ML16139A583
| ML16139A583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/2016 |
| From: | Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | |
| Klett, A | |
| References | |
| NRC-2366 | |
| Download: ML16139A583 (61) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 Work Order No.:
NRC-2366 Pages 1-60 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)
CONFERENCE CALL RE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
+ + + + +
TUESDAY MAY 10, 2016
+ + + + +
The conference call was held, Jane Marshall, Deputy Director of the Division of Licensee Renewal, presiding.
PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
JANE MARSHALL, Deputy Director, Division of Licensee Renewal AUDREY KLETT, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation STEVEN GARRY, Senior Health Physicist, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 WILLIAM FORD, Groundwater Hydrologist, Division of Licensee Renewal MICHAEL SMITH, Health Physicist, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SHELBIE LEWMAN, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel LEE BANIC, 2.206 Petition Coordinator, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BRIANA GRANGE, Biologist, Division of Licensee Renewal NRC REGION II STAFF LADONNA SUGGS, Branch Chief for Turkey Point ADAM WILSON, Project Engineer, Project Branch III ALSO PRESENT TOM SUMMERS, Site Vice President, Turkey Point MICHAEL PEARCE, General Manager, Turkey Point STEVE HAMRICK, Counsel
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(2:01 p.m.)
2 MS. KLETT: Welcome, everyone, and thank 3
you for attending this meeting. My name is Audrey 4
Klett, and I am the NRC's Licensing Project Manager for 5
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
6 The purpose of this meeting is for the 7
Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, to address the NRC's 8
Petition Review Board, or PRB, per his request, 9
regarding his petition dated March 23rd, 2016.
10 This meeting is scheduled to last from 2:00 11 o'clock p.m. to about 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time, to allow 12 the Petitioner one hour to address the PRB. This 13 meeting is being recorded by the NRC Operations Center 14 and will be transcribed by a court reporter. The 15 transcript will become a supplement to the petition and 16 will be made publicly available.
17 At this time the people present at this 18 meeting at NRC Headquarters will introduce themselves.
19 As we go around the room, please be sure to clearly state 20 your name, your position and the NRC office that you 21 work in for the record. And I will begin.
22 Again, my name is Audrey Klett. My last 23 name is spelled K-L-E-T-T. And I am the NRC's 24 Licensing Project Manager for Turkey Point Units 3 and 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 4 in the NRC's Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
1 And I am also the petition manager for this petition.
2 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: My name is Jane 3
Marshall. I am the Deputy Division Director of NRC's 4
Division of License Renewal. And I am the PRB 5
Chairperson for this petition.
6 MR. GARRY: My name is Stephen Garry. I 7
am a Senior Health Physicist in the Office of Nuclear 8
Reactor Regulation in the Division of Risk Assessment.
9 MR. FORD: My name is William Ford. I am 10 a Groundwater Hydrologist in the Division of License 11 Renewal.
12 MR. SMITH: My name is Michael Smith. I 13 am a Health Physicist in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 14 Regulation in the Division of Risk Assessment.
15 MS. NEWMAN: My name is Shelbie Newman. I 16 am an attorney in the Office of General Counsel. I am 17 the legal advisor.
18 MS. BANIC: My name is Lee Banic. I'm the 19 2.206 petition coordinator. I work in NRR.
20 MS. KLETT: So we have completed 21 introductions at NRC headquarters. Are there any 22 other participants from NRC headquarters on the phone?
23 MS. GRANGE: Hi. This is Briana Grange of 24 NRC Headquarters on the phone. I am a biologist with 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the Division of License Renewal.
1 MS. KLETT: Are there any participants 2
from NRC Region 2 Office on the phone?
3 MR. SUGGS: Good afternoon. This is 4
LaDonna Suggs. I am the Branch Chief for Turkey Point 5
out of the Region 2 Office in Atlanta, Georgia.
6 MR. WILSON: And this is Adam Wilson. I'm 7
a project engineer from Projects Branch 3, Region 2.
8 MS. KLETT: Is there anyone from Florida 9
Power & Light Company, the licensee for Turkey Point, 10 on the phone?
11 MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Tom Summers, Site 12 Vice President.
13 MR. PEARCE: Michael Pearce, General 14 Manager.
15 MR. HAMRICK: Steve Hamrick, counsel for 16 FPL.
17 MS. KLETT: And, Mr. Saporito, would you 18 please introduce yourself for the record?
19 MR. SAPORITO: My name is Thomas Saporito.
20 I represent myself in the petition.
21 MS. KLETT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Saporito.
22 It is not required for members of the 23 public to introduce themselves for this call.
24 However, if there are any members of the public on the 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 phone that wish to do so at this time, please state your 1
name for the record.
2 (No response.)
3 MS. KLETT: It is important that we each 4
speak clearly and loud enough to make sure that the 5
court reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
6 When you speak, please first state your name for the 7
record.
8 For those dialing into the meeting, please 9
remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 10 noise or distraction. If you do have to mute -- if you 11 do not have a mute button on your phone, this can be 12 done by pressing the star-6 keys. To un-mute, press 13 the star-6 keys again.
14 At this time I will turn the meeting over 15 to the PRB Chairperson Jane Marshall.
16 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Thank you.
17 Welcome, everyone. And thank you, Mr.
18 Saporito, for bringing your concerns to the NRC. The 19 NRC's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 20 Regulations, Section 2.206, provide a way for someone 21 to ask the NRC in a public process to take enforcement 22 action related to NRC licensees for licensed 23 activities. This request is called a 2.206 petition.
24 Depending on NRC's review of the petition, 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the NRC could modify, suspend, revoke -- or revoke a 1
license issued by the NRC or take any other appropriate 2
enforcement action to resolve an issue. The NRC's 3
guidance for processing a 2.206 petition is in 4
Management Directive 8.11, which is available through 5
NRC's website.
6 When the NRC receives a 2.206 petition it 7
forms a Petition Review Board, or PRB. A PRB consists 8
of a chairperson, who is an NRC senior executive service 9
level manager. The PRB also has a petition manager and 10 a coordinator. Other members of the PRB are chosen 11 based on the subject of the petition.
12 Before the PRB meets about whether to 13 accept a petition for further review under the 2.206 14 process, the PRB gives the Petitioner an opportunity 15 to meet with the PRB. That is the purpose of today's 16 meeting. The Petitioner has this opportunity to 17 provide additional explanation or support for his 2.206 18 petition. The PRB will then consider this information 19 when deciding whether to accept the petition for 20 further review under the 2.206 process.
21 Today's meeting is not a hearing nor is it 22 an opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 23 question the PRB on the merits of the issues presented 24 in the petition. No decisions regarding the merits of 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this petition will be made at today's meeting.
1 After Mr. Saporito's presentation, the NRC 2
and licensee may ask the Petitioner clarifying 3
questions in order to better understand the 4
Petitioner's presentation. After today's meeting, 5
the PRB will review the petition and the information 6
presented today to determine whether the petition will 7
be accepted for further evaluation. The PRB's initial 8
decision on whether the 2.206 petition will be accepted 9
for further review rests with the Petitioner.
10 Mr. Saporito will then be provided another 11 opportunity to address the PRB before it makes its final 12 decision on whether to accept the petition for further 13 review.
14 At this point I will provide a summary of 15 Mr. Saporito's petition activities to date.
16 On March
- 23rd, 2016, Mr.
Saporito 17 submitted a 2.206 petition to the NRC about the 18 discharge of radioactive isotopes, other contaminants 19 into the environment surrounding the Turkey Point site.
20 Mr. Saporito requested that the NRC take escalated 21 enforcement action against the licensee and issue a 22 confirmatory order requiring the licensee to take the 23 nuclear reactors through a cold shutdown mode of 24 operation until certain conditions were met.
25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 These conditions include the completion of 1
an independent assessment and of corrective actions for 2
the source and impacts of the discharge of radioactive 3
isotopes and other contaminants, and an update to the 4
plant's Final Safety Analysis Report.
5 As a basis for his request, Mr. Saporito 6
included two reports in his petition dated March 23rd, 7
2016. His first report is an attachment to the 8
memorandum dated March 7th, 2016, from the Miami-Dade 9
County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez to the Miami -- I'm 10
- sorry, Miami-Dade County Board of County 11 Commissioners. This report appears to have been 12 prepared by the Division of Environmental Resources 13 Management in Miami-Dade County Department of 14 Regulatory and Economic Resources.
15 The second report is a study completed by 16 Dr. David Chin at the University of Miami. This study 17 is available from the Miami-Dade County Department of 18 Regulatory and Economic Resources website.
19 On May 8th and 9th, 2016, the Petitioner 20 provided 12 more attachments to his petition, which 21 included newspapers articles, NRC and licensee 22 environmental reviews, and the licensee's license 23 renewal application.
24 On March 29th, 2016, the NRC's petition 25
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 manager contacted Mr. Saporito to discuss 10 CFR 2.206 1
and to offer an opportunity to address the PRB. Mr.
2 Saporito requested to address the PRB by teleconference 3
prior to the PRB's initial recommendation to accept or 4
reject the petition for review.
5 On April 7th, 2016, the PRB met internally 6
to determine whether immediate NRC actions were needed 7
based on the issues presented in the petition.
8 On April 22nd, 2016, the NRC's petition 9
manager called Mr. Saporito and left him a message that 10 the PRB determined that his petition did not raise 11 public health or safety issues that necessitated 12 immediate enforcement actions to shut down Turkey 13 Point.
14 On April 25th, 2016, the NRC's petition 15 manager contacted Mr. Saporito about a scheduling 16 change to the teleconference. The petition manager 17 also informed the Petitioner that on April 29th, staff 18 would be participating in a Florida State Senate 19 workshop about Turkey Point's cooling canal system, and 20 provided the Petitioner a website link that had 21 information about the workshop.
22 This concludes the summary of the 23 activities to date regarding this petition.
24 A reminder for the phone participants:
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 please state your name if you speak. This will help 1
with developing the meeting transcript that will be 2
made publicly available.
3 Mr. Saporito, I will now turn it over to 4
you to provide any information you believe the PRB 5
should consider when reviewing your petition. You 6
have one hour for your presentation.
7 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.
8 Chairman.
9 So, for the record, my name is Thomas 10 Saporito and I represent Saprodani Associates in this 11 matter, which we are the Petitioners in these 12 proceedings.
13 On March 23rd, 2016, an enforcement 14 petition was submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission, or NRC, under 10 CFR 2.206 related to 16 licensed operations at the Florida Power & Light 17 Company Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. In relevant part, 18 the petition requests that the NRC take escalated 19 enforcement action against the licensee and issue a 20 confirmatory order to the licensee requiring the 21 licensee to take their nuclear reactors to cold 22 shutdown mode of operation until such time as the 23 following items could be completed:
24 That the licensee complete an independent 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 assessment to fully understand and correct the 1
potential and/or realized threat to the public and 2
environment related to the operations of the Turkey 3
Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 regarding the 4
discharge of radioactive isotopes and other 5
contaminants into the surrounding environment, and; 6
That the licensee complete a comprehensive 7
evaluation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 8
and 4 regarding the source of the discharge of 9
radioactive isotopes and other contaminants into the 10 surrounding environment, and; 11 That the licensee identify and implement 12 measures to correct any deficiencies in the Turkey 13 Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 regarding the 14 discharge of radioactive isotopes and other 15 contaminants into the surrounding environment, and; 16 That the licensee complete an updated 17 approved Final Safety Analysis Report, or FSAR, of the 18 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 regarding the 19 discharge of radioactive isotopes and other 20 contaminants into the surrounding environment.
21 In support of the petition, I submitted one 22 attachment, a 5-page memorandum, dated March 7th, 2016, 23 from Carlos A. Giminez, G-I-M-I-N-E-Z, Mayor for 24 Miami-Dade County, and the Honorable Chairman Jean 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Monestime, M-O-N-E-S-T-I-M-E, and Members of the Board 1
of County Commissioners.
2 In further support of the petition I 3
subsequently submitted 13 additional attachments for 4
a sum total of 14 attachments. To the extent that the 5
NRC has allowed me one hour to address the Petition 6
Review Board, or PRB, today, only the following 7
attachments should be referenced during this 8
teleconference call: Attachments 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 9
13, and 14. Should the NRC require input from me 10 related to the other attachments, please advise at a 11 later date via email.
12 So before I discuss the specifics of the 13 enforcement petition, I want the public record to be 14 perfectly clear about the circumstances leading up to 15 the deteriorated conditions at the FPL Turkey Point 16 Nuclear Plant. You folks may have seen recent national 17 news broadcasts about the lead poisoning of thousands 18 of people in the Flint, Michigan area, including 19 children and babies. Those people trusted government 20 regulators and elected government officials to protect 21 their health and safety related to the drinking water 22 provided to them by the city.
23 Indictments of numerous individuals have 24 been exercised stemming from investigations that 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 showed employees and government officials were 1
apparently complicit in knowingly pumping tainted 2
water from the local river to thousands of area 3
residents. The governments regulators miserably 4
failed to protect the health and safety of the public 5
in those circumstances.
6 This is but one significant example 7
showing the failure of a government agency to protect 8
the health and safety of the public. There are many, 9
many more examples, such as the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant 10 and the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, which the NRC 11 knowingly allowed the plants to conduct licensed 12 operations with severely embrittled reactor vessels 13 which could crack in a pressurized thermal shock event 14 at any moment.
15 The Turkey Point Nuclear Plant also has 16 severely embrittled reactor vessels subject to 17 cracking from a pressurized thermal shock event at any 18 moment. But the NRC granted FPL a 20-year extension 19 allowing the plant to continue licensed operations well 20 beyond the plant initial safety design basis.
21 How do the tens of thousands of people 22 living in the New York City area and the Miami, Florida 23 area evacuate in time? The obvious answer is that they 24 cannot evacuate in a timely manner, and they are 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 instructed to stay in place.
1 Nuclear disasters in Japan and in Russia 2
demonstrate that tens of thousands of people will 3
suffer the damaging effects of radioactive substances 4
strewn from those nuclear accidents for generations 5
following the nuclear accident. The American people 6
are sick and tired of government regulators that do not 7
protect the health and safety, and the gridlock in 8
Congress preventing meaningful change to ensure that 9
government regulators act in a proactive manner and not 10 in a reactive and passive manner to protect public 11 health and safety.
12 That is why Donald J. Trump won the 13 Republican primary elections and is likely to become 14 the next President of the United States.
15 With respect to the incident for this 16 petition, the record will show that the NRC appears to 17 be complicit with the licensee in failing to address 18 and resolve longstanding issues related to licensed 19 operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 20 and 4 regarding the canal cooling system.
21 Let me begin with a reference to Attachment 22 4 for which I will read, as follows. This document is 23 identified, for the record, as an April 17th, 2016 op 24 ed printed in the Miami-Herald newspaper and authored 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 by Laura Reynolds. This article accurately sums up the 1
frustration and the concern of the general public 2
regarding the Turkey Point cooling canals.
3 The documents states: For Florida Power 4
and Light to downplay the contamination of its aging 5
Turkey Point nuclear reactors is self-serving and 6
misses the point. Why should customers take any solace 7
in FPL's Trust us - we'll fix it approach when the 8
reactor's cooling canal system has been leaking for 9
years, and most recently has been made worse by FPL 10 itself?
11 The Turkey Point power plant is a sprawling 12 complex with two nuclear reactors located a few miles 13 south of Miami and owned and operated by FPL. Turkey 14 Point is the only nuclear...plant in the United States 15 located on the borders of two national parks. It has 16 a cooling canal system that is different from any other 17 nuclear...plant cooling system in the country.
