ML103620789: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML103620789
| number = ML103620789
| issue date = 12/28/2010
| issue date = 12/28/2010
| title = Intervener'S Reply to NRC Staff Answer: New Contention 12
| title = Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer: New Contention 12
| author name = Olson M
| author name = Olson M
| author affiliation = Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Ecology Party of Florida, Green Party of Florida
| author affiliation = Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Ecology Party of Florida, Green Party of Florida
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Before Administrative Judges:
{{#Wiki_filter:1 United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Before Administrative Judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chair Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William M. Murphy In the Matter of:
Alex S. Karlin, Chair Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William M. Murphy In the Matter of:
Dockets Numbers 52-029-COL and PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.                                           52-030-COL Combined License Application for Levy County Units 1 & 2                           December 28, 2010 Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer: New Contention 12 In the above captioned proceeding, we review:
PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
On November 15, 2010 the Ecology Party of Florida, the Green Party of Florida and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Interveners) jointly filed a new contention (12) to which the NRC Staff has Answered (December 21, 2010); Interveners now reply. The November 15 date was established by a combination of negotiation (60 days from the publication of the Levy County Units 1 & 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for new contentions based on that document was part of the initial scheduling) and further extension was approved due to medical causes. This second extension applied only to matters pertaining to hydroecology. Contention 12 was filed timely in terms of this hybrid deadline insofar as Contention 12 is based on the DEIS and concerns hydroecological matters; in addition it is based on NEW information and was filed within 30 days of the event that created new information. Several of these points require additional clarification since apparently NRC staff do not understand the plain language of Contention 12. Interveners will also clarify that we did not understand certain terms of art that NRC Staff assert to have special meanings.
Combined License Application for Levy County Units 1 & 2 Dockets Numbers 52-029-COL and 52-030-COL December 28, 2010 Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer: New Contention 12 In the above captioned proceeding, we review:
1
On November 15, 2010 the Ecology Party of Florida, the Green Party of Florida and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Interveners) jointly filed a new contention (12) to which the NRC Staff has Answered (December 21, 2010); Interveners now reply. The November 15 date was established by a combination of negotiation (60 days from the publication of the Levy County Units 1 & 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for new contentions based on that document was part of the initial scheduling) and further extension was approved due to medical causes. This second extension applied only to matters pertaining to hydroecology. Contention 12 was filed timely in terms of this hybrid deadline insofar as Contention 12 is based on the DEIS and concerns hydroecological matters; in addition it is based on NEW information and was filed within 30 days of the event that created new information. Several of these points require additional clarification since apparently NRC staff do not understand the plain language of Contention 12. Interveners will also clarify that we did not understand certain terms of art that NRC Staff assert to have special meanings.  


First it is necessary to paint the issues of Contention 12 since NRC Staff has clearly not understood the issues we are bringing. We shall do so briefly - and wish to emphasize that while the language of Contention 12 may assume a certain level of comprehension, all of information was contained in the original filing if the reader had any basic knowledge of the physical elements that are referred to.
2 First it is necessary to paint the issues of Contention 12 since NRC Staff has clearly not understood the issues we are bringing. We shall do so briefly - and wish to emphasize that while the language of Contention 12 may assume a certain level of comprehension, all of information was contained in the original filing if the reader had any basic knowledge of the physical elements that are referred to.
