Text

Transcript of January 12, 2016, Hearing Re Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, Pages 514-571
	ML16015A177
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	01/12/2016
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 50858
	Download: ML16015A177 (59)
	v • d • e

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: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Work Order No.: NRC-2085 Pages 514-571 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

514 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 Tuesday, January 12, 2016 15 16 Hampton Inn & Suites 17 Reef Room 18 2855 NE 9th Street 19 Homestead, Florida 20 21 BEFORE:

22 MICHAEL M. GIBSON, Chair 23 DR. MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 24 DR. WILLIAM W. SAGER, Administrative Judge 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

515 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

516 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

10 brian.harris@nrc.gov 11 David.roth@nrc.gov 12 Matthew.ring@nrc.gov 13 14 On Behalf of the Intervenor:

15 BARRY J. WHITE 16 MICHAEL HATCHER 17 of: Citizens Allied for Safe Energy 18 10001 SW 129 Terrace 19 Miami, Florida 33176 20 bwtamia@bellsouth.net 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

517 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (9:17 a.m.)

3 CHAIR GIBSON: All right, I believe we are 4 all present now and accounted for. Back on the 5 record.

6 I believe we gave the staff some homework 7 last night. Were you all able to help us out?

8 MS. GRANGE: Yes, sir.

9 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. What did you 10 find out?

11 MS. GRANGE: Well first, sir, I just want 12 to restate the question. So, you were looking for 13 where in the documents incorporated by reference in 14 the 2014 EA we described the saltwater-freshwater 15 interface, as well as migration of water from the 16 cooling canal system to the aquifer.

17 And so in the 2014 EA on page 44465, there 18 is three documents that we incorporate by reference 19 and those are the 1972 final environmental statement 20 for construction of Turkey Point, the 2002 21 supplemental environmental impact statement for 22 license renewal of Turkey Point, and then 2012 EPU 23 environmental assessment.

24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

25 MS. GRANGE: So, those are the three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

518 1 documents that we looked at last night.

2 And so for the saltwater-freshwater 3 interface, the best description is in the 1972 final 4 environmental statement. On page Roman numeral V-3.

5 And on that page, it is talking about the construction 6 of the cooling canal system and it states that pumps 7 will be installed to drain the interceptor ditch 8 system and, thereby, control the movement of the 9 interface between the groundwater system under control 10 of the applicant and that under control of the Central 11 and Southern Drainage District System to the west.

12 The saltwater-freshwater interface is also 13 described in the EPU EA at page 20062, starting in 14 column one. And it is also described in the license 15 renewal SEIS on page 2-7 but that is a rather high-16 level discussion because groundwater is a Category I 17 issue in license renewal.

18 The second thing, the migration of water 19 from the cooling canal system to the aquifer, that is 20 described in the EPU EA on page 20062, starting in 21 column one and that describes groundwater exchange.

22 And groundwater exchange, we are looking for two 23 directions. So, it doesn't specifically say migration 24 but exchange is meant to mean the same thing.

25 It is also described in the 2002 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

519 1 renewal SEIS. That is briefly described on page 2-7 2 and 2-18. Once again, since groundwater is a Category 3 I issue for license renewal, it is rather high-level.

4 But then if you look in the 1996 generic environmental 5 impact statement for license renewal, which is 6 incorporated by reference into the license renewal 7 SEIS on page 4-121, that describes groundwater 8 degradation as an issue that can result from continued 9 operation during the license renewal period at all 10 plants. Turkey Point is specifically mentioned. And 11 then there is a description of groundwater plumes that 12 can occur in shallow aquifers, in systems where the 13 cooling ponds are unlined.

14 Additionally, I would like to mention that 15 the 2009 COL environmental report, although we did not 16 incorporate that by reference, we do reference it in 17 the 2014 EA and that describes both the saltwater-18 freshwater interface and the migration of water from 19 the cooling canal system to the aquifer in good detail 20 and it also includes some figures as well.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.

22 MS. GRANGE: You're welcome.

23 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, I have a few questions 24 to ask. I think this goes to you, Ms. Grange.

25 So, in 2002, in the EIS it states on 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

520 1 4-31 to 4-32, and that is page 135 of the PDF. Mr.

2 Welkie, can we bring that up? Did we get you those?

3 MR. WELKIE: Which document?

4 JUDGE SAGER: It would be the 2002 5 environmental impact statement, page 4-31 -- sorry, 6 page 135 of the PDF. See if we can actually find 7 that.

8 I'm not seeing it here. That's page -- it 9 is a different version? Okay.

10 MS. GRANGE: If I may?

11 CHAIR GIBSON: Page 135 of the PDF, do we 12 have that?

13 JUDGE SAGER: He may have a different 14 version.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Oh, okay.

16 MS. GRANGE: If I may?

17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

18 MS. GRANGE: I believe you have the wrong 19 ML number because that document was divided into 20 several ADAMS numbers.

21 JUDGE SAGER: Okay.

22 MS. GRANGE: So, the correct number for 4-23 31 is ML-020280119.

24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, two seconds.

25 I don't know if we can wait that long.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

521 1 MS. GRANGE: I have the document up, so I 2 can --

3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

4 MS. GRANGE: -- go ahead, if that is okay 5 with everyone else.

6 CHAIR GIBSON: It would be nice if 7 everyone could see it.

8 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, it would be nice if we 9 could all see it.

10 CHAIR GIBSON: I think we are mixed up.

11 I don't think we care about the Generic EIS.

12 JUDGE SAGER: Right, it is the EIS 13 referring to the GEIS.

14 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, with the license 15 renewal -- this is Brian Harris with the staff. With 16 the license renewal EISs, they are still called the 17 generic and then they have a supplement, so the 18 specific --

19 CHAIR GIBSON: So this is a supplement.

20 So, this is correct insofar as we do have the right 21 document?

22 MR. HARRIS: Right but I don't know if 23 Judge Sager was looking for the one that was the 24 Generic one 1996 that was applicable to all or the one 25 that was specific to Turkey Point.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

522 1 JUDGE SAGER: This would be the one in 2 2002. This is the one we want, then.

3 CHAIR GIBSON: I'm sorry. Yes, this is 4 what we want.

5 I tell you what. While they are trying to 6 find that, let me ask you if you could give me the 7 quotes for the -- or the citations to the material you 8 read to me earlier. I want to make sure I have got 9 those right.

10 MS. GRANGE: So to understand, you want me 11 to restate the references?

12 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, the 1972 final EIS was 13 the first document that you mentioned and you had a 14 specific citation to a specific --

15 MS. GRANGE: That was page Roman numeral 16 V-3.

17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

18 MS. GRANGE: The next citation was in the 19 EPU EA.

20 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

21 MS. GRANGE: And that was 20062, starting 22 in the first column of text.

23 The next one was the 2002 EIS for license 24 renewal --

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

523 1 MS. GRANGE: -- page 2-7.

2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

3 MS. GRANGE: I also mentioned the EPU EA 4 at 20062, again, the same column of text.

5 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

6 MS. GRANGE: And also later on that page 7 in the third column of text, the 2002 EIS for license 8 renewal, again, on page 2-7 and 2-18.