18 The leaking industrial wastewater 19 facility is not a new problem. But recently new data 20 revealed a direct connection from the groundwater plume 21 to the surface waters of the Biscayne National Park.
22 A recent Miami-Dade County report and an ongoing 23 University of Miami study found elevated levels of 24 tritium, which is a radioactive isotope that comes from 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 nuclear power production, in groundwater up to 4.7 1
miles west of the facility and up to 2.1 miles east.
2 Water is the lifeblood of South Florida.
3 These un-permitted releases of wastewater pose a danger 4
to Miami-Dade's sole source drinking-water resource, 5
the Biscayne Aquifer, and to the fragile ecosystem of 6
Biscayne National Park. The leak is exacerbating 7
saltwater intrusion toward Miami-Dade drinking water 8
wells. South Florida communities everywhere are 9
struggling to contain saltwater intrusion, when 10 saltwater moves inland, underground toward drinking 11 water well sources. The reactors cooling canal system 12 is loading at least 600,000 pounds of salt per day into 13 our drinking water resource.
14 The leaking pollutants to the east into 15 Biscayne National Park poses a danger to the park's 16 sensitive ecosystem. Radioactive tritium has been 17 found in surface waters surrounding Turkey Point since 18 2010. FPL should have seen this coming -- it's been 19 ongoing for decades. Instead of working to stop the 20 leaks, mitigate the damages and find new cooling 21 technologies that use our precious water resources more 22 efficiently without loading salt directly into the 23 aquifer, the company accelerated the reactor output.
24 Now they run longer and work harder.
25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 By adding billions -- that's with a B --
1 billions of gallons of water in 2015 and adding over 2
8 cubic feet of weight to the top of the cooling canals, 3
FPL has flushed the pollution in a large pulse from 4
inside the cooling canals and the groundwater into the 5
surface waters of the Biscayne National Park. The 6
levels of tritium have been recorded at thousands of 7
times higher than what normal background levels should 8
be.
9 The so-called reactor uprates came with a 10 cost. FPL customers picked up the bill for these 11 uprates in the amount of over $2 billion. Since the 12 uprates, FPL has not been able to keep the temperature 13 in the cooling canals at an acceptable level.
14 Let me repeat that: Since the uprates, 15 FPL has not been able to keep the temperature in the 16 cooling canals at an acceptable level -- scrambling to 17 comply with environmental and Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission requirements to keep the reactors from 19 shutting down.
20 FPL sold the reactor uprates as a good deal 21 for customers to the Florida Public Service Commission.
22 Ultimately, FPL customers will foot the bill for this 23 gross mismanagement of our natural resources and public 24 water supply.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The unfortunate irony is that FPL is now 1
requesting a rate increase from that same commission.
2 And it goes on to talk about the rate 3
increase. But then it says:
4 It's stunning that the company would 5
request more profit at the same time its Turkey Point 6
reactors are leaking pollutants. Moreover, FPL wants 7
to add two new proposed reactors -- for which its 8
customers are already footing the bill. Is it a good 9
idea to allow this utility to expand a troubled 10 industrial facility abutting a national park to the 11 east and drinking water wells to the west in the face 12 of sea-level rise?
13 Where are the regulators who should be 14 protecting us and the environment?
15 And that, that actually sums up the 16 attitude, the frustrations of South Florida residents.
17 Next let me reference Attachment 7. This 18 document is identified for the record as a April 21st 19 newspaper article in the Miami-Herald and authored by 20 Jenny Staletovich, S-T-A-L-E-T-O-V-I-C-H. This 21 article provides an accurate time line of events 22 leading up to the current deteriorated Turkey Point 23 cooling canals. Notably, references made in this 24 document are wholly supported by substantial evidence 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 shown in other attachments that will be discussed here 1
today.
2 The article states, In the wake of 3
revelations last month that its aging cooling canals 4
at Turkey Point were leaking into Biscayne Bay, Florida 5
Power & Light rushed to do damage control: company 6
leadership went on the defensive, insisting they were 7
acting responsibly and, in a full page add, blaming 8
misinformation for fanning unfounded fears.
9 They are quoted as saying, 'We're not 10 punting on this at all, President and CEO Eric Silagy 11 told the Miami Herald editorial board earlier this 12 month as he laid out a list of on-going fixes.
13
'If this company has given that 14 impression, that's my fault, he said. What is 15 frustrating a little bit is we've been working really 16 hard over the decades to do the right thing.'
17 But critics contend the powerful utility 18 worked even harder at delay tactics in the face of 19 mounting evidence that its compromised canal system had 20 produced an underground plume of saltwater threatening 21 nearby drinking supplies and contaminating Biscayne 22 Bay.
23 Records show FPL had been warned for years 24 about problems and even conducted its own research in 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 2010 that concluded its key fix -- adding millions of 1
gallons of brackish water to freshen the super salty 2
canals -- would likely make the plume worse. After 3
overheated canals forced the plant's two reactors to 4
partially power down in 2014, the utility pushed state 5
regulators and water managers repeatedly to add more 6
water, solutions that would allow it to continue 7
operating under Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits 8
but potentially increase the extent and the speed of 9
saltwater seepage from the unlined canals.
10 At the time, the company was still publicly 11 insisting its canals were definitely a closed system 12 not impacting any other source of water.
13 The end result, say environmentalists and 14 others who pushed FPL to move faster over the years, 15 are patchwork fixes and shortsighted solutions that 16 they say have failed to deal with broader problems 17 caused by the 44-year-old canals.
18
'They're band-aids, said Steve Torcise, 19 T-O-R-C-I-S-E, whose family has operated a rock mine 20 just west of the canals for 90 years and earlier this 21 year won a legal fight demanding the state overhaul a 22 management plan that allowed FPL to add more water 23 without fully addressing the impact on the plume. An 24 administrative law judge in February faulted the 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Florida Department of Environmental Protection for 1
being too weak and not citing FPL.
2 Despite the criticism, the DEP on Thursday 3
approved the plan, dismissing many of the judge's 4
findings. In a 28-page decision, DEP Secretary Jon 5
Steverson wrote the judge inappropriately invaded the 6
exclusive province of the state's ability to regulate 7
the utility. The city of Miami, which had joined the 8
lawsuit with Torcise, plans to appeal.
9 Then further to that, 'We will be pursuing 10 all available appellate remedies to challenge this 11 ruling, said deputy city attorney Barnaby Min.
12 In the meantime, the salt plume continues 13 to grow. According to the DEP's own 2014 management 14 plan, it has advanced at a rate of 525 to 660 feet per 15 year with up to 600,000 pounds of salt escaping daily 16 from the canals. That's pure salt, not salty water.
17
'FPL...should have shared that they were 18 working on a solution, instead of fighting us in court, 19 said Miami-Dade County Commission Daniella Levine 20 Cava, who pressed for information from additional 21 monitoring wells that this year confirmed the presence 22 of tritium, a radioactive isotope used to trace 23 cooling...water, in Biscayne Bay.
24 Their first order of business has to be to 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 do no harm to our community and to our environment, --
1 asked the Environmental Protection Agency to weigh in, 2
joining Representative --
3 MS. KLETT: Mr. Saporito, this is Audrey 4
Klett. Can you hear me?
5 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
6 MS. KLETT: We're having trouble hearing 7
you. I think your phone connection isn't working, at 8
least for the past couple of sentences.
9 MR. SAPORITO: Can you hear me now?
10 MS. KLETT: Yes, I can hear you now.
11 MS. KLETT: All right. I sound like a 12 Verizon commercial.
13 All right, here we go.
14 Worsening conditions have also caught the 15 attention of Monroe County, which operates its only 16 well field west of the canals. The county, which this 17 week passed a resolution raising concerns, is 18 considering buying land further west to relocate its 19 well field as well as build an additional reverse 20 osmosis plant in Key West, an expensive option that can 21 make salt water fit for human consumption.
22 And it quoted, it quoted, 'The cooling 23 canals have been on our radar screen as long as I've 24 been here, said Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority deputy 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 director Tom Walker. We literally have a line we 1
watch.'
2 How FPL got to this point is a complex path 3
of regulatory decisions and company expansion, 4
complicated by the singular design of the cooling 5
canals. Turkey Point is the only nuclear plant in the 6
country that uses the radiator-like cooling system 7
spanning 5,900 acres. It also sits atop the Biscayne 8
Aquifer, a pitted layer of coral rock that looks more 9
like a hardened sponge than solid ground.
10 In 1972, when the canals were created --
11 a compromise FPL says it was forced to accept after 12 federal environmental regulators sued in court to stop 13 the plant from dumping cooling water directly into the 14 bay -- it was understood canals in such porous geology 15 would leak. So the design included a critical feature:
16 a straight, deep canal, called an interceptor ditch, 17 to stop saltwater piling up under the canals from 18 migrating west.
19 Engineer Ed Swakon created --
20 I'll move on to the next paragraph.
21 The interceptor ditch was important 22 because South Florida's drinking water supply also sits 23 just below the surface in the Biscayne aquifer. Canals 24 dredged in the 1940s to drain the Everglades had caused 25
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 the salt front to migrate inland. But over the years 1
water managers installed hundreds of gates and other 2
controls to stop migration -- and in some cases, even 3
reverse it.
4 But by the 1980s, there already was an 5
indication that Turkey Point's ditch wasn't effective, 6
with the underground salt front moving just west of what 7
was supposed to be -- or what was supposed to act as 8
a barrier.
9 Under all five management plans for Turkey 10 Point drawn up by the Florida environmental regulators 11 and water managers over the decades, FPL has been under 12 orders to maintain the quality of surrounding 13 groundwater. A network of monitoring wells was dug to 14 keep watch.
15 Over the years, the number of wells 16 dwindled, falling to just four by 1983. If state 17 regulators were watching them, they weren't doing it 18 very closely, said consulting engineer Ed Swakon.
19 Torcise hired him to investigate the plume after plans 20 to expand a rock mine near Homestead were nearly 21 derailed when environmental regulators wondered 22 whether mining would pull the saltwater front inland.
23 In 2007, Swakon went to the South Florida 24 Water Management District, the regulatory agency 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 keeping tabs on salt water intrusion, and asked for old 1
records. To his surprise, Swakon found salinity in 2
groundwater spreading and spiking. By 2001 and 2002, 3
readings showed the front -- water with higher salt 4
concentrations than in Biscayne Bay -- had reached 5
Southwest 137th Avenue about three miles to the west.
6
'The way the reports were written, they 7
never really --
8
'The way the reports were written, they 9
never really did a long term history of the data. They 10 only compared quarter to quarter and there was very 11 little difference, he said. But if you really plotted 12 it, and somebody had taken the time, they would have 13 seen each successive quarter got a little worse and a 14 little worse.'
15 Swakon said he and Torcise met with FPL 16 officials to report their findings, but got no 17 response. An FPL spokesman later called them 18 unfounded allegations. At the time, the utility was 19 in the midst of hammering out a new administrative order 20 required by a $3 billion uprating project of Turkey 21 Point's two nuclear reactors that FPL said it needed 22 to keep up with increasing demand: as much as 40 23 percent of the power the county needed was being 24 imported, FPL officials said in a 2007 zoning meeting.
25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The uprate would increase power output by 1
15 percent but also raise temperatures in the cooling 2
canals, with the effect of increasing evaporation and 3
salt concentrations. FPL officials planned to offset 4
additional heat going into the canals by shutting down 5
the plant's two oldest fossil fuel burning units. The 6
move was expected to cap the heat increase to only 2.5 7
degrees -- an impact FPL insisted would not affect the 8
operation of the canals.
9 But modeling done by the United States 10 Geological Survey in 2009 found that as the canals grew 11 hotter and saltier, they could potentially shoot saline 12 fingers to the bottom of the 98-foot-thick aquifer --
13 sometimes as fast as a few days. The extra salty water 14 could then spread laterally, expanding the plume.
15 Water managers, whose approval was key to 16 the uprating moving forward, wanted to know if the 17 interceptor ditch was still an effective barrier. At 18 the time, FPL officials assured them that it was.
19 Engineers who designed the ditch weren't 20 so confident. According to a report compiled this year 21 by University of Miami hydrologist David Chin for 22 Miami-Dade County, the engineers worried as early as 23 1971 that saltwater could migrate inland even if the 24 ditch was properly operated. Chin also found the ditch 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 only blocks shallow saltwater from spreading -- and the 1
canal system was pushing it deeper into the Biscayne 2
aquifer.
3 Faced with increased scrutiny, FPL hired 4
its own engineers to look for remedies, according to 5
an in-house study Torcise obtained in his recent 6
lawsuit. Completed in August 2011, the study found 7
that canal water had moved 3.5 miles west of the plant 8
and was spreading at a relatively brisk pace of 500 feet 9
a year. In response to a question, an FPL spokesman 10 this week revised that figure, saying the rate has since 11 slowed to just over 120 feet a year.
12 FPL's engineers offered five 13 alternatives, including building massive slurry walls 14 underground to stop water from moving at a cost of 15
$134.4 million. But the cheapest and preferable 16 alternative, the engineers said, was adding fresher 17 water from the Floridan aquifer.
18
'The alternative is attractive because it 19 effectively removes the source of the hypersaline 20 water, engineers wrote. But a potentially negative 21 aspect of the remedy, they said, was it did nothing to 22 stop the westward movement of saltwater. Nor did the 23 other four, the other four remedies that they don't want 24 to talk about.
25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Despite the findings, FPL officials in 1
2010 and 2011 continued to work with water managers on 2
an elaborate monitoring plan that also for the first 3
time included checking for tritium, a radioactive 4
isotope found in canal water that could be used as a 5
tracer. In 2011, as part of their effort to confirm 6
tritium as the best tracer, district hydrologists John 7
Janzen and Steve Krupa found that canal water was in 8
wells at Southwest 137th Avenue. Tritium was also 9
found in surface water just east of the canals at the 10 mouth of the Card Sound Canal. To get a better read, 11 the hydrologists recommended installing a better 12 network of wells.
13 But in its annual post-uprate report in 14 October 2012, FPL continued to debate the 2009 United 15 States Geological Study findings of the expanding 16 plume, arguing that the wells used by the agency might 17 not be connected or in the same zone because of the 18 complex geology of the area. Still, the utility agreed 19 a plume existed and offered solutions.
20 FPL managers now say the location of the 21 saltwater plume wasn't in dispute -- just the exact 22 cause of it.
23
'We always said we were part of it, but 24 there's other factors, including lowering the water 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 table seasonally for nearby farmers, senior project 1
director Steve Scroggs said this week. It's easy to 2
say it's all FPL. It's not.' According to him.
3 Meanwhile, the boundaries of the tritium 4
were growing clearer. A Miami-Dade County contour map 5
of samples in 2011 and 2013 show tritium detected well 6
beyond the cooling canal boundaries. County officials 7
had been keeping an eye on the wells, but had no 8
authority without a water quality violation, said Lee 9
Hefty, direct of the Division of Environmental 10 Resources Management. Instead, he said, they pushed 11 for the district to act.
12 In April 2013, the Water Management 13 District finally officially notified FPL that the 14 canals were in violation. The utility responded, 15 asking to add 15 million gallons of water a day from 16 the Floridan aquifer, which it said would reverse the 17 plume, a prediction that contradicts the earlier 2010 18 report. But district hydrologist Jeff Giddings found 19 FPL used faulty modeling. While adding Floridan water 20 reduced salinity in the canals, it did nothing to reduce 21 the underground plume.
