE: I think that was -- I'm not 4 sure if that was a misstatement by me or Mr. Ford but 5 we didn't intend to indicate that.
6 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, well, then, 7 that is less homework for you tonight.
8 MS. GRANGE: Great.
9 CHAIR GIBSON: I was unable to locate any 10 reference in either the 2002 license renewal EIS or in 11 the 2012 environmental assessment for the EPU to the 12 saltwater-freshwater interface or to the migration of 13 saltwater out of the cooling canal system. If there 14 was such a discussion, I would like you to provide a 15 citation for me to that as well.
16 MS. GRANGE: Understood.
17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well. We will 18 stand in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
19 Have a good evening. We will see you tomorrow.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 5:31 p.m.)
22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
Pumping from the L31E elevates the water level in the cooling canals Rainfall freshens the surface of Biscayne Bay, but the hypersaline blob remains unchanged.
Deep nutrient pollution appears offshore shortly after pumping begins