9 CHAIR GIBSON: 2-18?

10 MS. GRANGE: Yes.

11 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

12 MS. GRANGE: And then the 1996 generic 13 environmental impact statement for license renewal, 14 page 4-121.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, great. Thank you.

16 Is this page you were hoping for?

17 JUDGE SAGER: Yes.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you.

19 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, sorry about that. It 20 looks like we have it up here now and that is the --

21 which one is it? The GEIS or -- this is the EIS.

22 Okay, so right about there in the middle 23 of your page, you see that the nuclear plants do not 24 contribute significantly to groundwater intrusion.

25 And then a little bit farther down at the very bottom, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

524 1 it says: Therefore, the staff concludes that there 2 are no groundwater quality degradation impacts.

3 So, my question is therefore, the staff 4 concluded that there are no groundwater quality 5 problems, based on that incorporation by reference.

6 Is that correct?

7 MS. GRANGE: Well, the full sentence says 8 beyond the impacts discussed in the GEIS. And so when 9 you go to the reference that I mentioned earlier, it 10 does talk about saltwater plumes that can happen in 11 unlined aquifers. And so that would be a known effect 12 that the staff identified generically for that kind of 13 plant. And so, we understood that that was an effect 14 that could happen and that was happening at Turkey 15 Point. But beyond what was discussed in the GEIS, we 16 didn't expect any additional impacts. So, that is 17 what that statement is meant to mean in a fuller 18 sense.

19 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, so your reference is 20 back, then, back to the 1972 --

21 MS. GRANGE: The 1996 GEIS or G-E-I-S.

22 JUDGE SAGER: 1996, okay.

23 MS. GRANGE: So, that is at the end of 24 that sentence and the very beginning of 4-32 in your 25 reference that we are looking at. And you could look NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

525 1 directly back at the reference I gave earlier, which 2 is page 4-121 of the 1996 GEIS to get that 3 information.

4 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you.

5 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, could you scroll back 6 one? Right there. Thank you.

7 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, so I think what you 8 just told me is that, therefore, you think you had the 9 bases covered and so there was nothing more said in 10 the environmental impact statement of 2002 about 11 groundwater issues.

12 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

13 MR. SCROGGS: Okay.

14 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 15 Harris for the staff. I don't mean to interrupt. It 16 might help to understand this to ask the question 17 about Category I, Category II issues and license 18 renewal as the Commission, it has changed but when 19 Turkey Point was done -- and so there is a different 20 type of analysis that is done when something was a 21 Category I issue. It might be worthwhile to put that 22 on the record from the staff.

23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Ms. Grange, could you 24 describe what a Category I issue is and how it is 25 treated?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

526 1 MS. GRANGE: Sure. So, for a license 2 renewal, the staff had looked at a number of issues 3 that could occur during continued operation for all of 4 the plants that were operating. And in 1996, they 5 published the Generic Environmental Impact Statement.

6 And so that generically addresses license renewal and 7 issues are categorized as either Category I, which are 8 generic issues, or Category II, which are site-9 specific.

10 So, for the Category I, the generic 11 issues, the staff determined that we could make a 12 conclusion generically for all nuclear plants, 13 regardless of the specifics at the site as to what the 14 level of impact would be during the license renewal 15 term.

16 And so, the issue that we were just 17 talking about for Turkey Point was one of those. It 18 was a Category I issue where we said for all plants it 19 would be small unless the staff determined at the time 20 of the review that there was new and significant 21 information that could call into question that 22 conclusion. And so that is the statement that we were 23 reading about. The staff had not identified any new 24 information that would call into question the 25 conclusions in the GEIS.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

527 1 So, in that case, we determined that we 2 agreed with the GEIS that the conclusion was, in fact, 3 small.

4 For Category II issues, we look in detail 5 at each site, as they are site-specific issues and the 6 conclusion may be different at different sites. And 7 so we could conclude small, moderate, or large, 8 depending on the specific characteristics of the site.

9 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, as the groundwater was 10 a Category I issue in 1996 when the Generic 11 Environmental Impact Statement was issued, has that 12 changed any since 1996?

13 MS. GRANGE: I would need to go back and 14 look at that. We just issued a Revision I to the GEIS 15 in 2013 and some of the issues were kind of resorted 16 and combined. So I can, if you give me a moment, I 17 can check that.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, we will give you a 19 moment. Everybody is taking a little more time today.

20 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 21 Harris for the staff. Maybe I can help with finding 22 the cite. It is Appendix B of Part 51. It does go 23 into groundwater. It was mentioned also in both our 24 briefs and in the Commission's recent order about the 25 reexamination of groundwater that it is still 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

528 1 Category I issue for a cooling canal system like the 2 one at Turkey Point.

3 CHAIR GIBSON: Could you give us a 4 citation to where the Commission said that? I'm 5 sorry, I just didn't get that. You said they recently 6 --

7 MR. HARRIS: It is from CLI15-25 and I 8 believe it is Footnote 96. And I'm quoting from it.

9 The staff also notes the Commission reexamined 10 saltwater intrusion in its recently updated Generic 11 Environmental Impact Statement and rule associated 12 with power plant license renewal and found the impact 13 to be small. And they are citing to the staff brief 14 citing revisions to the environmental review of 15 renewal of nuclear power plant operating license 78 16 Federal Register 37282 and then the specific cite is 17 37-300 through 301.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you.

19 MS. GRANGE: Your Honor?

20 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

21 MS. GRANGE: I can also give you a 22 reference in the 2013 GEIS, if that would be helpful.

23 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

24 MS. GRANGE: Page B-10. Well, all of 25 Appendix B is a table that compares the 1996 GEIS NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

529 1 issues with the 2013 GEIS issues. And so page B-10 2 specifically addresses the issue of groundwater 3 quality degradation and saltwater intrusion. And that 4 issue was re-categorized in the 2013 GEIS as 5 groundwater quality degradation resulting from water 6 withdrawals and it was still small in Category I.

7 CHAIR GIBSON: That was water withdrawals, 8 correct?

9 MS. GRANGE: Correct, it is now called 10 that. So, the issues of groundwater quality 11 degradation from Ranney wells, as well as groundwater 12 quality degradation from saltwater intrusion, which 13 were two issues in the 1996 GEIS have now been 14 combined. And the title of the issue now is 15 groundwater quality degradation resulting from water 16 withdrawals.

17 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

18 JUDGE KENNEDY: As opposed to saltwater 19 migration?

20 MS. GRANGE: The new category is supposed 21 to be inclusive of both of the old categories because 22 we found that when we looked at it again, we found 23 that we could broaden that issue because we found that 24 they were small plants with Ranney wells and plants 25 that were experiencing saltwater intrusion.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

530 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let me see if I can -- I 2 don't think of Turkey Point as a generic issue in 3 terms of the type of system seems somewhat unique in 4 the United States.

5 Are you telling me that in the GEIS they 6 specifically dealt with Turkey Point under the generic 7 issue?

8 MS. GRANGE: Yes, Turkey Point is 9 described when they evaluate the generic issue, as 10 well as other plants that have unlined cooling pond 11 systems. South Texas is another one that is 12 mentioned.