22 District Consultant William Nuttle also 23 concluded more water would just increase seepage and 24 warned that FPL failed to account for local conditions, 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 including a major change on the horizon: and that's 1
called sea rise. A foot sea rise, now predicted by the 2
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 3
2030, would put the shoreline west of the canals.
4 As the agencies tried to hammer out a deal, 5
temperatures in the canal spiked in the summer of 2014, 6
prompting the utility to scramble for solutions, 7
including getting operating limits raised to 104 8
degrees, the highest in the country, and an emergency 9
permit to pump up to 100 million gallons of water a day 10 from a nearby drainage canal. The utility also began 11 pumping water from unregulated marine wells.
12 Over the next year, Miami-Dade County 13 officials estimate that FPL pumped more than 12 billion 14 gallons -- that's 12 billion with a B -- gallons of water 15 into the canals. Half of that came from the marine 16 wells with a quarter coming from the nearby L-31E canal.
17 Rain supplied just 37 percent, even though company 18 officials say rain remains the primary source of water 19 to address increasing evaporation with higher 20 temperatures.
21 What caused the spike remains in dispute.
22 Chin, whose final report is due next month, concluded 23 that the uprating project caused it.
24 Let me repeat that: Chin concluded that 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the uprating project caused the rising temperature in 1
the canals.
2 FPL blames a local drought. In July 2014, 3
FPL environmental services director Matt Raffenberg 4
said rainfall over the canals amounted to just 5.29 5
inches and only 20 inches in all in 2013.
6
'If it's such an important facility, you 7
would expect its design would not be based on the 8
weather, Hefty said. It sounds like a funny thing to 9
say, but really it's a fairly significant facility. I 10 would have expected their design engineers would have 11 contemplated how that facility would operate without 12 rain.
13 FPL's Scroggs also said that when the 14 canals were briefly shut down, sediment built up in the 15 northwest corner, which slowed flow, turned the water 16 browner and hotter, and caused an algae bloom to spread.
17 Sediment had not been removed from the canals since 18 1990s, Scroggs said, because it is expensive.
19 When the state finally issued a new 20 administrative order in late 2015, allowing FPL to pump 21 more water into the canals to lower salinity and abate 22 the plume without fully spelling out how, Torcise, 23 environmentalists, neighboring cities and the county 24 sued. Last month, a Tallahassee administrative law 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 judge ordered FPL to redo the plan after it failed to 1
cite FPL for a specific violation.
2 On Thursday, DEP chief Steverson wrote 3
that the order in fact contained remedies which were 4
not suitable for judicial review and that choosing to 5
fix the problem, rather than penalize FPL, was up to 6
the department.
7 The state's decision, South Miami Mayor 8
Phil Stoddard said, comes as no surprise given the 9
utility's political connections.
10 He reportedly said, 'I suspect there's 11 incentive enough for DEP to disrespect the 12 administrative law judge and the public welfare to 13 avoid holding FPL responsible for the environmental 14 damage they've done.'
15 On May 15, FPL is also due to submit a 16 clean-up plan to the county, which pulled out of the 17 suit and hammered out its own deal. The plan called 18 for FPL to install extraction wells to pump the extra 19 salty water deep into the border zone, which 20 environmentalists worry won't do enough to address the 21 plume. To address high levels of ammonia and 22 phosphorus leaking the bay, FPL also dug a 30-foot deep 23 well east of the canals, which it did without consulting 24 the county environmental staff, prompting another 25
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 letter from Hefty to better spell out plans.
1 FPL now says the cooling canals are back 2
under control, that salinity is a third lower than last 3
summer and, now that they've cleared sediment and have 4
permission to add water from the deeper brackish 5
Floridan aquifer, they expect the canals to work 6
properly. Efforts to address the plume was delayed not 7
by them, Scroggs said, but by a complicated 8
bureaucratic system.
9
'For years people knew about this and 10 everybody talked about what we would do. Well, we 11 finally broke through that, he said. I'm living 12 everyday with the delays and the questions and the go 13 back and do this and the back and forth. It's an 14 incredibly complex process with multiple people and 15 multiple interests. But at the end of the day, we've 16 moved to a place where we're taking action.'
17 That's the end of that article. But that 18 gives the PRB a good time line of the facts of what has 19 happened almost to date.
20 Now I'm going to move on to Attachment 14.
21 I noted here that Attachment 14 and Attachment 11 go 22 together since they're related to the same subject 23 matter. To the extent that Attachment 11, 11 indicates 24 a date of September 8th, 2000, it provides a useful 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 reference to the undated document in Attachment 14 that 1
follows.
2 This document is identified, for the 3
record, as FP&L's application for a renewed operating 4
license at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 3 and 4. I 5
note here that this document contains 802 pages with 6
only about five pages that reference the Turkey Point 7
cooling canals. Find FPL's page in this nomenclature 8
at the bottom right-hand corner of each page.
9 Page 2.4-15 and 2.4-16 state, entitled 2.4 10
-- is a paragraph entitled 2.4, 2.4 cooling water 11 canals. The cooling water canals serve as the plant 12 ultimate heat sink. The cooling water canals 13 constitute a closed cooling system made up of earthen 14 canals that provide cooling and discharged water prior 15 to re-use at the intake structure. The cooling water 16 canals, as shown on Figure 3.1-2 of the license renewal 17 application environmental report.
18 The next page, 2.4-16 states that the 19 cooling water canals are in the scope of license renewal 20 because they provide a source of cooling water for plant 21 shutdown.
22 A complete list of cooling water canal 23 structural components require an aging management 24 review and the component intended functions are 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 provided in Table 3.6-6.
1 The aging management review for cooling 2
water canals is discussed in subsection 3.6.2.
3 Moving on to page 3.6-27, it's entitled --
4 the section 3.6.2, other structures. And the -- under 5
the first paragraph --
6 MS. KLETT: Sorry. This is Audrey Klett.
7 For those on the phone that are not 8
speaking, can you please mute your phone? We can hear 9
a dog barking in the background. It's pretty 10 disruptive.
11 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you, Audrey.
12 Farther down on that page it says cooling 13 water canals. Okay, that's the next reference.
14 And then on page 3-42 there's a paragraph 15 entitled Section 3.6.2.4, miscellaneous structural 16 components. Second item down in there it's stated, 17 cooling water canals.
18 And then at page 3.6-44 it states, cooling 19 water canals provide a source of cooling water for plant 20 shutdown. The heat load for shutdown is a small 21 percentage of the normal operating heat load.
22 Weathering and organic decomposition on aging 23 mechanisms which could lead to a loss of material of 24 the cooling water canals that could cause loss of 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 intended functioning.
1 The next two paragraphs we'll skip.
2 And the next paragraph it says, based on 3
the loss of material due to weathering, corrosion and 4
organic decomposition is an aging effect requiring 5
management for miscellaneous structural components.
6 Okay? So the aging management of the 7
canal cooling system at Turkey Point was part of FPL's 8
application to the NRC to renew their operating 9
licenses, to extend them an additional 20 years the NRC 10 granted.
11 So what does this all mean? It means that 12 the NRC appears to have knowingly granted FPL a 20-year 13 extension for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 14 and 4 without ensuring that the licensee had a proper, 15 active and functioning aging management program in 16 place in the Turkey Point cooling canal system. This 17 apparent and blatant failure on the part of the NRC 18 violates the agency's mission statement and 19 congressional mandate which states that the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission, or NRC, was created as an 21 independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the 22 safe use of radioactive material for beneficial 23 facility purposes, while protecting people and the 24 environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 power plants and other uses of nuclear material, such 1
as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspections 2
and enforcement of its requirements.
3 So in this instance it appears that the NRC 4
failed to protect public health and safety and failed 5
to protect the environment when the agency granted a 6
20-year license extension to FPL without first ensuring 7
that the licensee complied with the agency's 8
regulations and requirements with respect to the 9
cooling canal system's aging program.
10 Indeed, where's the NRC's independent 11 assessment in the Turkey Point cooling canal system 12 aging program? It appears that the agency merely 13 adopted and accepted FPL's statements on their face.
14 Is that how the NRC is mandated by Congress to carry 15 out its mission statement?
16 I have children and now grandchildren who 17 live in South Florida. And I am gravely concerned that 18 the NRC is in bed with the licensee FPL, allowing 19 licensed operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 20 in violation of the agency's regulations and 21 requirements, which will ultimately result in a nuclear 22 accident similar to the Fukushima nuclear accident 23 where two nuclear reactors melted down and spewed 24 radioactive substances into the environment.
25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 That nuclear accident to this very --
1 continues to this very day, and will continue for 2
decades to come.
3 Next let me reference Attachment 12. For 4
the record, this document is dated in the year 2010, 5
entitled License Amendment Request Extended Power to 6
Operate. This request is for the Turkey Point Nuclear 7
Plant Units 3 and 4. The page numbers or FPL is at the 8
bottom of each page.
9 So at page ATT.3- --.7-3 it says at 1.0, 10 Executive
- Summary, that this supplemental 11 environmental report contains Florida Power & Light 12 assessments of environmental impact of proposed Turkey 13 Point Nuclear Plant's 3 and 4 extended power uprate and 14 the current four level of 2,300 megawatts thermal, 15 2,644 each. With the EPU, or extended power uprate to 16 the nuclear supply system level, heat will be 2,652 MWt.
17 The intent of this supplemental 18 environmental report is to provide sufficient 19 information for the United States Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission, NRC, to evaluate the environmental impact 21 of the EPU in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 22
- 51. This report is applicable to both TPN Units 3 and 23
- 4.
24 The bottom of that same page states the 25
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 generation of low level radioactive waste will not 1
increase significantly over the current generation 2
rate. There will be minimal changes in the volume of 3
radioactive effluent, liquid and gases, released to the 4
environment. Although the radioactive content of the 5
liquids and gases releases will increase slightly, they 6
will remain bounded by the analysis in the Final 7
Environmental Statement, or FES, related to operation 8
of the Turkey Point plant.
9 Florida Power & Light inspections of the 10 project will not impact wetlands and nearby waters.
11 There will be no increase in the amount of water 12 response as a result of the project.
13 And this last, that last statement was at 14 page ATT.7-21. And the third paragraph of that page 15 I just read states that each nuclear unit produces about 16 3 -- produces about 5.35 billion BTUs per hour of waste 17 heat discharge to the cooling canal at full load.
18 After the uprate, that volume will increase to about 19 6.10 billion BTUs per hour. The predicted temperature 20 difference -- he goes on to talk about the plant.
21 And it says these changes are 22 insignificant relative to the existing seasonal 23 changes of up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit at every -- any 24 given location in the system.
25
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 At page ATT.7-27, in the middle of that 1
page it says under the heading of Threatened and 2
Endangered Terrestrial Species, it says no adverse 3
impact to federal or state listed terrestrial plants 4
or animals are expected during the daily operations due 5
to the existing developed nature of the habitat. No 6
long-term change in the populations of threatened or 7
endangered species is anticipated as a result of 8
operations of TPN 3 and 4.
9 No changes in wildlife population at the 10 adjacent undeveloped areas are anticipated included in 11 the listed species, and the project is not anticipated 12 to deter continued visits by wildlife from the outer 13 belt areas in the Turkey Point boundaries. An impact 14 also will not change.
15 Now, the last paragraph says the Turkey 16 Point cooling canal system is a permitted wastewater 17 treatment facility. As a result, state and federal 18 water quality standards need not apply within. The 19 effect of the operation of the project upon aquatic 20 biota in an enclosed cooling canal system are expected 21 to be negligible. The predicted maximum temperature 22 increase is approximately 2 degrees. The water 23 entering the canal is not anticipated to result in any 24 adverse impact to the listed American crocodile.
25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 That whole paragraph is proven to be false 1
by the evidence I've submitted to the NRC, especially 2
the articles.
3 The next page states that, on page 4
ATT.7-23, the growth rate of crocodiles varies with 5
food availability and temperature. And digestion is 6
only efficient within a certain range of aquatic 7
temperatures. Crocodile are able to regulate falling 8
temperatures. They bask on the edge of canals, on 9
berms, resting on berms alternating locations between 10 cooler and warmer canals. The maximum temperature 11 increase related to the project of about 2 degrees is 12 unlikely, can result in any significant impact to 13 crocodiles ability to thermoregulate.
14 Laboratory experiments indicate that 15 prolonged high temperatures may be potentially 16 stressful to crocodiles.
Laboratory studies 17 conducted by authorities indicate that hatchling 18 crocodiles show signs of acute thermal stress --
19 panting, pupil dilation, death, eye blinking, jerky 20 body movement, and attempts to climb out in a hurry when 21 canal temperatures exceeded 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit 22 and once air temperatures exceeded 104 degrees.
23 It's interesting that the
- uprate, 24 following the uprate, canal water went up to 104 25
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 degrees. Well, where -- with respect, with respect to 1 2, where are the independent studies to 2
support FPL's contentions? Because they're just mere 3
assertions in there.
4 Where's the NRC's independent assessment 5
of that request by FPL to amend their licenses, 6
operating license? Where? Where are they? Where 7
have you got these studies? What did FPL rely on, rely 8
on? What did the NRC rely on?
9 Did NRC just take FPL's version to be true?
10 Did the NRC fail to do their own assessment? I think, 11 I think that's what the facts show.
12 Okay. Next let me reference Attachment 13
- 13. And let me first correct the cover page of this 14 attachment which should identify the document as an 15 August 2011 NRC biological assessment with a reference 16 number of M as in Mary, L as in Larry, 112280501.
17 This document was prepared by NRC employee 18 Briana Balsam, B-R-I-A-N-A B-A-L-S-A-M. It starts off 19 with an introduction briefly stating that this 20 biological assessment was prepared to support the U.S.
21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of Florida 22 Power & Light Company's extended power uprate license 23 amendment request, dated September 14th, 2010, and to 24 comply with provisions of Section 7, Endangered Species 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Act 1973, as amended.
1 This biological assessment again is the 2
potential impact of the Turkey Point Plant Unit 3 and 3
4 on listed species and the American crocodile. Then 4
it goes on to reference prior studies, reference 5
studies made by other agencies. It talks about 6
descriptions proposed back and under Section 2 they 7
talk about a thermal uprate FPL predicts will occur 8
after the uprate.
9 But then on page 5 of the document it talks 10 about changes to the cooling canal system. And they 11 state in the middle of the first paragraph that FPL 12 predicts that discharge water would increase a maximum 13 of an additional 2 degrees Fahrenheit, which would 14 increase the change in temperature as the water passes 15 through the condensers. Because when we talk about the 16 condensers, blah, blah, blah, the next paragraph says 17 the increased discharge temperatures will cause 18 additional evaporative rates of losses to the canal 19 cooling -- losses to the cooling canal system.
20 The Florida Department of Environmental 21 Protection predicted that an additional 2 to 3 million 22 gallons per day will be lost due to evaporation under 23 these conditions. The increased evaporation will in 24 turn increase the cooling canals salinity by 2 to 3 25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 parts per thousand. Due to the north/south 1
temperature grade, evaporative losses will be greater 2
in the northern portion of the system and salinity will 3
demonstrate a north to south gradient.
4 And then on page 10 they talk about the 5
interceptor ditch, which I talked about earlier. This 6
is a ditch which FPL claims would prevent all this 7
movement of the saltwater plume. Interceptor ditch 8
has a 3 M height banks of limestone rock fill. The 9
majority of the bank is bounded, or some of the areas 10 are vegetated with Australian pine.