13 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, it includes both the 14 canals and anybody using cooling ponds like South 15 Texas.

16 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.

18 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you. Back to 19 me.

20 Okay, so also in the 2002 Environmental 21 Impact Statement, it says on page E-25, which is page 22 208 of the PDF, Mr. Welkie, if you could try to bring 23 that up, but I think you will believe me when it says 24 that the average salinity is 36 parts per thousand and 25 the maximum is 46 parts per thousand.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

531 1 So, this would have been the 2002 2 Environmental Impact Statement. So my question is, is 3 that an accurate representation of the salinity values 4 in the cooling canal system at 2014, when you were 5 considering this for the EA?

6 MS. GRANGE: Well, we know that the 7 salinity had been, I think you said 71 was the maximum 8 they cite there, we knew the salinity had been higher 9 than that and we do discuss that in the 2012 EPU EA, 10 too, I believe.

11 So, although we say in the 2014 EA that we 12 incorporated the descriptions of the environment in 13 the other documents, we do caveat it with some things 14 that have changed in the system and salinity is one of 15 those.

16 JUDGE SAGER: Right because my next 17 question was in the 2012 EA for the EPU, it states, 18 additionally, the CCS water is hypersaline, twice the 19 salinity of Biscayne Bay, with seasonal variations, 20 ranging from approximately 40 to 60 parts per 21 thousand. So, I think that is what you just referred 22 to.

23 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

24 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. Also in the 2002 EIS 25 for the license renewal on page 208 of the PDF is 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

532 1 following statement. The canal system does not 2 withdraw water or discharge waters to or from other 3 water bodies. Yes, there it is right there.

4 And in 2012, in the EA for the EPU, it 5 makes the following statement. I believe it is on 6 page 10 of that document. Because the PTN, which I 7 believe is referring to the CCS canals are online, 8 there is an exchange of water between the PTN canal 9 system and the local groundwater in Biscayne Bay. So, 10 isn't this the opposite of the statement made in the 11 2002 EIS that the system is basically closed?

12 MS. GRANGE: Well, I believe that these --

13 of course there are different authors for these two 14 documents because they were done at different times.

15 The systems are described a little bit differently in 16 each. And so I believe the first one is talking about 17 surface water connections, direct connections, which 18 there are none. The second one is talking about 19 groundwater exchange. And so that is talking about 20 the exchange of groundwater with the aquifers. And in 21 that context, it is saying that the groundwater, it is 22 saying that the cooling canal system would exchange 23 water with the aquifer. The aquifer could flow out 24 into the bay. So, it is not saying that there is a 25 direct connection there either. So, I don't 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

533 1 that these are contradictory statements from my point 2 of view.

3 JUDGE SAGER: Yes, go ahead.

4 CHAIR GIBSON: What are you saying about 5 -- I didn't understand what you were saying about 6 surface water. You said these are descriptions of 7 surface water systems and then you were explaining 8 there is a difference between these two statements or 9 the authors. And so I did not follow what you were 10 saying.

11 MS. GRANGE: Sure, let me try to restate 12 it.

13 CHAIR GIBSON: Thanks.

14 MS. GRANGE: I was just prefacing it with 15 the fact that these systems are described a little bit 16 differently in each document the NRC writes, simply 17 because there is different authors.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

19 MS. GRANGE: So, they organize things in 20 a different fashion.

21 So, the first document that we looked at, 22 the license renewal SEIS --

23 CHAIR GIBSON: You are talking about the 24 2002 EIS, now.

25 MS. GRANGE: 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

534 1 CHAIR GIBSON: And what was it describing 2 there?

3 MS. GRANGE: The excerpt that Judge Sager 4 just read appears to be describing surface water 5 connections. So, when it says that there is no 6 connection with other surface waters, it is intended 7 to mean direct connections. So, there is no direct 8 inflow or outflow to the Bay or to Card Sound or any 9 other surface water bodies.

10 The second quote that we --

11 CHAIR GIBSON: So, it is only speaking 12 about surface water bodies.

13 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

14 CHAIR GIBSON: You are saying that is not 15 speaking about groundwater.

16 MS. GRANGE: Correct, in the context of 17 that quote. It is only speaking about surface waters 18 there.

19 JUDGE SAGER: So, this hearkens back to 20 yesterday, basically the same statement made. This is 21 a closed system because it doesn't discharge directly 22 to surface waters.

23 MS. GRANGE: Right. Yes, exactly, the 24 closed cycle cooling system idea.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, go ahead. I'll ask NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

535 1 my questions later.

2 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So, the next question 3 or two, which is really to try to wrap that up, as you 4 know, I was looking at things that appeared to me to 5 be conflictual. And so it is difficult for someone 6 like me, who is an interested reader, to see those 7 differences.

8 So, by incorporating these two documents 9 by reference that seem to come to different 10 conclusions, how could a reader sort that out?

11 MS. GRANGE: I don't believe that they 12 have come to different conclusions, if there is 13 something I could help clear up about what you might 14 think would be different conclusions.

15 I might add, also, that each document is 16 evaluating a different proposed action. And so each 17 document is looking at each resource in the level of 18 detail that the staff found at the time was 19 appropriate to describe the environment and then 20 evaluate the impacts that might occur from that 21 specific proposed action. So, I think each document 22 is going to preface the different resources a little 23 bit differently because of that as well.

24 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you. Well, what 25 I was getting at is I think wouldn't a reasonable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

536 1 reader of this come to the conclusion that there are 2 no groundwater impacts?

3 MS. GRANGE: I believe a reasonable reader 4 could come to that conclusion.

5 JUDGE SAGER: Okay. So, we reference the 6 two that was a big jump in like 15 parts per thousand 7 from 36 to 46, actually it was an average of 36 with 8 highs of 46 parts per thousand to 40 to 60, which we 9 could call an average of 50. So, that is about a 15 10 parts per thousand jump in these two different 11 reports.

12 I couldn't find any discussion of that 13 change. Are you aware of any?

14 MS. GRANGE: Well, we also talked about 15 that change yesterday that since the inception of the 16 cooling canal system there is a steady increase to an 17 equal agreement of about 60 parts per thousand that 18 lasted for about ten years and then, in the past few 19 years, it has jumped up from there.

20 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: When you say the last few 22 years, when did you notice that change jumping up the 23 last few years?

24 MS. GRANGE: I believe FPL yesterday had 25 said it was in 2013 but I would need to confirm with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

537 1 them.

2 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I would like to get 3 to the 2002 EIS for the license renewal on page E-25.

4 I believe it is E-25. Do we have that?

5 Oh, that's right. They call it a Generic 6 Environmental Impact Statement. It is interesting 7 choice of titles. Isn't this designed to be site-8 specific?

9 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, the way it is 10 titled is because there is the generic rulemaking for 11 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and this is 12 the supplement for a specific plant. So, this is 13 supplementing the generic rulemaking that was done.

14 So, that is why it ends up with that title.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes. Could you get us to 16 page E-25? Is that possible? If it is too hard to 17 find -- is there not an E-25? Maybe there's not.

18 We are all taking a lot of time today. He 19 was on -- you were on the right page of the other 20 document. Could you go help Mr. Welkie, please?

21 There we are E-25. Right there. Bingo! Awesome.

22 All right, now, we want to find a 23 reference here to an interceptor ditch. You see I 24 believe it is in that paragraph right there. Okay.

25 Now, you were saying, Ms. Grange, 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

538 1 they sort of, different authors discuss different 2 topics and so we can't really make a direct 3 correlation between them. So, I want to focus on this 4 one.

5 The interceptor ditch protects freshwater 6 habitats to the east and south of the system from 7 intrusion of the hypersaline waters of the canals 8 during dry periods. Groundwater flow in the area is 9 from west to east toward Biscayne Bay. The flora of 10 the cooling canals is dominated by rooted marine 11 plants, which are removed on about a three-year cycle 12 to maintain water flow.

13 Now, is this a description of not the 14 cooling canal system but of the ditches that are on 15 the site, the surface ditches that are on the site?

16 MS. GRANGE: Yes, I believe that that is 17 what this sentence that you just read out is referring 18 to.

19 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

20 MS. GRANGE: Can you give me the actual 21 page number?

22 CHAIR GIBSON: It's E-25.

23 MS. GRANGE: Oh, E-25?

24 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, ma'am.

25 MS. GRANGE: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

539 1 CHAIR GIBSON: It's 208 of the PDF of 2 this.

3 MS. GRANGE: Okay, thank you.

4 CHAIR GIBSON: No problem.

5 MS. GRANGE: So, this is an excerpt from 6 the biological assessment that was prepared for 7 license renewal.

8 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Okay, now the 9 understanding of the author who wrote this, and I feel 10 like this is sort of Richard Elliot Friedman's book or 11 something, was it Ezra? Was it Nehemiah's mentor?

12 Who was it?

13 Anyway, the interceptor ditch protects 14 freshwater habitats. Now, we are talking here about 15 the purpose is to prevent water from moving eastward, 16 right, toward the freshwater-saltwater interface.

17 That is the objective here, right?

18 MS. GRANGE: That is my understanding of 19 the interceptor ditch.

20 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Now, again, a 21 tabular rasa reader who has seen this, are they going 22 to think that there is any migration out of the 23 interceptor ditch into the surrounding groundwater 24 from this? When I read this, it sounds to me like 25 what they are really describing here is a situation 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

540 1 which there may be excessive rainfall, the ditch may 2 overflow and it may go into the other -- into the area 3 and that would cause it to get into the area to the 4 east. Is that your understanding as well?

5 MS. GRANGE: My understanding is that a 6 reader of this document, since this is the biological 7 assessment, is they would understand that sentence to 8 be talking about habitat to the east --

9 CHAIR GIBSON: Right. Correct.

10 MS. GRANGE: -- because we are talking 11 about the groundwater and loss of resources in the 12 context of the American crocodile and other species 13 that this document addressed. So, the references that 14 I have provided earlier that are in the main body of 15 the 2002 Environmental Impact Statement would speak 16 more to the cooling canal system as a whole.

17 CHAIR GIBSON: Right.

18 MS. GRANGE: And then also the 1996 GEIS 19 talks about specifically the saltwater plume that can 20 happen under cooling canal systems.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I believe somebody 22 wanted -- Mr. Bolleter, you were anxious to say 23 something. It's fine. Please, go ahead, sir.

24 MR. BOLLETER: Well, just a little bit of 25 clarification, if you would like, just on 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

541 1 interceptor ditch and how it operates and the purpose 2 of the interceptor ditch. Basically, and I will just 3 try to just use my hands, you have L31 canals. We go 4 from the west to the east. We have the L31, we have 5 the interceptor ditch, and we have the cooling canal.

6 The purpose of the interceptor ditch is 7 you want to try to maintain a seaward gradient. So, 8 we just want to try to keep that freshwater moving 9 through the system. And so if you have the cooling 10 canal gets at a higher elevation than the L31 canal 11 and the interceptor ditch is maybe right here, you 12 pump the interceptor ditch to drop the water level so 13 that it basically creates a funnel. Then, that water 14 then gets pumped back into the cooling canal. So, 15 that was the design of the interceptor ditch is about 16 20 feet deep.

17 CHAIR GIBSON: And my understanding is its 18 purpose, essentially, was to control the surface 19 waters to ensure that hypersaline water in these 20 ditches would not go east but would, basically, be 21 caught and then the freshwater would be pumped back 22 toward the ocean. Is that correct?

23 MR. BOLLETER: Right, particularly --

24 CHAIR GIBSON: Or the Biscayne Bay. I'm 25 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

542 1 MR. BOLLETER: Particularly in the upper 2 portion of the aquifer.

3 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay and when you say the 4 upper portion of the aquifer, what do you mean there?

5 MR. BOLLETER: Probably the upper 20 to 30 6 feet. We don't know the original intent of the 7 design. There has been some confusion as far as 8 whether it was ever intended to design to prevent all 9 migration to the west or just to the upper portion of 10 the aquifer that was fresher.

11 CHAIR GIBSON: Does it work pretty well?

12 MR. BOLLETER: For the upper portion of 13 the aquifer, we still have a fresher lens, however, at 14 depth, we do have more saline water at depth.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. You mentioned the 16 1972 Environmental Impact Statement.

17 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, that was about the 19 channel system not the cooling canal system. Is that 20 correct?

21 MS. GRANGE: That did discuss the cooling 22 canal system a little bit differently than it ended up 23 being constructed because there were a number of 24 different configurations that were considered.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. We probably 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

543 1 have that document. Do we have that document? Okay.

2 Could you get to that one? I think she referenced V-3 3.

4 Okay. I believe that second paragraph, 5 beginning construction. Okay, construction of the 6 channel system would increase the salinity of some 15 7 square miles of what is now swampland to values equal 8 to or greater than the salinity of the adjoining 9 Sound. What is the Sound? Mr. Bolleter, could you 10 help us with that? Do you know what the Sound was in 11 1972?

12 MR. BOLLETER: They may be referring 13 possibly to Card Sound, which is just to the south of 14 Biscayne Bay is what I am assuming. I don't know that 15 for sure.

16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Anybody else got any 17 idea what the Sound is?

18 MR. SCROGGS: There is also Barnes Sound 19 that is adjacent to Card Sound. It is just different 20 bodies of water that are in the Bay.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Greater than the 22 salinity of the adjoining Sound and to a salinity that 23 will be considerably higher than that of the 24 groundwater. A system of interceptor ditches is 25 planned for a western property boundary to control NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

544 1 intrusion of saline water into the area west of Levee 2 31. The permeabilities of the local soils are 3 relatively high and the flow is on the order of 600 to 4 800 cubic feet per second out of the system to the 5 west can be expected.

6 Pumps will be installed to drain the 7 interceptor ditch system and, thereby, control the 8 movement of the interface between the groundwater 9 system under control of the applicant and that under 10 the control of the Central and Southwest Drainage 11 District System to the west.