11 Since from late October groundwater 12 naturally flows directionally to Biscayne Bay and parts 13 south. However, from November to April the 14 groundwater can reverse and flow inland. Under these 15 reversed groundwater flow conditions, FPL pumps water 16 into the interceptor ditch, back into the cooling canal 17 system, creating artificial plumes for groundwater 18 seepage adversely affecting freshwater habitats west 19 of the site. There's more information on that.
20 But the Chin report disputes, disputes 21 that operation as described there. That ditch, it 22 takes issues with it. And Mr. Chin has credentials 23 beyond required.
24 At page 12, under the early view, it says 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the NRC first initiated Section 7 in consultation with 1
FWS regarding Turkey Point in 2001 as a requirement of 2
the Turkey Point license renewal program. During this 3
qualification, NRC staff considered the potential 4
adverse effects on 23 federal listed species in its 5
biological assessment.
6 In the 2001 biological assessment NRC 7
concluded that the license renewal will have no effect 8
or was not likely to adversely affect any listed 9
species.
10 Okay, FPL -- I mean NRC consistently relied 11 on FPL, FPL's assertions, and the assertions made by 12 other agencies. Where is NRC's independent study?
13 Where is F -- the NRC's past determination concluding 14 that there will be no harm to the environment? That 15 there is no release of radioactive isotopes from the 16 plant? Where are these studies now?
17 This attachment is exhaustive. I don't 18 have time to go into the other points at this time.
19 The NRC's reliance on the speculation and 20 reports from the licensee and some other agencies is 21 a blatant failure on the part of the NRC to protect 22 public health and safety and to protect the 23 environment. Notably, and we'll discuss going 24 forward, many of FPL's assertions and the assumptions 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 on the part of the NRC in relying on other agencies 1
environmental reports is flawed and not consistent with 2
the NRC's mission statement.
3 Let me address Attachment 9. This 4
document is identified for the record as a July 31st, 5
2014 Federal Register notice, FPL Turkey Point UHS 6
License Amendment.
7 We start, and the pages are noted in the 8
upper right-hand corner, page number 44465, states that 9
the site features a 6,100-acre closed cooling canal 10 system, CCS, that cools heated water discharged by 11 Units 1 through 4. Unit 5 uses mechanical draft 12 cooling towers for cooling, draws makeup water from the 13 Upper Floridan Aquifer, and discharges blowdown to the 14 CCS, or the canal system. The five units and 15 supporting equipment, excluding the CCS, occupy 16 approximately 130 acres.
17 The United States Atomic Energy 18 Commission, the NRC's predecessor agency, and the NRC 19 have previously conducted environmental reviews of 20 Turkey Point in several documents, and the descriptions 21 therein continue to accurately depict the Turkey Point 22 site and environs. Those documents include the AEC's 23 July 1972 Final Environmental Statement, the NRC's 24 January 2002 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants regarding Turkey 1
Point Units 3 and 4. Final Report, NUREG-1437, 2
Supplement 5; ADAMS Accession Number ML020280236; and 3
the NRC's March 2012 environmental assessment and final 4
FONSI for the Turkey Point extended power uprate:
5 ADAMS Accession Number ML12074A251.
6 On the next page, page 44466. The 7
proposed action is needed to provide FPL with 8
additional operational flexibility during periods when 9
high air temperatures, low rainfall, and other factors 10 contribute to conditions resulting in a UHS, or 11 ultimate heat sink, temperature in excess of 100 12 degrees that would otherwise necessitate FPL to place 13 Turkey Point in cold shutdown.
14 Further down it says that the NRC evaluated 15 the environmental impacts of operating Turkey Point for 16 an additional 20 years beyond the original operating 17 license and predicted that the environmental impacts 18 of license renewal were small for all environmental 19 resources.
20 Here again, the assertion made by the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rely on FPL's 22 assertions and assumptions where the NRC didn't do 23 their own homework. Okay? Where's the NRC's 24 independent study? They're an independent government 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 agency. They're supposed to be the regulator.
1 They're supposed to protect us.
2 This document goes on to talk about how 3
they reference documents that lead to conclude that 4
there will be no significant adverse effects and will 5
not affect the operations of the canal cooling system.
6 I don't have time to go into more in depth on that 7
document at this time.
8 But here again, FPL made assumptions, and 9
FPL's assertions and assumptions and reports by other 10 agencies in granting the licensee an amendment to their 11 operating license, allowing FPL to increase the canal 12 cooling water to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. In so doing, 13 the NRC has blatantly failed in its mission statement 14 to protect public health and safety, to protect the 15 environment.
16 I note here on the record that I challenge 17 FPL's license amendment request by submitting that 18 2.206 enforcement petition to the NRC. I averred in 19 that petition that the extended power operating project 20 was directly, directly related to the increase in the 21 canal water temperature. Although I provided 22 substantial documentation and evidence in support of 23 this conclusion, the NRC denied the petition and they 24 allowed FPL to continue licensed operations at Turkey 25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Point.
1 Following that determination on the part 2
of the NRC, I subsequently filed a formal complaint with 3
the NRC Office of the Inspector General against the NRC.
4 I requested that the NRC Office of the Inspector General 5
be represented at today's teleconference call 6
accordingly.
7 Now let me address Attachment 1. This 8
document is identified on the record as a March 7, 2016 9
memorandum Carlos A. Gimenez to the Honorable Chairman 10 Jean Monestime and Members of the Board of County 11 Commissioners for Miami-Dade County. This document 12 serves to provide the NRC with a timeline and events 13 related to Turkey Point analysis. Therefore, I do not 14 intend to discuss this document further at this time.
15 It's required reading on the part of the NRC, as far 16 as I'm concerned.
17 Finally, let me address Attachment 2.
18 This document is identified for the record as a March 19 8, 2016 Chin Report on FPL's Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 20 and the Ultimate Heat Sink, UHS, canal system.
21 David A. Chin is a Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE and 22 B.C.E.E.,
professional professor of civil and 23 environmental engineering in the University of Miami, 24 has credentials over credentials, above and beyond the 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 credentials. He has an executive summary that this 1
report was prepared under an agreement between 2
Miami-Dade County and the University of Miami.
3 The following issues related to the 4
operation of the cooling canal system, CCS, at the 5
Turkey Point power station were investigated:
6 Number one, temperature variations in the 7
CCS and associated impact on the surrounding 8
groundwater; 9
Number two, salinity variations in the CCS 10 and associated impact on the surrounding groundwater, 11 and; 12 Three, the effect of pumping up to 100 13 million gallons per day from L-31E Canal into the CCS.
14 The principal findings in this 15 investigation are summarized below, with analytical 16 details supporting the findings contained in the body 17 of the report. Data for this study was provided by the 18 Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and 19 Economic Resources.
20 CCS temperature and salinity data for the 21 4-year interval from September 1, 2010 to December 7, 22 2014 were made available for this investigation.
23 A heat-balance model was developed to 24 determine the temperature dynamics in the CCS. The 25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 results derived from the heat-balance model showed that 1
there were two distinct periods during which 2
heat-rejection rate from the power plant remained 3
approximately constant. The first period corresponds 4
to the pre-uprate conditions, and the second period 5
corresponded to the post-uprate conditions.
6 The heat-rejection rate during the second 7
period was found to be significantly greater than the 8
heat-rejection rate during the first period. As a 9
result of the increased heat addition to the CCS, the 10 average temperature of the water in the CCS has 11 increased, and in the vicinity of the power plant 12
- intake, the average temperature has increased 13 approximately 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 4.7 degrees 14 Fahrenheit. And I note here for the record that's well 15 in excess of FPL's assertions and assumptions which the 16 NRC relied on in granting them the LAR, the amendment 17 request for the operations.
18 This measured increase in the average 19 temperature within the intake zone is slightly greater 20 than the increase in the maximum allowable operating 21 temperature at the intake location of 2.2 degrees 22 Celsius or 4 degrees Fahrenheit that was approved by 23 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2014.
24 Therefore, the increased maximum 25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 operating temperature has not reduced the probability 1
of the intake temperatures exceeding the threshold 2
value, which currently stands at 104 degrees 3
Fahrenheit. Since supplementary cooling of the CCS 4
was needed in 2014, this serves as a cautionary note 5
regarding further increases in power generation beyond 6
2014 levels without providing a reliable supplementary 7
cooling system.
8 Which amendment tells me if you have a 9
nuclear accident you're not going to be able to maintain 10 the nuclear plant in a safe shutdown mode of operation 11 and it would actually melt down.
12 Continuing on with the report, the 13 measured temperature data during the period of record 14 indicate that the thermal efficiency of the CCS has 15 decreased between the pre-uprate and the post-uprate 16 periods. Further investigation is recommended to 17 confirm the decrease in thermal efficiency of the CCS 18 and identify causative factors.
19 The assertion that higher algae 20 concentrations in the CCS were responsible for the 21 elevated temperatures in the CCS was investigated. A 22 sensitivity analysis indicates that the increased 23 algae concentrations were not likely to have been 24 responsible for the significant elevated temperatures 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in the CCS recorded in the mid-summer months of 2014.
1 The additional heating rate in the CCS caused by the 2
presence of high concentrations of algae is estimated 3
to be less than 7 percent of the heat-rejection rate 4
of the power plant, hence the minimal impact.
5 Further development of the heat-balance 6
model is needed, since the design of any engineered 7
system to control temperatures in the CCS must be done 8
in tandem with the heat balance model.
9 For these scientists, FPL's assertion, 10 hey, you know, we didn't have enough rain back there 11 in 2014; you know what, the algae did it. It caused 12 algae bloom. That made the heat rise in the water. Go 13 on, NRC, give us this license amendment request because 14 we've got to keep the juice running; it was all lies, 15 misrepresentations, assertions, assumptions stacked 16 one on top of another. And the NRC bought it all. The 17 NRC failed to protect, failed the public, they failed 18 to do their job, they failed the congressional mandate 19 that they are supposed to carry out according to the 20 law.
21 He goes on to say that the measured 22 groundwater temperatures in the monitoring wells 23 between CCS and the L-31E Canal have shown higher 24 temperatures than groundwater west of the L-31E canal.
25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And this occur --
1 MS. KLETT: Mr. Saporito.
2 MR. SAPORITO: Yes?
3 MS. KLETT: This is Audrey Klett. We're 4
over the one hour allotted and we'd like some time to 5
ask you questions and to wrap this meeting up.
6 MR. SAPORITO: Oh, that's fine.
7 MS. KLETT: So I remember the last 8
petition you had notes that you were speaking to that 9
you provided to me after the petition. Could you do 10 that for this petition as well?
11 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I'll consider that.
12 But, okay, go ahead. The rest of the report, you know, 13 this report speaks for itself. I just wanted to 14 highlight certain aspects for the record for the NRC 15 Office of the Inspector General and for the public 16 because the public may not have access to all these 17 documents.
18 So I want them to understand that FPL made 19 assertions and assumptions and provided those to the 20 NRC under the pretense that these were facts which the 21 NRC should rely on in granting the license amendment.
22 But they turned out to be not actual or to be false.
23 And I made these same arguments to the NRC 24 when I contested and challenged that license amendment 25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 request with the 2.206 petition prior with the NRC. I 1
just wanted to put that all on the record.
2 MS. KLETT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Saporito.
3 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Okay. Jane 4
Marshall, PRB Chair.
5 At this time does the staff here at 6
headquarters or at the region have any questions for 7
Mr. Saporito?
8 MS. KLETT: Mr. Saporito, this is Audrey 9
Klett.
10 Regarding your request for the licensee to 11 complete a UFSAR revision regarding the discharge of 12 radioactive isotopes and other contaminants into the 13 surrounding environment, could you be more specific as 14 to what information you believe should be in the UFSAR?
15 MR. SAPORITO: Yeah, I'll respond to that.
16 But give me a second here. I forgot to -- I want to 17 put on the record here, I have to put this on the record.
18 In addition to the referenced request 19 under the 2.206, I also have two supplemental requests 20 which I'm putting on the record which I'm requesting 21 be made part of the initial document.
22 First request: to require FPL to obtain an 23 independent assessment as to how climate change will 24 affect the CCS, the canal cooling system, in that a 25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 predicted rise in sea level of 1 to 3 feet would inundate 1
the CCS allowing contaminants to flow freely well 2
beyond the boundaries of the CCS.
3 And number two: NRC should require FPL to 4
respond to each and every point and/or concern raised 5
in Attachment 2, the March 8, 2016, Chin report.
6 I want those included in the original 2.206 7
request.
8 With respect to the UFSAR, you know, if 9
this plant is -- I would estimate just off the top of 10 my head about 44, 45 years old, I think it was licensed 11 way back in the 70s somewhere. I don't recall the exact 12 date anymore. But when this plant was initially 13 licensed the licensee, Florida Power & Light Company, 14 had to provide the NRC with a Final Safety Analysis 15 Report and an Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in 16 order for the NRC to issue two operating licenses, one 17 for Turkey Point 3 and one for Turkey Point 4.
18 So in those documents they would have to 19 have addressed how the proposed cooling water, or the 20 canal cooling water system, CCS, would operate and 21 function in that -- and function as an ultimate heat 22 sink to ensure that, you know, during an emergency, 23 during a nuclear accident where the reactor had to be 24 shut down that the heat is active, billions of btu's 25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 produced by the reactor even when it shut down, would 1
be able to be discharged and dissipated in that cooling 2
water of the canal system.
3 So here we have a situation years later 4
after several license amendments where the licensee 5
does not appear to be in compliance with whatever they 6
told the NRC back when they got their initial license 7
in the 70s because the component cooling water system 8
is not a closed loop system. It's leaking. It's 9
pushing radioactive isotopes well beyond its boundary 10 and threatening contamination of our drinking water, 11 threatening the environment, threatening animal and 12 wildlife and plant life.
13 And it's also spewing other contaminants, 14 like ammonia, chlorine I believe, and phosphate, and 15 who knows what else is in there.
16 So this was, this was outside the bounds 17 of their license. And it's outside the bounds of their 18 license right now, but it's also outside the bounds of 19 the license as was documented in their FSAR and updated 20 FSAR.
21 So I want the NRC to force FPL to update 22 that and provide NRC with a detailed explanation if they 23 contend that they are in compliance, how are they in 24 compliance as it relates to the functioning of the 25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ultimate heat sink which is the canal cooling system.
1 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Okay. Any other 2
questions from NRC staff?
3 MS. KLETT: No.
4 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Does the licensee 5
have any questions?
6 MR. SUMMERS: The licensee has no 7
questions.
8 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Members of the 9
public may provide comments about the petition and ask 10 questions about the 2.206 petition process. However, 11 as I previously stated, the purpose of this meeting is 12 not to question the NRC about the merits of the 13 petition.
14 Are there any members of the public that 15 have questions?
16 (No response.)
17 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Okay, hearing 18 none, Mr. Saporito, thank you for raising your concerns 19 to the NRC and taking the time to speak with us about 20 your petition.
21 Before we conclude the meeting, does the 22 court reporter need any information for the meeting 23 transcript?
24 COURT REPORTER: No.
25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SAPORITO: With that, this meeting is 1
concluded and we are terminating the phone connection.
2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 3
went off the record at 3:23 p.m.)