12 Data furnished by the applicant with 13 respect to groundwater movement to the west are 14 relatively complete. All intercepted flows are to be 15 returned to the channel system, so that there is to be 16 essentially no net loss from the system in this 17 direction. Because of the dynamics of the system, 18 surface may, at times, be intercepted by the drainage 19 and recharge system.

20 Okay, let me first of all see if you guys 21 can help us out with the control of the Central and 22 Southern Drainage District System to the west. To 23 what is that referring? I don't think we have talked 24 about that before.

25 MR. SCROGGS: We have. It is the South NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

545 1 Florida Water Management District is the agency that 2 has taken over the role of the Central and Southwest 3 Flood Control Management. So, these surface water 4 canals that drain water from agricultural areas or 5 residential areas and move that out to sea through 6 structures that prevent backflow of seawater into 7 those canals are what are managed by the South Florida 8 Water Management District. The L31 canal system is a 9 significant portion of that in this area.

10 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Okay, so 11 I am curious. What is going to put someone on notice 12 about the possibility of migration from the cooling 13 canal system into the groundwater from this paragraph.

14 Because we are talking here about the channel system, 15 right? We are not talking here about the cooling 16 canal system, right?

17 MS. GRANGE: We are talking about the --

18 well, the channel system here is meant, from my 19 understanding, to mean the cooling canal system is 20 what they were calling it in this document. And then 21 the interceptor ditch system is what FPL just 22 described. And so in the context of this paragraph, 23 the interceptor ditch system is the way to mitigate 24 the westward movement of water.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, it sounds like NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

546 1 the primary concern here was surface water.

2 MS. GRANGE: From my reading, I would 3 think it would be groundwater. The sentence in the 4 middle that says pumps will be installed to drain the 5 interceptor ditch system and thereby control the 6 movement of the interface between the groundwater 7 system, the interface would be referring to the 8 freshwater-saltwater interface later in that sentence, 9 when it talks about the groundwater system under 10 control of the applicant and that under control of the 11 Central and Southern Drainage District System to the 12 west. That would be, again, referencing the 13 interface, which is west of the plant and that would 14 be the same saltwater-freshwater interface six to 15 eight miles to the west that we have been discussing.

16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

17 JUDGE SAGER: So, just to clarify. I 18 think we said this yesterday. If you can put a canoe 19 in it, it is surface water. If it is in the ground, 20 it is groundwater. Is that correct? Is that the way 21 you are interpreting this?

22 So, groundwater isn't at any depth, per 23 se, it is just underneath. It is not free water on 24 the surface.

25 MS. GRANGE: Correct. That is 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

547 1 understanding this is talking about the groundwater in 2 the Biscayne Aquifer.

3 MR. SCROGGS: If I could add?

4 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

5 MR. SCROGGS: I think we might be 6 generalizing the interface language to be confusing 7 with the freshwater-saltwater interface. If you 8 recall the historic maps that we looked at yesterday 9 prior to the cooling canal system, that freshwater-10 saltwater interface was several miles to the west. I 11 think this discussion here is focused in on what we 12 now call the hypersaline and saline water interface.

13 So, I just wanted to make sure we were all sorted on 14 that.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Thank you.

16 Okay, if we could go to the 2009 17 environmental report for the combined operating 18 license for Units 6 and 7. Do you have that Mr.

19 Welkie? Maybe you don't have it. Does he have it?

20 Okay, it's all right. We will be okay.

21 Before I get to that, let me ask you one 22 more question. This final environmental statement we 23 just talked about was in July of 1972, correct?

24 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: The CCS was built in '74.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

548 1 Is that correct?

2 MR. SCROGGS: No, sir. I think it began 3 the construction in the '70s.

4 CHAIR GIBSON: In the '70s?

5 MR. SCROGGS: In early 1970s.

6 CHAIR GIBSON: Early 1970s?

7 MR. SCROGGS: It was completed and the 8 units did not come online without the CCS in 9 operation.

10 CHAIR GIBSON: And when did the units come 11 online?

12 MR. SCROGGS: Well '72 for Unit 3 and '73 13 for Unit 4.

14 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. So, the CCS had 15 essentially been built by the time this Environmental 16 Impact Statement was issued in July of '72?

17 MR. SCROGGS: I believe it was probably --

18 CHAIR GIBSON: If not, it was --

19 MR. SCROGGS: It was under construction.

20 It was a Department of Justice consent order that 21 directed its construction.

22 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, getting back 23 to the environmental report for the combined operation 24 licenses for Units 6 and 7. On page 2.3-17, this 25 statement appears: Figure 2.3-23 shows 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

549 1 approximate location of the freshwater-saltwater 2 interface in the area. The figure indicates that the 3 saltwater interface at the base of the aquifer is 4 approximately six to eight miles inland of the Unit 6 5 and 7 plant area.

6 I just wanted -- there was a reference 7 yesterday that someone made. Is that the reference 8 that you all were making to the environmental report?

9 Mr. Ford?

10 MR. FORD: Yes, sir. And then the figure 11 that is referenced there on --

12 CHAIR GIBSON: Figure 2.3-23 is the 13 figure. Is that the one you are referring to, sir?

14 MR. FORD: Yes, sir, it is on page 2.3-15 170.

16 CHAIR GIBSON: Right.

17 MR. FORD: That shows the location of the 18 freshwater-saltwater interface.

19 CHAIR GIBSON: You say 2.3-170?

20 MR. FORD: That is the page number.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Okay, thank you.

22 Good.

23 The other things is, while I have got you, 24 there was a reference in that the water in the canals 25 is hypersaline because of the efforts of evaporation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

550 1 with salinity concentrated approximately twice that of 2 Biscayne Bay. Was that the other thing that you were 3 referring to? That is at page 2.3-56.

4 MR. FORD: That sounds right.

5 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I tell you what.

6 You can look for it. We are going to go on with some 7 other questions. If you can find it and let us know, 8 we would appreciate it, Mr. Ford. Thank you, sir.

9 Ms. Grange, I wanted to be sure I 10 understood your testimony yesterday. Did you indicate 11 that the staff relied on the State proceedings to 12 conclude that the license amendment would have no 13 impact on surface water resources as well as 14 groundwater resources?

15 MS. GRANGE: I believe that I referred to 16 the State proceedings in a couple instances. So, one 17 instance was in the context of the EPU EA and the EPU, 18 because there was a process going on between the State 19 and FPL to mitigate conditions in the cooling canal 20 system that dates back to that time frame, we did use 21 that process as a means of evaluating the impacts to 22 groundwater and determined that that was an 23 appropriate thing to rely on to make our conclusion.

24 In the context of the 2014 EA, we did not 25 find any significant impacts that would result 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

551 1 the proposed action. And one of the things that we 2 considered, beyond the fact that the action would be 3 of short duration and that we didn't expect it to 4 happen very often, was that there was still the 5 continuing process with the State. And so that was 6 one of the factors that used to make our conclusion.

7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

8 MR. FORD: So, we have the page.

9 CHAIR GIBSON: Just a minute. You have 10 the page, Mr. Ford?

11 MR. FORD: Yes, we do.

12 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, what is that, sir?