4 5
6 7
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Docket Number:
(n/a)
Location:
teleconference Date:
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 Work Order No.:
NRC-2366 Pages 1-60 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB)
CONFERENCE CALL RE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
+ + + + +
TUESDAY MAY 10, 2016
+ + + + +
The conference call was held, Jane Marshall, Deputy Director of the Division of Licensee Renewal, presiding.
PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF:
JANE MARSHALL, Deputy Director, Division of Licensee Renewal AUDREY KLETT, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation STEVEN GARRY, Senior Health Physicist, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 WILLIAM FORD, Groundwater Hydrologist, Division of Licensee Renewal MICHAEL SMITH, Health Physicist, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SHELBIE LEWMAN, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel LEE BANIC, 2.206 Petition Coordinator, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BRIANA GRANGE, Biologist, Division of Licensee Renewal NRC REGION II STAFF LADONNA SUGGS, Branch Chief for Turkey Point ADAM WILSON, Project Engineer, Project Branch III ALSO PRESENT TOM SUMMERS, Site Vice President, Turkey Point MICHAEL PEARCE, General Manager, Turkey Point STEVE HAMRICK, Counsel
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
(2:01 p.m.)
2 MS. KLETT: Welcome, everyone, and thank 3
you for attending this meeting. My name is Audrey 4
Klett, and I am the NRC's Licensing Project Manager for 5
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
6 The purpose of this meeting is for the 7
Petitioner, Mr. Thomas Saporito, to address the NRC's 8
Petition Review Board, or PRB, per his request, 9
regarding his petition dated March 23rd, 2016.
10 This meeting is scheduled to last from 2:00 11 o'clock p.m. to about 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time, to allow 12 the Petitioner one hour to address the PRB. This 13 meeting is being recorded by the NRC Operations Center 14 and will be transcribed by a court reporter. The 15 transcript will become a supplement to the petition and 16 will be made publicly available.
17 At this time the people present at this 18 meeting at NRC Headquarters will introduce themselves.
19 As we go around the room, please be sure to clearly state 20 your name, your position and the NRC office that you 21 work in for the record. And I will begin.
22 Again, my name is Audrey Klett. My last 23 name is spelled K-L-E-T-T. And I am the NRC's 24 Licensing Project Manager for Turkey Point Units 3 and 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 4 in the NRC's Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
1 And I am also the petition manager for this petition.
2 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: My name is Jane 3
Marshall. I am the Deputy Division Director of NRC's 4
Division of License Renewal. And I am the PRB 5
Chairperson for this petition.
6 MR. GARRY: My name is Stephen Garry. I 7
am a Senior Health Physicist in the Office of Nuclear 8
Reactor Regulation in the Division of Risk Assessment.
9 MR. FORD: My name is William Ford. I am 10 a Groundwater Hydrologist in the Division of License 11 Renewal.
12 MR. SMITH: My name is Michael Smith. I 13 am a Health Physicist in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 14 Regulation in the Division of Risk Assessment.
15 MS. NEWMAN: My name is Shelbie Newman. I 16 am an attorney in the Office of General Counsel. I am 17 the legal advisor.
18 MS. BANIC: My name is Lee Banic. I'm the 19 2.206 petition coordinator. I work in NRR.
20 MS. KLETT: So we have completed 21 introductions at NRC headquarters. Are there any 22 other participants from NRC headquarters on the phone?
23 MS. GRANGE: Hi. This is Briana Grange of 24 NRC Headquarters on the phone. I am a biologist with 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the Division of License Renewal.
1 MS. KLETT: Are there any participants 2
from NRC Region 2 Office on the phone?
3 MR. SUGGS: Good afternoon. This is 4
LaDonna Suggs. I am the Branch Chief for Turkey Point 5
out of the Region 2 Office in Atlanta, Georgia.
6 MR. WILSON: And this is Adam Wilson. I'm 7
a project engineer from Projects Branch 3, Region 2.
8 MS. KLETT: Is there anyone from Florida 9
Power & Light Company, the licensee for Turkey Point, 10 on the phone?
11 MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Tom Summers, Site 12 Vice President.
13 MR. PEARCE: Michael Pearce, General 14 Manager.
15 MR. HAMRICK: Steve Hamrick, counsel for 16 FPL.
17 MS. KLETT: And, Mr. Saporito, would you 18 please introduce yourself for the record?
19 MR. SAPORITO: My name is Thomas Saporito.
20 I represent myself in the petition.
21 MS. KLETT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Saporito.
22 It is not required for members of the 23 public to introduce themselves for this call.
24 However, if there are any members of the public on the 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 phone that wish to do so at this time, please state your 1
name for the record.
2 (No response.)
3 MS. KLETT: It is important that we each 4
speak clearly and loud enough to make sure that the 5
court reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting.
6 When you speak, please first state your name for the 7
record.
8 For those dialing into the meeting, please 9
remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 10 noise or distraction. If you do have to mute -- if you 11 do not have a mute button on your phone, this can be 12 done by pressing the star-6 keys. To un-mute, press 13 the star-6 keys again.
14 At this time I will turn the meeting over 15 to the PRB Chairperson Jane Marshall.
16 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Thank you.
17 Welcome, everyone. And thank you, Mr.
18 Saporito, for bringing your concerns to the NRC. The 19 NRC's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 20 Regulations, Section 2.206, provide a way for someone 21 to ask the NRC in a public process to take enforcement 22 action related to NRC licensees for licensed 23 activities. This request is called a 2.206 petition.
24 Depending on NRC's review of the petition, 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the NRC could modify, suspend, revoke -- or revoke a 1
license issued by the NRC or take any other appropriate 2
enforcement action to resolve an issue. The NRC's 3
guidance for processing a 2.206 petition is in 4
Management Directive 8.11, which is available through 5
NRC's website.
6 When the NRC receives a 2.206 petition it 7
forms a Petition Review Board, or PRB. A PRB consists 8
of a chairperson, who is an NRC senior executive service 9
level manager. The PRB also has a petition manager and 10 a coordinator. Other members of the PRB are chosen 11 based on the subject of the petition.
12 Before the PRB meets about whether to 13 accept a petition for further review under the 2.206 14 process, the PRB gives the Petitioner an opportunity 15 to meet with the PRB. That is the purpose of today's 16 meeting. The Petitioner has this opportunity to 17 provide additional explanation or support for his 2.206 18 petition. The PRB will then consider this information 19 when deciding whether to accept the petition for 20 further review under the 2.206 process.
21 Today's meeting is not a hearing nor is it 22 an opportunity for the Petitioner or the public to 23 question the PRB on the merits of the issues presented 24 in the petition. No decisions regarding the merits of 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 this petition will be made at today's meeting.
1 After Mr. Saporito's presentation, the NRC 2
and licensee may ask the Petitioner clarifying 3
questions in order to better understand the 4
Petitioner's presentation. After today's meeting, 5
the PRB will review the petition and the information 6
presented today to determine whether the petition will 7
be accepted for further evaluation. The PRB's initial 8
decision on whether the 2.206 petition will be accepted 9
for further review rests with the Petitioner.
10 Mr. Saporito will then be provided another 11 opportunity to address the PRB before it makes its final 12 decision on whether to accept the petition for further 13 review.
14 At this point I will provide a summary of 15 Mr. Saporito's petition activities to date.
16 On March
- 23rd, 2016, Mr.
Saporito 17 submitted a 2.206 petition to the NRC about the 18 discharge of radioactive isotopes, other contaminants 19 into the environment surrounding the Turkey Point site.
20 Mr. Saporito requested that the NRC take escalated 21 enforcement action against the licensee and issue a 22 confirmatory order requiring the licensee to take the 23 nuclear reactors through a cold shutdown mode of 24 operation until certain conditions were met.
25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 These conditions include the completion of 1
an independent assessment and of corrective actions for 2
the source and impacts of the discharge of radioactive 3
isotopes and other contaminants, and an update to the 4
plant's Final Safety Analysis Report.
5 As a basis for his request, Mr. Saporito 6
included two reports in his petition dated March 23rd, 7
2016. His first report is an attachment to the 8
memorandum dated March 7th, 2016, from the Miami-Dade 9
County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez to the Miami -- I'm 10
- sorry, Miami-Dade County Board of County 11 Commissioners. This report appears to have been 12 prepared by the Division of Environmental Resources 13 Management in Miami-Dade County Department of 14 Regulatory and Economic Resources.
15 The second report is a study completed by 16 Dr. David Chin at the University of Miami. This study 17 is available from the Miami-Dade County Department of 18 Regulatory and Economic Resources website.
19 On May 8th and 9th, 2016, the Petitioner 20 provided 12 more attachments to his petition, which 21 included newspapers articles, NRC and licensee 22 environmental reviews, and the licensee's license 23 renewal application.
24 On March 29th, 2016, the NRC's petition 25
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 manager contacted Mr. Saporito to discuss 10 CFR 2.206 1
and to offer an opportunity to address the PRB. Mr.
2 Saporito requested to address the PRB by teleconference 3
prior to the PRB's initial recommendation to accept or 4
reject the petition for review.
5 On April 7th, 2016, the PRB met internally 6
to determine whether immediate NRC actions were needed 7
based on the issues presented in the petition.
8 On April 22nd, 2016, the NRC's petition 9
manager called Mr. Saporito and left him a message that 10 the PRB determined that his petition did not raise 11 public health or safety issues that necessitated 12 immediate enforcement actions to shut down Turkey 13 Point.
14 On April 25th, 2016, the NRC's petition 15 manager contacted Mr. Saporito about a scheduling 16 change to the teleconference. The petition manager 17 also informed the Petitioner that on April 29th, staff 18 would be participating in a Florida State Senate 19 workshop about Turkey Point's cooling canal system, and 20 provided the Petitioner a website link that had 21 information about the workshop.
22 This concludes the summary of the 23 activities to date regarding this petition.
24 A reminder for the phone participants:
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 please state your name if you speak. This will help 1
with developing the meeting transcript that will be 2
made publicly available.
3 Mr. Saporito, I will now turn it over to 4
you to provide any information you believe the PRB 5
should consider when reviewing your petition. You 6
have one hour for your presentation.
7 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Thank you, Mr.
8 Chairman.
9 So, for the record, my name is Thomas 10 Saporito and I represent Saprodani Associates in this 11 matter, which we are the Petitioners in these 12 proceedings.
13 On March 23rd, 2016, an enforcement 14 petition was submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission, or NRC, under 10 CFR 2.206 related to 16 licensed operations at the Florida Power & Light 17 Company Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. In relevant part, 18 the petition requests that the NRC take escalated 19 enforcement action against the licensee and issue a 20 confirmatory order to the licensee requiring the 21 licensee to take their nuclear reactors to cold 22 shutdown mode of operation until such time as the 23 following items could be completed:
24 That the licensee complete an independent 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 assessment to fully understand and correct the 1
potential and/or realized threat to the public and 2
environment related to the operations of the Turkey 3
Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 regarding the 4
discharge of radioactive isotopes and other 5
contaminants into the surrounding environment, and; 6
That the licensee complete a comprehensive 7
evaluation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 8
and 4 regarding the source of the discharge of 9
radioactive isotopes and other contaminants into the 10 surrounding environment, and; 11 That the licensee identify and implement 12 measures to correct any deficiencies in the Turkey 13 Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 regarding the 14 discharge of radioactive isotopes and other 15 contaminants into the surrounding environment, and; 16 That the licensee complete an updated 17 approved Final Safety Analysis Report, or FSAR, of the 18 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 regarding the 19 discharge of radioactive isotopes and other 20 contaminants into the surrounding environment.
21 In support of the petition, I submitted one 22 attachment, a 5-page memorandum, dated March 7th, 2016, 23 from Carlos A. Giminez, G-I-M-I-N-E-Z, Mayor for 24 Miami-Dade County, and the Honorable Chairman Jean 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Monestime, M-O-N-E-S-T-I-M-E, and Members of the Board 1
of County Commissioners.
2 In further support of the petition I 3
subsequently submitted 13 additional attachments for 4
a sum total of 14 attachments. To the extent that the 5
NRC has allowed me one hour to address the Petition 6
Review Board, or PRB, today, only the following 7
attachments should be referenced during this 8
teleconference call: Attachments 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 9
13, and 14. Should the NRC require input from me 10 related to the other attachments, please advise at a 11 later date via email.
12 So before I discuss the specifics of the 13 enforcement petition, I want the public record to be 14 perfectly clear about the circumstances leading up to 15 the deteriorated conditions at the FPL Turkey Point 16 Nuclear Plant. You folks may have seen recent national 17 news broadcasts about the lead poisoning of thousands 18 of people in the Flint, Michigan area, including 19 children and babies. Those people trusted government 20 regulators and elected government officials to protect 21 their health and safety related to the drinking water 22 provided to them by the city.
23 Indictments of numerous individuals have 24 been exercised stemming from investigations that 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 showed employees and government officials were 1
apparently complicit in knowingly pumping tainted 2
water from the local river to thousands of area 3
residents. The governments regulators miserably 4
failed to protect the health and safety of the public 5
in those circumstances.
6 This is but one significant example 7
showing the failure of a government agency to protect 8
the health and safety of the public. There are many, 9
many more examples, such as the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant 10 and the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, which the NRC 11 knowingly allowed the plants to conduct licensed 12 operations with severely embrittled reactor vessels 13 which could crack in a pressurized thermal shock event 14 at any moment.
15 The Turkey Point Nuclear Plant also has 16 severely embrittled reactor vessels subject to 17 cracking from a pressurized thermal shock event at any 18 moment. But the NRC granted FPL a 20-year extension 19 allowing the plant to continue licensed operations well 20 beyond the plant initial safety design basis.
21 How do the tens of thousands of people 22 living in the New York City area and the Miami, Florida 23 area evacuate in time? The obvious answer is that they 24 cannot evacuate in a timely manner, and they are 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 instructed to stay in place.
1 Nuclear disasters in Japan and in Russia 2
demonstrate that tens of thousands of people will 3
suffer the damaging effects of radioactive substances 4
strewn from those nuclear accidents for generations 5
following the nuclear accident. The American people 6
are sick and tired of government regulators that do not 7
protect the health and safety, and the gridlock in 8
Congress preventing meaningful change to ensure that 9
government regulators act in a proactive manner and not 10 in a reactive and passive manner to protect public 11 health and safety.
12 That is why Donald J. Trump won the 13 Republican primary elections and is likely to become 14 the next President of the United States.
15 With respect to the incident for this 16 petition, the record will show that the NRC appears to 17 be complicit with the licensee in failing to address 18 and resolve longstanding issues related to licensed 19 operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 20 and 4 regarding the canal cooling system.
21 Let me begin with a reference to Attachment 22 4 for which I will read, as follows. This document is 23 identified, for the record, as an April 17th, 2016 op 24 ed printed in the Miami-Herald newspaper and authored 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 by Laura Reynolds. This article accurately sums up the 1
frustration and the concern of the general public 2
regarding the Turkey Point cooling canals.
3 The documents states: For Florida Power 4
and Light to downplay the contamination of its aging 5
Turkey Point nuclear reactors is self-serving and 6
misses the point. Why should customers take any solace 7
in FPL's Trust us - we'll fix it approach when the 8
reactor's cooling canal system has been leaking for 9
years, and most recently has been made worse by FPL 10 itself?
11 The Turkey Point power plant is a sprawling 12 complex with two nuclear reactors located a few miles 13 south of Miami and owned and operated by FPL. Turkey 14 Point is the only nuclear...plant in the United States 15 located on the borders of two national parks. It has 16 a cooling canal system that is different from any other 17 nuclear...plant cooling system in the country.