13 MR. FORD: You wanted the --

14 CHAIR GIBSON: 2.3-56.

15 MR. FORD: Do you want us to point to 16 where it has that statement of the salinity?

17 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

18 MR. FORD: The salinity of the industrial 19 wastewater facility relative to the Bay.

20 MS. GRANGE: While Mr. Ford is looking for 21 that page reference, if I might add to my previous 22 answer?

23 CHAIR GIBSON: Uh-huh.

24 MS. GRANGE: In the staff's testimony, 25 answer A-54 on page 45, also it mentions the reasons NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

552 1 that the staff concluded that the license amendment 2 was not likely to significant affect groundwater.

3 There is four reasons in number four. It says the 4 State was already directing the licensee to address 5 the salinity. So, that is another indication of us 6 relying on the State process that was ongoing.

7 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Did you find what 8 you were looking for Mr. Ford are you still looking?

9 MR. FORD: I'm not sure. Are we looking 10 for a cite where it says something about --

11 CHAIR GIBSON: No. No, I wanted to be 12 sure those were the two sites that we could find 13 relating to the things you mentioned yesterday about 14 the environmental report.

15 MR. FORD: There is a number of them.

16 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay.

17 MR. FORD: So, I can give you all the list 18 of where I found it talks about the canal and 19 hypersalinity.

20 CHAIR GIBSON: I'll tell you what we will 21 do. Rather than do those on the -- why don't you make 22 a list of them? And we will just, we can read them 23 into the record at one time at the end. Okay?

24 MR. FORD: Okay.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: Rather than take a 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

553 1 time right now. We are all taking too much time right 2 now.

3 Okay, I would like -- do you have the 4 Idaho vs. ICC citation? Could you put that up? I 5 would just like to make note of one of the things that 6 I would like to be addressed in the proposed findings 7 and conclusions and that is I would like for the 8 parties to address this issue insofar as reliance on 9 State action and whether that is a sufficient basis 10 for, under this case, at least, for relying on what 11 the state is doing to not address an issue or to 12 assume that it is going to be addressed properly.

13 Okay. If you all need a cite to this, we 14 will be sure to put it in the order but I think you 15 can just slide it down and I think you are good.

16 Now, Ms. Grange, as we discussed or 17 perhaps this is for Mr. Hobbs, I'm not sure which, as 18 the 2012 extended power uprate increased the thermal 19 load in the cooling canal system. Is that correct?

20 MS. GRANGE: The 2012 EPU authorized an 21 increase. That increase --

22 CHAIR GIBSON: Authorized an increase.

23 Fair enough. Fair enough, authorized an increase.

24 MS. GRANGE: In total, although the 25 nuclear units are operating at a higher authorized NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

554 1 power level, the total load to the cooling canal 2 system has actually been reduced since the staff 3 reviewed that license amendment.

4 CHAIR GIBSON: And at the time of the 2012 5 extended power uprate, did the staff consider the 6 potential likelihood of having to increase the 7 ultimate heat sink water temperature limit?

8 MS. GRANGE: No, that was not an action 9 that was foreseeable at that time.

10 CHAIR GIBSON: Now, the 2014 license 11 amendment has raised the maximum temperature for the 12 cooling canal system. Correct?

13 MS. GRANGE: Correct, it has raised the 14 allowable temperature by four degrees.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: And I take it you would 16 agree that higher thermal load and greater maximum 17 temperature would, together, increase the salinity in 18 the cooling canal system more than either action on 19 its own.

20 MS. GRANGE: Well, as I previously stated, 21 the thermal load has not actually increased to the 22 cooling canal system.

23 CHAIR GIBSON: Why do you say that?

24 MS. KLETT: Because Unit 2 is no longer 25 operating as a power generator. So, it is 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

555 1 outputting its thermal load into the CCS since 2010, 2 December of 2010.

3 CHAIR GIBSON: Do I understand correctly 4 that the decision, although you weren't operating Unit 5 2, the decision not to finally mothball it, or 6 whatever the right word was, was in 2013? Did I 7 understand you to say that yesterday, sir?

8 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir, the operation was 9 converted to a synchronous generator in 2010 but the 10 final decision to decommission the unit was not made 11 until 2013.

12 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you so much.

13 So, is it fair to say that it is the 14 staff's position that the increase in salinity in the 15 CCS was never considered reasonably foreseeable at any 16 point in time?

17 MS. GRANGE: I assume you are talking 18 about the increase in salinity that has happened over 19 the past couple of years beyond the equilibrium of 20 about 60 that was occurring around the time of the EPU 21 application?

22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes, I believe Judge Sager 23 went over with you the data.

24 MS. GRANGE: Okay.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: I believe it started out 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

556 1 the 30s and 40s and went up considerably from there.

2 MS. GRANGE: Okay, so the original 3 increase from the 30-something to about 60, that was 4 anticipated and some of the quotes we just read off 5 from the various documents, the final environmental 6 statement, for instance, do talk about the fact that 7 the salinity would likely increase over time. The 8 increase that we have seen in the past couple of 9 years, and that was part of the reason that FPL 10 submitted the license amendment at hand, we did not 11 foresee that happening.

12 I believe that the EPU EA, though, does 13 describe the fact that with a temperature increase, 14 salinity would then also increase. That was under the 15 assumption that heat load to the cooling canal system 16 in total would increase, which actually, in fact, did 17 not happen because of Unit 2 going offline.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: Right, which happened after 19 the environmental assessment was completed.

20 MS. GRANGE: Correct.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. I think the other 22 issue that we are going to want addressed in the 23 proposed findings and conclusions in this case is 24 segmentation.

25 Okay. I believe that concludes 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

557 1 questions that we have of these witnesses. I would 2 like to take a 15-minute recess to let you all prepare 3 questions, additional questions that need to be asked 4 to complete the record and we will be in recess for 5 the next 15 minutes. Thank you.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 7 went off the record at 10:18 a.m. and resumed at 8 10:50 a.m.)

9 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Please be 10 seated. Back on the record.

11 First of all, were you all able to get the 12 citations to salinity? Mr. Ford, do you have those 13 for us?

14 MR. FORD: What I have is a list of all of 15 the page numbers that they reference the interaction 16 between the CCS and the groundwater and saltwater 17 intrusion. I was just going to read those page 18 numbers off.

19 CHAIR GIBSON: Can you please read those 20 for us? Yes, sir.

21 MR. FORD: This is from the 2009 combined 22 operating license environmental report ADAMS number 23 ML91870907 and I will just read off the page numbers:

24 2.3-11, 2.3-10, 2.3-17, 2.3-25, 2.3-33, 2.3-34, 2.3-25 41, 2.3-48, 2.3-150, 2.3-51, and 2.3-170.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

558 1 CHAIR GIBSON: Thank you. Okay, we have 2 gotten a questions. A few were a bit argumentative.

3 I'm sure you all don't take that as a surprise. But 4 we do have a few questions that we think probably 5 deserve to be asked and so we will start with Judge 6 Kennedy.