18 The leaking industrial wastewater 19 facility is not a new problem. But recently new data 20 revealed a direct connection from the groundwater plume 21 to the surface waters of the Biscayne National Park.
22 A recent Miami-Dade County report and an ongoing 23 University of Miami study found elevated levels of 24 tritium, which is a radioactive isotope that comes from 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 nuclear power production, in groundwater up to 4.7 1
miles west of the facility and up to 2.1 miles east.
2 Water is the lifeblood of South Florida.
3 These un-permitted releases of wastewater pose a danger 4
to Miami-Dade's sole source drinking-water resource, 5
the Biscayne Aquifer, and to the fragile ecosystem of 6
Biscayne National Park. The leak is exacerbating 7
saltwater intrusion toward Miami-Dade drinking water 8
wells. South Florida communities everywhere are 9
struggling to contain saltwater intrusion, when 10 saltwater moves inland, underground toward drinking 11 water well sources. The reactors cooling canal system 12 is loading at least 600,000 pounds of salt per day into 13 our drinking water resource.
14 The leaking pollutants to the east into 15 Biscayne National Park poses a danger to the park's 16 sensitive ecosystem. Radioactive tritium has been 17 found in surface waters surrounding Turkey Point since 18 2010. FPL should have seen this coming -- it's been 19 ongoing for decades. Instead of working to stop the 20 leaks, mitigate the damages and find new cooling 21 technologies that use our precious water resources more 22 efficiently without loading salt directly into the 23 aquifer, the company accelerated the reactor output.
24 Now they run longer and work harder.
25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 By adding billions -- that's with a B --
1 billions of gallons of water in 2015 and adding over 2
8 cubic feet of weight to the top of the cooling canals, 3
FPL has flushed the pollution in a large pulse from 4
inside the cooling canals and the groundwater into the 5
surface waters of the Biscayne National Park. The 6
levels of tritium have been recorded at thousands of 7
times higher than what normal background levels should 8
be.
9 The so-called reactor uprates came with a 10 cost. FPL customers picked up the bill for these 11 uprates in the amount of over $2 billion. Since the 12 uprates, FPL has not been able to keep the temperature 13 in the cooling canals at an acceptable level.
14 Let me repeat that: Since the uprates, 15 FPL has not been able to keep the temperature in the 16 cooling canals at an acceptable level -- scrambling to 17 comply with environmental and Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission requirements to keep the reactors from 19 shutting down.
20 FPL sold the reactor uprates as a good deal 21 for customers to the Florida Public Service Commission.
22 Ultimately, FPL customers will foot the bill for this 23 gross mismanagement of our natural resources and public 24 water supply.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The unfortunate irony is that FPL is now 1
requesting a rate increase from that same commission.
2 And it goes on to talk about the rate 3
increase. But then it says:
4 It's stunning that the company would 5
request more profit at the same time its Turkey Point 6
reactors are leaking pollutants. Moreover, FPL wants 7
to add two new proposed reactors -- for which its 8
customers are already footing the bill. Is it a good 9
idea to allow this utility to expand a troubled 10 industrial facility abutting a national park to the 11 east and drinking water wells to the west in the face 12 of sea-level rise?
13 Where are the regulators who should be 14 protecting us and the environment?
15 And that, that actually sums up the 16 attitude, the frustrations of South Florida residents.
17 Next let me reference Attachment 7. This 18 document is identified for the record as a April 21st 19 newspaper article in the Miami-Herald and authored by 20 Jenny Staletovich, S-T-A-L-E-T-O-V-I-C-H. This 21 article provides an accurate time line of events 22 leading up to the current deteriorated Turkey Point 23 cooling canals. Notably, references made in this 24 document are wholly supported by substantial evidence 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 shown in other attachments that will be discussed here 1
today.
2 The article states, In the wake of 3
revelations last month that its aging cooling canals 4
at Turkey Point were leaking into Biscayne Bay, Florida 5
Power & Light rushed to do damage control: company 6
leadership went on the defensive, insisting they were 7
acting responsibly and, in a full page add, blaming 8
misinformation for fanning unfounded fears.
9 They are quoted as saying, 'We're not 10 punting on this at all, President and CEO Eric Silagy 11 told the Miami Herald editorial board earlier this 12 month as he laid out a list of on-going fixes.
13
'If this company has given that 14 impression, that's my fault, he said. What is 15 frustrating a little bit is we've been working really 16 hard over the decades to do the right thing.'
17 But critics contend the powerful utility 18 worked even harder at delay tactics in the face of 19 mounting evidence that its compromised canal system had 20 produced an underground plume of saltwater threatening 21 nearby drinking supplies and contaminating Biscayne 22 Bay.
23 Records show FPL had been warned for years 24 about problems and even conducted its own research in 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 2010 that concluded its key fix -- adding millions of 1
gallons of brackish water to freshen the super salty 2
canals -- would likely make the plume worse. After 3
overheated canals forced the plant's two reactors to 4
partially power down in 2014, the utility pushed state 5
regulators and water managers repeatedly to add more 6
water, solutions that would allow it to continue 7
operating under Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits 8
but potentially increase the extent and the speed of 9
saltwater seepage from the unlined canals.
10 At the time, the company was still publicly 11 insisting its canals were definitely a closed system 12 not impacting any other source of water.
13 The end result, say environmentalists and 14 others who pushed FPL to move faster over the years, 15 are patchwork fixes and shortsighted solutions that 16 they say have failed to deal with broader problems 17 caused by the 44-year-old canals.
18
'They're band-aids, said Steve Torcise, 19 T-O-R-C-I-S-E, whose family has operated a rock mine 20 just west of the canals for 90 years and earlier this 21 year won a legal fight demanding the state overhaul a 22 management plan that allowed FPL to add more water 23 without fully addressing the impact on the plume. An 24 administrative law judge in February faulted the 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Florida Department of Environmental Protection for 1
being too weak and not citing FPL.
2 Despite the criticism, the DEP on Thursday 3
approved the plan, dismissing many of the judge's 4
findings. In a 28-page decision, DEP Secretary Jon 5
Steverson wrote the judge inappropriately invaded the 6
exclusive province of the state's ability to regulate 7
the utility. The city of Miami, which had joined the 8
lawsuit with Torcise, plans to appeal.
9 Then further to that, 'We will be pursuing 10 all available appellate remedies to challenge this 11 ruling, said deputy city attorney Barnaby Min.
12 In the meantime, the salt plume continues 13 to grow. According to the DEP's own 2014 management 14 plan, it has advanced at a rate of 525 to 660 feet per 15 year with up to 600,000 pounds of salt escaping daily 16 from the canals. That's pure salt, not salty water.
17
'FPL...should have shared that they were 18 working on a solution, instead of fighting us in court, 19 said Miami-Dade County Commission Daniella Levine 20 Cava, who pressed for information from additional 21 monitoring wells that this year confirmed the presence 22 of tritium, a radioactive isotope used to trace 23 cooling...water, in Biscayne Bay.
24 Their first order of business has to be to 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 do no harm to our community and to our environment, --
1 asked the Environmental Protection Agency to weigh in, 2
joining Representative --
3 MS. KLETT: Mr. Saporito, this is Audrey 4
Klett. Can you hear me?
5 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
6 MS. KLETT: We're having trouble hearing 7
you. I think your phone connection isn't working, at 8
least for the past couple of sentences.
9 MR. SAPORITO: Can you hear me now?
10 MS. KLETT: Yes, I can hear you now.
11 MS. KLETT: All right. I sound like a 12 Verizon commercial.
13 All right, here we go.
14 Worsening conditions have also caught the 15 attention of Monroe County, which operates its only 16 well field west of the canals. The county, which this 17 week passed a resolution raising concerns, is 18 considering buying land further west to relocate its 19 well field as well as build an additional reverse 20 osmosis plant in Key West, an expensive option that can 21 make salt water fit for human consumption.
22 And it quoted, it quoted, 'The cooling 23 canals have been on our radar screen as long as I've 24 been here, said Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority deputy 25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 director Tom Walker. We literally have a line we 1
watch.'
2 How FPL got to this point is a complex path 3
of regulatory decisions and company expansion, 4
complicated by the singular design of the cooling 5
canals. Turkey Point is the only nuclear plant in the 6
country that uses the radiator-like cooling system 7
spanning 5,900 acres. It also sits atop the Biscayne 8
Aquifer, a pitted layer of coral rock that looks more 9
like a hardened sponge than solid ground.
10 In 1972, when the canals were created --
11 a compromise FPL says it was forced to accept after 12 federal environmental regulators sued in court to stop 13 the plant from dumping cooling water directly into the 14 bay -- it was understood canals in such porous geology 15 would leak. So the design included a critical feature:
16 a straight, deep canal, called an interceptor ditch, 17 to stop saltwater piling up under the canals from 18 migrating west.
19 Engineer Ed Swakon created --
20 I'll move on to the next paragraph.
21 The interceptor ditch was important 22 because South Florida's drinking water supply also sits 23 just below the surface in the Biscayne aquifer. Canals 24 dredged in the 1940s to drain the Everglades had caused 25
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 the salt front to migrate inland. But over the years 1
water managers installed hundreds of gates and other 2
controls to stop migration -- and in some cases, even 3
reverse it.
4 But by the 1980s, there already was an 5
indication that Turkey Point's ditch wasn't effective, 6
with the underground salt front moving just west of what 7
was supposed to be -- or what was supposed to act as 8
a barrier.
9 Under all five management plans for Turkey 10 Point drawn up by the Florida environmental regulators 11 and water managers over the decades, FPL has been under 12 orders to maintain the quality of surrounding 13 groundwater. A network of monitoring wells was dug to 14 keep watch.
15 Over the years, the number of wells 16 dwindled, falling to just four by 1983. If state 17 regulators were watching them, they weren't doing it 18 very closely, said consulting engineer Ed Swakon.
19 Torcise hired him to investigate the plume after plans 20 to expand a rock mine near Homestead were nearly 21 derailed when environmental regulators wondered 22 whether mining would pull the saltwater front inland.
23 In 2007, Swakon went to the South Florida 24 Water Management District, the regulatory agency 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 keeping tabs on salt water intrusion, and asked for old 1
records. To his surprise, Swakon found salinity in 2
groundwater spreading and spiking. By 2001 and 2002, 3
readings showed the front -- water with higher salt 4
concentrations than in Biscayne Bay -- had reached 5
Southwest 137th Avenue about three miles to the west.
6
'The way the reports were written, they 7
never really --
8
'The way the reports were written, they 9
never really did a long term history of the data. They 10 only compared quarter to quarter and there was very 11 little difference, he said. But if you really plotted 12 it, and somebody had taken the time, they would have 13 seen each successive quarter got a little worse and a 14 little worse.'
15 Swakon said he and Torcise met with FPL 16 officials to report their findings, but got no 17 response. An FPL spokesman later called them 18 unfounded allegations. At the time, the utility was 19 in the midst of hammering out a new administrative order 20 required by a $3 billion uprating project of Turkey 21 Point's two nuclear reactors that FPL said it needed 22 to keep up with increasing demand: as much as 40 23 percent of the power the county needed was being 24 imported, FPL officials said in a 2007 zoning meeting.
25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 The uprate would increase power output by 1
15 percent but also raise temperatures in the cooling 2
canals, with the effect of increasing evaporation and 3
salt concentrations. FPL officials planned to offset 4
additional heat going into the canals by shutting down 5
the plant's two oldest fossil fuel burning units. The 6
move was expected to cap the heat increase to only 2.5 7
degrees -- an impact FPL insisted would not affect the 8
operation of the canals.
9 But modeling done by the United States 10 Geological Survey in 2009 found that as the canals grew 11 hotter and saltier, they could potentially shoot saline 12 fingers to the bottom of the 98-foot-thick aquifer --
13 sometimes as fast as a few days. The extra salty water 14 could then spread laterally, expanding the plume.
15 Water managers, whose approval was key to 16 the uprating moving forward, wanted to know if the 17 interceptor ditch was still an effective barrier. At 18 the time, FPL officials assured them that it was.
19 Engineers who designed the ditch weren't 20 so confident. According to a report compiled this year 21 by University of Miami hydrologist David Chin for 22 Miami-Dade County, the engineers worried as early as 23 1971 that saltwater could migrate inland even if the 24 ditch was properly operated. Chin also found the ditch 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 only blocks shallow saltwater from spreading -- and the 1
canal system was pushing it deeper into the Biscayne 2
aquifer.
3 Faced with increased scrutiny, FPL hired 4
its own engineers to look for remedies, according to 5
an in-house study Torcise obtained in his recent 6
lawsuit. Completed in August 2011, the study found 7
that canal water had moved 3.5 miles west of the plant 8
and was spreading at a relatively brisk pace of 500 feet 9
a year. In response to a question, an FPL spokesman 10 this week revised that figure, saying the rate has since 11 slowed to just over 120 feet a year.
12 FPL's engineers offered five 13 alternatives, including building massive slurry walls 14 underground to stop water from moving at a cost of 15
$134.4 million. But the cheapest and preferable 16 alternative, the engineers said, was adding fresher 17 water from the Floridan aquifer.
18
'The alternative is attractive because it 19 effectively removes the source of the hypersaline 20 water, engineers wrote. But a potentially negative 21 aspect of the remedy, they said, was it did nothing to 22 stop the westward movement of saltwater. Nor did the 23 other four, the other four remedies that they don't want 24 to talk about.
25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Despite the findings, FPL officials in 1
2010 and 2011 continued to work with water managers on 2
an elaborate monitoring plan that also for the first 3
time included checking for tritium, a radioactive 4
isotope found in canal water that could be used as a 5
tracer. In 2011, as part of their effort to confirm 6
tritium as the best tracer, district hydrologists John 7
Janzen and Steve Krupa found that canal water was in 8
wells at Southwest 137th Avenue. Tritium was also 9
found in surface water just east of the canals at the 10 mouth of the Card Sound Canal. To get a better read, 11 the hydrologists recommended installing a better 12 network of wells.
13 But in its annual post-uprate report in 14 October 2012, FPL continued to debate the 2009 United 15 States Geological Study findings of the expanding 16 plume, arguing that the wells used by the agency might 17 not be connected or in the same zone because of the 18 complex geology of the area. Still, the utility agreed 19 a plume existed and offered solutions.
20 FPL managers now say the location of the 21 saltwater plume wasn't in dispute -- just the exact 22 cause of it.
23
'We always said we were part of it, but 24 there's other factors, including lowering the water 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 table seasonally for nearby farmers, senior project 1
director Steve Scroggs said this week. It's easy to 2
say it's all FPL. It's not.' According to him.
3 Meanwhile, the boundaries of the tritium 4
were growing clearer. A Miami-Dade County contour map 5
of samples in 2011 and 2013 show tritium detected well 6
beyond the cooling canal boundaries. County officials 7
had been keeping an eye on the wells, but had no 8
authority without a water quality violation, said Lee 9
Hefty, direct of the Division of Environmental 10 Resources Management. Instead, he said, they pushed 11 for the district to act.
12 In April 2013, the Water Management 13 District finally officially notified FPL that the 14 canals were in violation. The utility responded, 15 asking to add 15 million gallons of water a day from 16 the Floridan aquifer, which it said would reverse the 17 plume, a prediction that contradicts the earlier 2010 18 report. But district hydrologist Jeff Giddings found 19 FPL used faulty modeling. While adding Floridan water 20 reduced salinity in the canals, it did nothing to reduce 21 the underground plume.