7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. The first 8 question is for Ms. Grange. Was your discussion of 9 the short duration that temperatures would exceed 100 10 degrees, I'm assuming in the cooling canal, your 11 reasonable forecast? Or any staff witness.

12 MS. KLETT: Our discussion of the short 13 duration, that was not a condition of granting the 14 license amendment. It was just a reasonable 15 projection of just the natural temperature ranges in 16 the CCS in the accommodation of the low likelihood 17 that the conditions that the CCS was experiencing in 18 2013 and 2014 would not happen again or were unlikely 19 to happen again.

20 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm thinking. All right, 21 I think I will accept that. Thank you.

22 This is a question for FP&L. Yesterday, 23 Dr. Stoddard testified or discussed the ammonia and 24 phosphorus readings in the Biscayne Bay. Do you have 25 any information regarding the values of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

559 1 nutrients in the canal system at about the same time?

2 MR. BOLLETER: Yes, we do and I think we 3 have to be very careful with the data that we get that 4 you can very easily jump to conclusions by just 5 looking at one data set. Could it be plausible there 6 is seepage? Could be. That is one plausible 7 explanation but also, at the same time, we have data 8 within the cooling canal during that same time period 9 where the phosphorous values are much lower than what 10 you see in that particular location. Actually, they 11 are dropping at the same time the phosphorous at that 12 particular station in Biscayne Bay is going up.

13 Also, the ammonia values in the cooling 14 canal were very low while the ammonia values at that 15 Biscayne Bay station were going up. We did get a 16 spike in ammonia in the cooling canal at a much later 17 time frame. So, the time periods don't match up. So, 18 we just have to be very careful about jumping to 19 conclusions.

20 Also a well that we have, or we have 21 multiple wells, but a well that we have in the berm on 22 the eastern side of the cooling canal, the ammonia 23 values, they are high but they are lower than what we 24 are seeing in Biscayne Bay. So, we are in the process 25 of working with Miami-Dade County trying to better NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

560 1 assess what is going on. So, it is not just one piece 2 of information but the data that we have in the 3 cooling canal, those values, again, are lower than 4 what we were seeing in the Bay. What we have in the 5 groundwater well is lower than what we are seeing in 6 the Bay.

7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just as a follow-up to 8 that, yesterday Dr. Stoddard suggested that there was 9 about a three-day delay between the values in the 10 canal and the values in the Bay. Does that seem 11 reasonable to you?

12 MR. BOLLETER: No. I mean I think there 13 is a much longer delay, lag time that you would see 14 that effect. Plus, if we had high levels of ammonia 15 and say phosphorous in the cooling canal system and if 16 there was a three-day period, you would have seen 17 similar concentrations in the cooling canal that we 18 are seeing in the Bay and we don't see that.

19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.

20 CHAIR GIBSON: Judge Sager.

21 JUDGE SAGER: These questions also go to 22 FPL. So, this referring to the administrative order 23 by is it Florida Department of Environmental 24 Protection or South Florida Water Management District 25 -- you know what I am speaking about, 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

561 1 administrative order for --

2 MR. SCROGGS: Yes, sir.

3 JUDGE SAGER: -- freshening the canals?

4 What is the duration of that order? Does it have an 5 end?

6 MR. SCROGGS: Well, the administrative 7 order, it is a little more complex than directing a 8 specific action. It is directing FPL to develop a 9 salinity management plan to achieve a certain 10 objective, which is reduce the salinity in the cooling 11 canal system. There is no term applied to that 12 administrative order but they do communicate an 13 expectation that we would achieve that target annual 14 average salinity of 34 psu in about a four-year 15 period, if I remember correctly.

16 JUDGE SAGER: And then is there any 17 expectation that you will keep it there through the 18 life of the plant?

19 MR. SCROGGS: That is the intent of the 20 administrative order, that is the objective, and that 21 is the purpose of us identifying the Upper Floridan 22 Aquifer wells as that long-term balancing water 23 resource.

24 JUDGE SAGER: Okay and I think we heard 25 testimony that a big part of that is this withdrawal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

562 1 of 14 million gallons per day from the Upper Floridan 2 Aquifer from wells in a well field. I presume you 3 have looked at this in relation to this whole 4 proceeding. Do you expect that you have to -- is 14 5 million gallons a day enough over the long period?

6 Will it be used intermittently or will it be sort of 7 permanently on pumping that water out?

8 MR. SCROGGS: We have a seasonal variation 9 in salinity, right, with the dry season and the wet 10 season. When we have a wet season that is productive 11 in terms of precipitation, there wouldn't be a need to 12 augment that with the Floridan wells. The Floridan 13 wells are intended to make up the deficit during the 14 dry season and leading into the wet season.

15 The volumes of water that were provided in 16 2015 through the L31 are about 50 to 60 percent of 17 what you would expect if you ran the 14 million gallon 18 per day Floridan wells for a full year. So, the 19 response of the system in relation to that volume in 20 2015 seems to demonstrate pretty strongly that that is 21 a sufficient volume for the task.

22 JUDGE SAGER: Even throughout the life of 23 the plants? You wouldn't foresee that you need to 24 come again and ask for more groundwater.

25 MR. SCROGGS: That has been the results 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

563 1 the modeling and that is our presumption, based on the 2 data.

3 JUDGE SAGER: Okay, thank you.

4 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. Do you have the 5 Calvert Cliffs cite? I mentioned the State action 6 issue. We put up the Idaho case. I also wanted to 7 put up the Calvert Cliffs case. These are both State 8 action cases. So, I just wanted to be sure and call 9 that to your attention so that when you did you 10 proposed findings and conclusions, you will have an 11 opportunity to consult that as well.

12 Housekeeping matters. We are going to 13 have the PowerPoint slides that Dr. Stoddard referred 14 to yesterday. We are not going to admit those as an 15 exhibit. So, that is not going to be part of his 16 testimony filed in this case. We are not going to 17 revise it. We are not going to have a new exhibit.

18 What we are going to do instead is, I 19 think, there is references to it in the transcript and 20 it won't make any sense if we don't have it somehow 21 referenced. So, what we are going to do is we are 22 going to take the underlying data provided by Dr.

23 Stoddard, which is on an Excel spreadsheet and quite 24 large and it is going to be sent to each party by the 25 law clerks when they return to Washington. 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

564 1 addition, a CD containing the underlying data will 2 also be sent to the Office of the Secretary.

3 The PowerPoint slides themselves that were 4 referenced will be attached to the end of yesterday's 5 transcript just as an appendix. Okay? I think that 6 is about the only way we can handle that. Otherwise, 7 we have referenced to something that was talked about 8 that we don't otherwise have in evidence.

9 So, the only way we can really do that is 10 to attach it as an appendix to the transcript. So, it 11 won't be an exhibit but since we referenced it, we had 12 to find some way to put it in there.

13 Does anybody have any objection to doing 14 that? Okay, very well. I couldn't figure any other 15 way out either. Okay.

16 Now, we will, of course, appreciate the 17 parties' suggestions on transcript corrections. With 18 regard to transcript corrections, when you do submit 19 them, please note that this is not to correct an error 20 that your witness may have said by misspeaking. It is 21 solely to correct an error that our court reporter 22 made in transcribing.