22 District Consultant William Nuttle also 23 concluded more water would just increase seepage and 24 warned that FPL failed to account for local conditions, 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 including a major change on the horizon: and that's 1
called sea rise. A foot sea rise, now predicted by the 2
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 3
2030, would put the shoreline west of the canals.
4 As the agencies tried to hammer out a deal, 5
temperatures in the canal spiked in the summer of 2014, 6
prompting the utility to scramble for solutions, 7
including getting operating limits raised to 104 8
degrees, the highest in the country, and an emergency 9
permit to pump up to 100 million gallons of water a day 10 from a nearby drainage canal. The utility also began 11 pumping water from unregulated marine wells.
12 Over the next year, Miami-Dade County 13 officials estimate that FPL pumped more than 12 billion 14 gallons -- that's 12 billion with a B -- gallons of water 15 into the canals. Half of that came from the marine 16 wells with a quarter coming from the nearby L-31E canal.
17 Rain supplied just 37 percent, even though company 18 officials say rain remains the primary source of water 19 to address increasing evaporation with higher 20 temperatures.
21 What caused the spike remains in dispute.
22 Chin, whose final report is due next month, concluded 23 that the uprating project caused it.
24 Let me repeat that: Chin concluded that 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the uprating project caused the rising temperature in 1
the canals.
2 FPL blames a local drought. In July 2014, 3
FPL environmental services director Matt Raffenberg 4
said rainfall over the canals amounted to just 5.29 5
inches and only 20 inches in all in 2013.
6
'If it's such an important facility, you 7
would expect its design would not be based on the 8
weather, Hefty said. It sounds like a funny thing to 9
say, but really it's a fairly significant facility. I 10 would have expected their design engineers would have 11 contemplated how that facility would operate without 12 rain.
13 FPL's Scroggs also said that when the 14 canals were briefly shut down, sediment built up in the 15 northwest corner, which slowed flow, turned the water 16 browner and hotter, and caused an algae bloom to spread.
17 Sediment had not been removed from the canals since 18 1990s, Scroggs said, because it is expensive.
19 When the state finally issued a new 20 administrative order in late 2015, allowing FPL to pump 21 more water into the canals to lower salinity and abate 22 the plume without fully spelling out how, Torcise, 23 environmentalists, neighboring cities and the county 24 sued. Last month, a Tallahassee administrative law 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 judge ordered FPL to redo the plan after it failed to 1
cite FPL for a specific violation.
2 On Thursday, DEP chief Steverson wrote 3
that the order in fact contained remedies which were 4
not suitable for judicial review and that choosing to 5
fix the problem, rather than penalize FPL, was up to 6
the department.
7 The state's decision, South Miami Mayor 8
Phil Stoddard said, comes as no surprise given the 9
utility's political connections.
10 He reportedly said, 'I suspect there's 11 incentive enough for DEP to disrespect the 12 administrative law judge and the public welfare to 13 avoid holding FPL responsible for the environmental 14 damage they've done.'
15 On May 15, FPL is also due to submit a 16 clean-up plan to the county, which pulled out of the 17 suit and hammered out its own deal. The plan called 18 for FPL to install extraction wells to pump the extra 19 salty water deep into the border zone, which 20 environmentalists worry won't do enough to address the 21 plume. To address high levels of ammonia and 22 phosphorus leaking the bay, FPL also dug a 30-foot deep 23 well east of the canals, which it did without consulting 24 the county environmental staff, prompting another 25
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 letter from Hefty to better spell out plans.
1 FPL now says the cooling canals are back 2
under control, that salinity is a third lower than last 3
summer and, now that they've cleared sediment and have 4
permission to add water from the deeper brackish 5
Floridan aquifer, they expect the canals to work 6
properly. Efforts to address the plume was delayed not 7
by them, Scroggs said, but by a complicated 8
bureaucratic system.
9
'For years people knew about this and 10 everybody talked about what we would do. Well, we 11 finally broke through that, he said. I'm living 12 everyday with the delays and the questions and the go 13 back and do this and the back and forth. It's an 14 incredibly complex process with multiple people and 15 multiple interests. But at the end of the day, we've 16 moved to a place where we're taking action.'
17 That's the end of that article. But that 18 gives the PRB a good time line of the facts of what has 19 happened almost to date.
20 Now I'm going to move on to Attachment 14.
21 I noted here that Attachment 14 and Attachment 11 go 22 together since they're related to the same subject 23 matter. To the extent that Attachment 11, 11 indicates 24 a date of September 8th, 2000, it provides a useful 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 reference to the undated document in Attachment 14 that 1
follows.
2 This document is identified, for the 3
record, as FP&L's application for a renewed operating 4
license at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 3 and 4. I 5
note here that this document contains 802 pages with 6
only about five pages that reference the Turkey Point 7
cooling canals. Find FPL's page in this nomenclature 8
at the bottom right-hand corner of each page.
9 Page 2.4-15 and 2.4-16 state, entitled 2.4 10
-- is a paragraph entitled 2.4, 2.4 cooling water 11 canals. The cooling water canals serve as the plant 12 ultimate heat sink. The cooling water canals 13 constitute a closed cooling system made up of earthen 14 canals that provide cooling and discharged water prior 15 to re-use at the intake structure. The cooling water 16 canals, as shown on Figure 3.1-2 of the license renewal 17 application environmental report.
18 The next page, 2.4-16 states that the 19 cooling water canals are in the scope of license renewal 20 because they provide a source of cooling water for plant 21 shutdown.
22 A complete list of cooling water canal 23 structural components require an aging management 24 review and the component intended functions are 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 provided in Table 3.6-6.
1 The aging management review for cooling 2
water canals is discussed in subsection 3.6.2.
3 Moving on to page 3.6-27, it's entitled --
4 the section 3.6.2, other structures. And the -- under 5
the first paragraph --
6 MS. KLETT: Sorry. This is Audrey Klett.
7 For those on the phone that are not 8
speaking, can you please mute your phone? We can hear 9
a dog barking in the background. It's pretty 10 disruptive.
11 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you, Audrey.
12 Farther down on that page it says cooling 13 water canals. Okay, that's the next reference.
14 And then on page 3-42 there's a paragraph 15 entitled Section 3.6.2.4, miscellaneous structural 16 components. Second item down in there it's stated, 17 cooling water canals.
18 And then at page 3.6-44 it states, cooling 19 water canals provide a source of cooling water for plant 20 shutdown. The heat load for shutdown is a small 21 percentage of the normal operating heat load.
22 Weathering and organic decomposition on aging 23 mechanisms which could lead to a loss of material of 24 the cooling water canals that could cause loss of 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 intended functioning.
1 The next two paragraphs we'll skip.
2 And the next paragraph it says, based on 3
the loss of material due to weathering, corrosion and 4
organic decomposition is an aging effect requiring 5
management for miscellaneous structural components.
6 Okay? So the aging management of the 7
canal cooling system at Turkey Point was part of FPL's 8
application to the NRC to renew their operating 9
licenses, to extend them an additional 20 years the NRC 10 granted.
11 So what does this all mean? It means that 12 the NRC appears to have knowingly granted FPL a 20-year 13 extension for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 14 and 4 without ensuring that the licensee had a proper, 15 active and functioning aging management program in 16 place in the Turkey Point cooling canal system. This 17 apparent and blatant failure on the part of the NRC 18 violates the agency's mission statement and 19 congressional mandate which states that the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission, or NRC, was created as an 21 independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the 22 safe use of radioactive material for beneficial 23 facility purposes, while protecting people and the 24 environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 power plants and other uses of nuclear material, such 1
as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspections 2
and enforcement of its requirements.
3 So in this instance it appears that the NRC 4
failed to protect public health and safety and failed 5
to protect the environment when the agency granted a 6
20-year license extension to FPL without first ensuring 7
that the licensee complied with the agency's 8
regulations and requirements with respect to the 9
cooling canal system's aging program.
10 Indeed, where's the NRC's independent 11 assessment in the Turkey Point cooling canal system 12 aging program? It appears that the agency merely 13 adopted and accepted FPL's statements on their face.
14 Is that how the NRC is mandated by Congress to carry 15 out its mission statement?
16 I have children and now grandchildren who 17 live in South Florida. And I am gravely concerned that 18 the NRC is in bed with the licensee FPL, allowing 19 licensed operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 20 in violation of the agency's regulations and 21 requirements, which will ultimately result in a nuclear 22 accident similar to the Fukushima nuclear accident 23 where two nuclear reactors melted down and spewed 24 radioactive substances into the environment.
25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 That nuclear accident to this very --
1 continues to this very day, and will continue for 2
decades to come.
3 Next let me reference Attachment 12. For 4
the record, this document is dated in the year 2010, 5
entitled License Amendment Request Extended Power to 6
Operate. This request is for the Turkey Point Nuclear 7
Plant Units 3 and 4. The page numbers or FPL is at the 8
bottom of each page.
9 So at page ATT.3- --.7-3 it says at 1.0, 10 Executive
- Summary, that this supplemental 11 environmental report contains Florida Power & Light 12 assessments of environmental impact of proposed Turkey 13 Point Nuclear Plant's 3 and 4 extended power uprate and 14 the current four level of 2,300 megawatts thermal, 15 2,644 each. With the EPU, or extended power uprate to 16 the nuclear supply system level, heat will be 2,652 MWt.
17 The intent of this supplemental 18 environmental report is to provide sufficient 19 information for the United States Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission, NRC, to evaluate the environmental impact 21 of the EPU in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 22
- 51. This report is applicable to both TPN Units 3 and 23
- 4.
24 The bottom of that same page states the 25
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 generation of low level radioactive waste will not 1
increase significantly over the current generation 2
rate. There will be minimal changes in the volume of 3
radioactive effluent, liquid and gases, released to the 4
environment. Although the radioactive content of the 5
liquids and gases releases will increase slightly, they 6
will remain bounded by the analysis in the Final 7
Environmental Statement, or FES, related to operation 8
of the Turkey Point plant.
9 Florida Power & Light inspections of the 10 project will not impact wetlands and nearby waters.
11 There will be no increase in the amount of water 12 response as a result of the project.
13 And this last, that last statement was at 14 page ATT.7-21. And the third paragraph of that page 15 I just read states that each nuclear unit produces about 16 3 -- produces about 5.35 billion BTUs per hour of waste 17 heat discharge to the cooling canal at full load.
18 After the uprate, that volume will increase to about 19 6.10 billion BTUs per hour. The predicted temperature 20 difference -- he goes on to talk about the plant.
21 And it says these changes are 22 insignificant relative to the existing seasonal 23 changes of up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit at every -- any 24 given location in the system.
25
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 At page ATT.7-27, in the middle of that 1
page it says under the heading of Threatened and 2
Endangered Terrestrial Species, it says no adverse 3
impact to federal or state listed terrestrial plants 4
or animals are expected during the daily operations due 5
to the existing developed nature of the habitat. No 6
long-term change in the populations of threatened or 7
endangered species is anticipated as a result of 8
operations of TPN 3 and 4.
9 No changes in wildlife population at the 10 adjacent undeveloped areas are anticipated included in 11 the listed species, and the project is not anticipated 12 to deter continued visits by wildlife from the outer 13 belt areas in the Turkey Point boundaries. An impact 14 also will not change.
15 Now, the last paragraph says the Turkey 16 Point cooling canal system is a permitted wastewater 17 treatment facility. As a result, state and federal 18 water quality standards need not apply within. The 19 effect of the operation of the project upon aquatic 20 biota in an enclosed cooling canal system are expected 21 to be negligible. The predicted maximum temperature 22 increase is approximately 2 degrees. The water 23 entering the canal is not anticipated to result in any 24 adverse impact to the listed American crocodile.
25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 That whole paragraph is proven to be false 1
by the evidence I've submitted to the NRC, especially 2
the articles.
3 The next page states that, on page 4
ATT.7-23, the growth rate of crocodiles varies with 5
food availability and temperature. And digestion is 6
only efficient within a certain range of aquatic 7
temperatures. Crocodile are able to regulate falling 8
temperatures. They bask on the edge of canals, on 9
berms, resting on berms alternating locations between 10 cooler and warmer canals. The maximum temperature 11 increase related to the project of about 2 degrees is 12 unlikely, can result in any significant impact to 13 crocodiles ability to thermoregulate.
14 Laboratory experiments indicate that 15 prolonged high temperatures may be potentially 16 stressful to crocodiles.
Laboratory studies 17 conducted by authorities indicate that hatchling 18 crocodiles show signs of acute thermal stress --
19 panting, pupil dilation, death, eye blinking, jerky 20 body movement, and attempts to climb out in a hurry when 21 canal temperatures exceeded 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit 22 and once air temperatures exceeded 104 degrees.
23 It's interesting that the
- uprate, 24 following the uprate, canal water went up to 104 25
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 degrees. Well, where -- with respect, with respect to 1 2, where are the independent studies to 2
support FPL's contentions? Because they're just mere 3
assertions in there.
4 Where's the NRC's independent assessment 5
of that request by FPL to amend their licenses, 6
operating license? Where? Where are they? Where 7
have you got these studies? What did FPL rely on, rely 8
on? What did the NRC rely on?
9 Did NRC just take FPL's version to be true?
10 Did the NRC fail to do their own assessment? I think, 11 I think that's what the facts show.
12 Okay. Next let me reference Attachment 13
- 13. And let me first correct the cover page of this 14 attachment which should identify the document as an 15 August 2011 NRC biological assessment with a reference 16 number of M as in Mary, L as in Larry, 112280501.
17 This document was prepared by NRC employee 18 Briana Balsam, B-R-I-A-N-A B-A-L-S-A-M. It starts off 19 with an introduction briefly stating that this 20 biological assessment was prepared to support the U.S.
21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of Florida 22 Power & Light Company's extended power uprate license 23 amendment request, dated September 14th, 2010, and to 24 comply with provisions of Section 7, Endangered Species 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Act 1973, as amended.
1 This biological assessment again is the 2
potential impact of the Turkey Point Plant Unit 3 and 3
4 on listed species and the American crocodile. Then 4
it goes on to reference prior studies, reference 5
studies made by other agencies. It talks about 6
descriptions proposed back and under Section 2 they 7
talk about a thermal uprate FPL predicts will occur 8
after the uprate.
9 But then on page 5 of the document it talks 10 about changes to the cooling canal system. And they 11 state in the middle of the first paragraph that FPL 12 predicts that discharge water would increase a maximum 13 of an additional 2 degrees Fahrenheit, which would 14 increase the change in temperature as the water passes 15 through the condensers. Because when we talk about the 16 condensers, blah, blah, blah, the next paragraph says 17 the increased discharge temperatures will cause 18 additional evaporative rates of losses to the canal 19 cooling -- losses to the cooling canal system.
20 The Florida Department of Environmental 21 Protection predicted that an additional 2 to 3 million 22 gallons per day will be lost due to evaporation under 23 these conditions. The increased evaporation will in 24 turn increase the cooling canals salinity by 2 to 3 25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 parts per thousand. Due to the north/south 1
temperature grade, evaporative losses will be greater 2
in the northern portion of the system and salinity will 3
demonstrate a north to south gradient.
4 And then on page 10 they talk about the 5
interceptor ditch, which I talked about earlier. This 6
is a ditch which FPL claims would prevent all this 7
movement of the saltwater plume. Interceptor ditch 8
has a 3 M height banks of limestone rock fill. The 9
majority of the bank is bounded, or some of the areas 10 are vegetated with Australian pine.