23 I would ask Florida Power and Light to 24 take the lead on this and to come up with a joint list 25 that it shares with the other parties in terms 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

565 1 transcript corrections. So, within ten days of the 2 transcript becoming available, Florida Power and 3 Light, can you and the other parties circulate your 4 proposed transcript corrections among yourselves and 5 then get them to us within ten days thereafter? Would 6 that work?

7 MR. BLAIR: Just for clarification, so 8 within the -- it wasn't two ten-day periods, it was 9 one single ten-day period.

10 CHAIR GIBSON: It would be a total of 20 11 days from when the transcript becomes available that 12 you all will be sending us your joint proposed 13 transcript corrections.

14 MR. BLAIR: Okay.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: But I would like for you 16 within ten days of the date of the transcript becomes 17 available to go through the transcript, figure out 18 where you think there are errors and circulate it to 19 the staff and to Mr. White.

20 MR. BOLLETER: Understood.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: And then what we will do, 22 then, they hopefully will also be reviewing the 23 transcript for their own corrections but they can take 24 the basic format and hopefully you will have caught 25 all of them but to the extent they catch 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

566 1 mistakes that the court reporter made in transcribing 2 the testimony, then that will be fixed.

3 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, could I have a 4 couple of seconds to confer with my witnesses? Some 5 of them are on travel like right after this. So, that 6 ten day -- I just want to make sure I know when they 7 are going to be available.

8 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, sure. Sure.

9 MR. HARRIS: Give me one second, Your 10 Honor. I'm just looking at a calendar because one of 11 the witnesses is on travel until February first and, 12 depending on exactly when the transcript would come 13 in, that might, that 20-day period might not be able 14 to work for getting it to them.

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Court reporter, have you 16 got a rough idea when that transcript is going to be 17 available? About three days from now. You think it 18 will be ready Friday? You think it will be Friday?

19 He said he can have it ready for us on 20 Friday.

21 MR. HARRIS: So, one of our witnesses 22 wouldn't be able to review it in that 20-day period 23 because they will be out on prescheduled travel until 24 February first.

25 So, perhaps if we could have about five NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

567 1 days after February first to have the final transcript 2 corrections due.

3 CHAIR GIBSON: That's fine. That will be 4 fine.

5 So, can you still do that within -- we can 6 give you 15 days if you need that to make that 7 simpler.

8 Okay, so everybody has 15 days after the 9 transcript is available to review the transcript.

10 Well, you have more than that but Florida Power and 11 Light and is, effectively, only going to have 15 days.

12 You will look over the transcript, put together a list 13 of proposed transcript corrections where you think the 14 court reporter made an error. You will circulate that 15 to Mr. White and Mr. Harris. We will then be getting 16 -- they will circulate that and then 25 days from when 17 the transcript becomes available. Okay? We will be 18 getting a joint proposed transcript correction from 19 everyone. Okay?

20 MR. HARRIS: Understood.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: And that sounds like that 22 meets everyone's schedule.

23 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor, thank you.

24 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay. If for any reason 25 one of the parties does not -- you all can't agree 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

568 1 a joint proposed transcript correction, you will have 2 five days after it is filed to lodge any objections.

3 Okay? I can't imagine that happening. It has never 4 happened before but if it does, you have got five days 5 to object and say no, those are not -- they really 6 said that. The court reporter really transcribed it 7 right or really transcribed it wrong and no one would 8 agree with you.

9 Okay, you can contact the court reporter 10 and get a tape, if that proves necessary. Hopefully, 11 that won't.

12 But let me say this, and Florida Power and 13 Light, since you have the laboring on this, I want to 14 make sure you know whatever you submit to correct the 15 transcript, please be sure to consult 10 CFR 2.327(d) 16 as in dog and use that format. Okay?

17 MR. BLAIR: Understood.

18 CHAIR GIBSON: One final note. We cannot 19 close the record in this matter until the transcript 20 is corrected. Once the record is closed, the 90-day 21 clock begins to run on this Board to issue its final 22 decision -- it's initial decision.

23 Obviously, in order for us to prepare an 24 initial decision, we will need your proposed findings 25 of fact and conclusions of law. Under 10 CFR 2.1209, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

569 1 each party is to submit its proposed findings of fact 2 and conclusions of law within 30 days of the 3 conclusion of this hearing or such different time as 4 the Board deems appropriate.

5 So, recognizing that we are going to be 6 taking 25 days to get our transcript corrections in 7 from the date it is available, how much time do you 8 need to prepare your proposed findings and 9 conclusions?

10 Understand, too, if you take too long, you 11 are going to be squeezing the Board on the amount of 12 time we need to prepare our initial decision.

13 MR. WHITE: The statute says 30 days. Are 14 asking us to do something less than that?

15 CHAIR GIBSON: Well, no, I wouldn't 16 suggest anything less than that. But if you guys can 17 get your proposed findings and conclusions within 30 18 days from the date the record closes, that would be 19 great. Is that okay?

20 MR. WHITE: That is adequate, sir.

21 CHAIR GIBSON: I mean they are only one 22 contingent.

23 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor, that is 24 adequate.

25 CHAIR GIBSON: Okay, very well. So, let'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

570 1 go for 30 days from the date that the transcript 2 closes, the transcript is corrected and then 30 days 3 from that date, you will get your proposed findings of 4 fact and conclusions of law to us. Okay?

5 Before we close, I would just like to 6 express the Board's appreciation to the parties, to 7 their witnesses, and to their representatives, and to 8 those that assisted them.

9 We also want to thank the Hampton Inn for 10 making our stay here so pleasant. And I want to 11 appreciate, let you all know how much I appreciate 12 Nichole Pepperl, Jennifer Scro, and Andy Welkie for 13 keeping us on track and ensuring that this hearing ran 14 as smoothly as it did.

15 And we also want to thank the Homestead 16 Police Department. You guys have been great to make 17 sure our security was proper and we appreciate it to 18 make sure we had a safe and well-conducted hearing.

19 I assume there is nothing else.

20 MR. HARRIS: One quick housekeeping 21 matter, Your Honor.

22 CHAIR GIBSON: Yes.

23 MR. HARRIS: For the 30 days, are you 24 counting that from when we submit the proposed 25 corrections or from when you issue an order accepting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

571 1 the proposed questions in them?

2 CHAIR GIBSON: From the date that we 3 accept the findings -- the proposed corrections.

4 MR. HARRIS: And then the second 5 housekeeping matter is rebuttal, findings of fact, and 6 conclusions of law, which you didn't cover, I don't 7 think, when we were going over this.

8 CHAIR GIBSON: Do you all have a 9 suggestion? Fifteen days after you submit your 10 proposed findings and conclusions. Okay?

11 MR. HARRIS: That's fine, sir.

12 CHAIR GIBSON: Fifteen? Okay. Fifteen 13 after that get your rebuttal in. That would be good.

14 Okay, with that, we stand adjourned. Good 15 day.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 17 went off the record at 11:10 a.m.)

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.