11 Since from late October groundwater 12 naturally flows directionally to Biscayne Bay and parts 13 south. However, from November to April the 14 groundwater can reverse and flow inland. Under these 15 reversed groundwater flow conditions, FPL pumps water 16 into the interceptor ditch, back into the cooling canal 17 system, creating artificial plumes for groundwater 18 seepage adversely affecting freshwater habitats west 19 of the site. There's more information on that.
20 But the Chin report disputes, disputes 21 that operation as described there. That ditch, it 22 takes issues with it. And Mr. Chin has credentials 23 beyond required.
24 At page 12, under the early view, it says 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the NRC first initiated Section 7 in consultation with 1
FWS regarding Turkey Point in 2001 as a requirement of 2
the Turkey Point license renewal program. During this 3
qualification, NRC staff considered the potential 4
adverse effects on 23 federal listed species in its 5
biological assessment.
6 In the 2001 biological assessment NRC 7
concluded that the license renewal will have no effect 8
or was not likely to adversely affect any listed 9
species.
10 Okay, FPL -- I mean NRC consistently relied 11 on FPL, FPL's assertions, and the assertions made by 12 other agencies. Where is NRC's independent study?
13 Where is F -- the NRC's past determination concluding 14 that there will be no harm to the environment? That 15 there is no release of radioactive isotopes from the 16 plant? Where are these studies now?
17 This attachment is exhaustive. I don't 18 have time to go into the other points at this time.
19 The NRC's reliance on the speculation and 20 reports from the licensee and some other agencies is 21 a blatant failure on the part of the NRC to protect 22 public health and safety and to protect the 23 environment. Notably, and we'll discuss going 24 forward, many of FPL's assertions and the assumptions 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 on the part of the NRC in relying on other agencies 1
environmental reports is flawed and not consistent with 2
the NRC's mission statement.
3 Let me address Attachment 9. This 4
document is identified for the record as a July 31st, 5
2014 Federal Register notice, FPL Turkey Point UHS 6
License Amendment.
7 We start, and the pages are noted in the 8
upper right-hand corner, page number 44465, states that 9
the site features a 6,100-acre closed cooling canal 10 system, CCS, that cools heated water discharged by 11 Units 1 through 4. Unit 5 uses mechanical draft 12 cooling towers for cooling, draws makeup water from the 13 Upper Floridan Aquifer, and discharges blowdown to the 14 CCS, or the canal system. The five units and 15 supporting equipment, excluding the CCS, occupy 16 approximately 130 acres.
17 The United States Atomic Energy 18 Commission, the NRC's predecessor agency, and the NRC 19 have previously conducted environmental reviews of 20 Turkey Point in several documents, and the descriptions 21 therein continue to accurately depict the Turkey Point 22 site and environs. Those documents include the AEC's 23 July 1972 Final Environmental Statement, the NRC's 24 January 2002 Generic Environmental Impact Statement 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants regarding Turkey 1
Point Units 3 and 4. Final Report, NUREG-1437, 2
Supplement 5; ADAMS Accession Number ML020280236; and 3
the NRC's March 2012 environmental assessment and final 4
FONSI for the Turkey Point extended power uprate:
5 ADAMS Accession Number ML12074A251.
6 On the next page, page 44466. The 7
proposed action is needed to provide FPL with 8
additional operational flexibility during periods when 9
high air temperatures, low rainfall, and other factors 10 contribute to conditions resulting in a UHS, or 11 ultimate heat sink, temperature in excess of 100 12 degrees that would otherwise necessitate FPL to place 13 Turkey Point in cold shutdown.
14 Further down it says that the NRC evaluated 15 the environmental impacts of operating Turkey Point for 16 an additional 20 years beyond the original operating 17 license and predicted that the environmental impacts 18 of license renewal were small for all environmental 19 resources.
20 Here again, the assertion made by the 21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rely on FPL's 22 assertions and assumptions where the NRC didn't do 23 their own homework. Okay? Where's the NRC's 24 independent study? They're an independent government 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 agency. They're supposed to be the regulator.
1 They're supposed to protect us.
2 This document goes on to talk about how 3
they reference documents that lead to conclude that 4
there will be no significant adverse effects and will 5
not affect the operations of the canal cooling system.
6 I don't have time to go into more in depth on that 7
document at this time.
8 But here again, FPL made assumptions, and 9
FPL's assertions and assumptions and reports by other 10 agencies in granting the licensee an amendment to their 11 operating license, allowing FPL to increase the canal 12 cooling water to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. In so doing, 13 the NRC has blatantly failed in its mission statement 14 to protect public health and safety, to protect the 15 environment.
16 I note here on the record that I challenge 17 FPL's license amendment request by submitting that 18 2.206 enforcement petition to the NRC. I averred in 19 that petition that the extended power operating project 20 was directly, directly related to the increase in the 21 canal water temperature. Although I provided 22 substantial documentation and evidence in support of 23 this conclusion, the NRC denied the petition and they 24 allowed FPL to continue licensed operations at Turkey 25
50 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Point.
1 Following that determination on the part 2
of the NRC, I subsequently filed a formal complaint with 3
the NRC Office of the Inspector General against the NRC.
4 I requested that the NRC Office of the Inspector General 5
be represented at today's teleconference call 6
accordingly.
7 Now let me address Attachment 1. This 8
document is identified on the record as a March 7, 2016 9
memorandum Carlos A. Gimenez to the Honorable Chairman 10 Jean Monestime and Members of the Board of County 11 Commissioners for Miami-Dade County. This document 12 serves to provide the NRC with a timeline and events 13 related to Turkey Point analysis. Therefore, I do not 14 intend to discuss this document further at this time.
15 It's required reading on the part of the NRC, as far 16 as I'm concerned.
17 Finally, let me address Attachment 2.
18 This document is identified for the record as a March 19 8, 2016 Chin Report on FPL's Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 20 and the Ultimate Heat Sink, UHS, canal system.
21 David A. Chin is a Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE and 22 B.C.E.E.,
professional professor of civil and 23 environmental engineering in the University of Miami, 24 has credentials over credentials, above and beyond the 25
51 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 credentials. He has an executive summary that this 1
report was prepared under an agreement between 2
Miami-Dade County and the University of Miami.
3 The following issues related to the 4
operation of the cooling canal system, CCS, at the 5
Turkey Point power station were investigated:
6 Number one, temperature variations in the 7
CCS and associated impact on the surrounding 8
groundwater; 9
Number two, salinity variations in the CCS 10 and associated impact on the surrounding groundwater, 11 and; 12 Three, the effect of pumping up to 100 13 million gallons per day from L-31E Canal into the CCS.
14 The principal findings in this 15 investigation are summarized below, with analytical 16 details supporting the findings contained in the body 17 of the report. Data for this study was provided by the 18 Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and 19 Economic Resources.
20 CCS temperature and salinity data for the 21 4-year interval from September 1, 2010 to December 7, 22 2014 were made available for this investigation.
23 A heat-balance model was developed to 24 determine the temperature dynamics in the CCS. The 25
52 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 results derived from the heat-balance model showed that 1
there were two distinct periods during which 2
heat-rejection rate from the power plant remained 3
approximately constant. The first period corresponds 4
to the pre-uprate conditions, and the second period 5
corresponded to the post-uprate conditions.
6 The heat-rejection rate during the second 7
period was found to be significantly greater than the 8
heat-rejection rate during the first period. As a 9
result of the increased heat addition to the CCS, the 10 average temperature of the water in the CCS has 11 increased, and in the vicinity of the power plant 12
- intake, the average temperature has increased 13 approximately 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 4.7 degrees 14 Fahrenheit. And I note here for the record that's well 15 in excess of FPL's assertions and assumptions which the 16 NRC relied on in granting them the LAR, the amendment 17 request for the operations.
18 This measured increase in the average 19 temperature within the intake zone is slightly greater 20 than the increase in the maximum allowable operating 21 temperature at the intake location of 2.2 degrees 22 Celsius or 4 degrees Fahrenheit that was approved by 23 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2014.
24 Therefore, the increased maximum 25
53 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 operating temperature has not reduced the probability 1
of the intake temperatures exceeding the threshold 2
value, which currently stands at 104 degrees 3
Fahrenheit. Since supplementary cooling of the CCS 4
was needed in 2014, this serves as a cautionary note 5
regarding further increases in power generation beyond 6
2014 levels without providing a reliable supplementary 7
cooling system.
8 Which amendment tells me if you have a 9
nuclear accident you're not going to be able to maintain 10 the nuclear plant in a safe shutdown mode of operation 11 and it would actually melt down.
12 Continuing on with the report, the 13 measured temperature data during the period of record 14 indicate that the thermal efficiency of the CCS has 15 decreased between the pre-uprate and the post-uprate 16 periods. Further investigation is recommended to 17 confirm the decrease in thermal efficiency of the CCS 18 and identify causative factors.
19 The assertion that higher algae 20 concentrations in the CCS were responsible for the 21 elevated temperatures in the CCS was investigated. A 22 sensitivity analysis indicates that the increased 23 algae concentrations were not likely to have been 24 responsible for the significant elevated temperatures 25
54 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 in the CCS recorded in the mid-summer months of 2014.
1 The additional heating rate in the CCS caused by the 2
presence of high concentrations of algae is estimated 3
to be less than 7 percent of the heat-rejection rate 4
of the power plant, hence the minimal impact.
5 Further development of the heat-balance 6
model is needed, since the design of any engineered 7
system to control temperatures in the CCS must be done 8
in tandem with the heat balance model.
9 For these scientists, FPL's assertion, 10 hey, you know, we didn't have enough rain back there 11 in 2014; you know what, the algae did it. It caused 12 algae bloom. That made the heat rise in the water. Go 13 on, NRC, give us this license amendment request because 14 we've got to keep the juice running; it was all lies, 15 misrepresentations, assertions, assumptions stacked 16 one on top of another. And the NRC bought it all. The 17 NRC failed to protect, failed the public, they failed 18 to do their job, they failed the congressional mandate 19 that they are supposed to carry out according to the 20 law.
21 He goes on to say that the measured 22 groundwater temperatures in the monitoring wells 23 between CCS and the L-31E Canal have shown higher 24 temperatures than groundwater west of the L-31E canal.
25
55 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And this occur --
1 MS. KLETT: Mr. Saporito.
2 MR. SAPORITO: Yes?
3 MS. KLETT: This is Audrey Klett. We're 4
over the one hour allotted and we'd like some time to 5
ask you questions and to wrap this meeting up.
6 MR. SAPORITO: Oh, that's fine.
7 MS. KLETT: So I remember the last 8
petition you had notes that you were speaking to that 9
you provided to me after the petition. Could you do 10 that for this petition as well?
11 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I'll consider that.
12 But, okay, go ahead. The rest of the report, you know, 13 this report speaks for itself. I just wanted to 14 highlight certain aspects for the record for the NRC 15 Office of the Inspector General and for the public 16 because the public may not have access to all these 17 documents.
18 So I want them to understand that FPL made 19 assertions and assumptions and provided those to the 20 NRC under the pretense that these were facts which the 21 NRC should rely on in granting the license amendment.
22 But they turned out to be not actual or to be false.
23 And I made these same arguments to the NRC 24 when I contested and challenged that license amendment 25
56 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 request with the 2.206 petition prior with the NRC. I 1
just wanted to put that all on the record.
2 MS. KLETT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Saporito.
3 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Okay. Jane 4
Marshall, PRB Chair.
5 At this time does the staff here at 6
headquarters or at the region have any questions for 7
Mr. Saporito?
8 MS. KLETT: Mr. Saporito, this is Audrey 9
Klett.
10 Regarding your request for the licensee to 11 complete a UFSAR revision regarding the discharge of 12 radioactive isotopes and other contaminants into the 13 surrounding environment, could you be more specific as 14 to what information you believe should be in the UFSAR?
15 MR. SAPORITO: Yeah, I'll respond to that.
16 But give me a second here. I forgot to -- I want to 17 put on the record here, I have to put this on the record.
18 In addition to the referenced request 19 under the 2.206, I also have two supplemental requests 20 which I'm putting on the record which I'm requesting 21 be made part of the initial document.
22 First request: to require FPL to obtain an 23 independent assessment as to how climate change will 24 affect the CCS, the canal cooling system, in that a 25
57 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 predicted rise in sea level of 1 to 3 feet would inundate 1
the CCS allowing contaminants to flow freely well 2
beyond the boundaries of the CCS.
3 And number two: NRC should require FPL to 4
respond to each and every point and/or concern raised 5
in Attachment 2, the March 8, 2016, Chin report.
6 I want those included in the original 2.206 7
request.
8 With respect to the UFSAR, you know, if 9
this plant is -- I would estimate just off the top of 10 my head about 44, 45 years old, I think it was licensed 11 way back in the 70s somewhere. I don't recall the exact 12 date anymore. But when this plant was initially 13 licensed the licensee, Florida Power & Light Company, 14 had to provide the NRC with a Final Safety Analysis 15 Report and an Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in 16 order for the NRC to issue two operating licenses, one 17 for Turkey Point 3 and one for Turkey Point 4.
18 So in those documents they would have to 19 have addressed how the proposed cooling water, or the 20 canal cooling water system, CCS, would operate and 21 function in that -- and function as an ultimate heat 22 sink to ensure that, you know, during an emergency, 23 during a nuclear accident where the reactor had to be 24 shut down that the heat is active, billions of btu's 25
58 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 produced by the reactor even when it shut down, would 1
be able to be discharged and dissipated in that cooling 2
water of the canal system.
3 So here we have a situation years later 4
after several license amendments where the licensee 5
does not appear to be in compliance with whatever they 6
told the NRC back when they got their initial license 7
in the 70s because the component cooling water system 8
is not a closed loop system. It's leaking. It's 9
pushing radioactive isotopes well beyond its boundary 10 and threatening contamination of our drinking water, 11 threatening the environment, threatening animal and 12 wildlife and plant life.
13 And it's also spewing other contaminants, 14 like ammonia, chlorine I believe, and phosphate, and 15 who knows what else is in there.
16 So this was, this was outside the bounds 17 of their license. And it's outside the bounds of their 18 license right now, but it's also outside the bounds of 19 the license as was documented in their FSAR and updated 20 FSAR.
21 So I want the NRC to force FPL to update 22 that and provide NRC with a detailed explanation if they 23 contend that they are in compliance, how are they in 24 compliance as it relates to the functioning of the 25
59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 ultimate heat sink which is the canal cooling system.
1 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Okay. Any other 2
questions from NRC staff?
3 MS. KLETT: No.
4 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Does the licensee 5
have any questions?
6 MR. SUMMERS: The licensee has no 7
questions.
8 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Members of the 9
public may provide comments about the petition and ask 10 questions about the 2.206 petition process. However, 11 as I previously stated, the purpose of this meeting is 12 not to question the NRC about the merits of the 13 petition.
14 Are there any members of the public that 15 have questions?
16 (No response.)
17 CHAIRPERSON MARSHALL: Okay, hearing 18 none, Mr. Saporito, thank you for raising your concerns 19 to the NRC and taking the time to speak with us about 20 your petition.
21 Before we conclude the meeting, does the 22 court reporter need any information for the meeting 23 transcript?
24 COURT REPORTER: No.
25
60 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SAPORITO: With that, this meeting is 1
concluded and we are terminating the phone connection.
2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 3
went off the record at 3:23 p.m.)
4 5
6 7