At present time, the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) flows from East to West - except for the tidal action, when it obviously fluctuates in direction. Since the flow is from East to West, there is a considerable amount of water that does not originate from the Gulf of Mexico. The assertion that all the water that the Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) would consume would come from the Gulf of Mexico is wrong. The CWIS will obviously pull water from the Gulf, and will thereby reverse the predominant direction of flow in the CFBC, but it will also continue to consume the fresh water that is in the canal now. Currently that fresh water reaches the coastal waters including the estuary of the lower Withlacoochee River - and in fact is a surrogate for part of the flow that part of the river does not receive due to the construction of the CFBC. The restoration of a direct flow pathway of waters from the Upper Withlacoochee to the Lower Withlacoochee, while prospective, and not part of this proposed Federal action - is a plan (not a proposal) that predates the proposed nuclear reactors, and would have enormous hydroecological impacts on both the lower river, and the biologically diverse estuary and coastal waters. The construction of the CWIS is in direct conflict with the implementation of the Withlacoochee River restoration plan. This is clearly a hydroecological issue for an Outstanding Water of Florida. It is true that the matter of the CWIS is not new. What is new, and could not have been anticipated prior to the publication of the DEIS is Staffs approach to the assessment of alternate sites, which is greatly expanded over the ER, but nonetheless does not address these issues in terms of the incompatibility of the CWIS with the restoration plan. Interveners not only find that the matter of river restoration was not weighed in the assessment of the Levy site 2
At present time, the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) flows from East to West - except for the tidal action, when it obviously fluctuates in direction. Since the flow is from East to West, there is a considerable amount of water that does not originate from the Gulf of Mexico. The assertion that all the water that the Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) would consume would come from the Gulf of Mexico is wrong. The CWIS will obviously pull water from the Gulf, and will thereby reverse the predominant direction of flow in the CFBC, but it will also continue to consume the fresh water that is in the canal now. Currently that fresh water reaches the coastal waters including the estuary of the lower Withlacoochee River - and in fact is a surrogate for part of the flow that part of the river does not receive due to the construction of the CFBC. The restoration of a direct flow pathway of waters from the Upper Withlacoochee to the Lower Withlacoochee, while prospective, and not part of this proposed Federal action - is a plan (not a proposal) that predates the proposed nuclear reactors, and would have enormous hydroecological impacts on both the lower river, and the biologically diverse estuary and coastal waters. The construction of the CWIS is in direct conflict with the implementation of the Withlacoochee River restoration plan. This is clearly a hydroecological issue for an Outstanding Water of Florida. It is true that the matter of the CWIS is not new. What is new, and could not have been anticipated prior to the publication of the DEIS is Staffs approach to the assessment of alternate sites, which is greatly expanded over the ER, but nonetheless does not address these issues in terms of the incompatibility of the CWIS with the restoration plan. Interveners not only find that the matter of river restoration was not weighed in the assessment of the Levy site  


as compared to other sites, but also note that NONE of the other sites would incur the very long-term delay of any prospect of implementing River restoration and that this LARGE impact should have been factored into the DEIS. The delay in river restoration would be for the term of the license, any license renewal and then whatever time through the decommissioning of the CWIS.
3 as compared to other sites, but also note that NONE of the other sites would incur the very long-term delay of any prospect of implementing River restoration and that this LARGE impact should have been factored into the DEIS. The delay in river restoration would be for the term of the license, any license renewal and then whatever time through the decommissioning of the CWIS.
The admission of this contention for a hearing would certainly allow the development of the specific details of the river and estuary impacts and expert judgment in the matter.
The admission of this contention for a hearing would certainly allow the development of the specific details of the river and estuary impacts and expert judgment in the matter.
Interveners have perhaps erred in providing some of the relevant documents that we think could form a basis for that development; perhaps in future we should simply provide references.
Interveners have perhaps erred in providing some of the relevant documents that we think could form a basis for that development; perhaps in future we should simply provide references.
The second element of Contention 12 turns on a new proposal that has recently been acted on - that could not have been reviewed in the DEIS because it happened on October 20, 2010, after the publication of the DEIS. We note again that Contention 12 is filed within 30 days of the NEW information. This proposal would rededicate the CFB canal (while not impinging on navigation) by creating an in-land head of 2 feet that would reduce the inflow of tidal salt water, for purposes of impounding the fresh water that flows into the canal for municipal supply. Even with the restoration of flow from the Upper Withlacoochee, directly to the Lower Withlacoochee, the springs along the CFBC will continue to supply fresh water to the canal basin. While NRC Staff may not view this as a hydroecological issue - we remind Staff that Homo sapiens and its environment is in fact the primary purpose for the National Environmental Policy Act process that it has implemented, and that a species drinking water is a primary ecological issue.
The second element of Contention 12 turns on a new proposal that has recently been acted on - that could not have been reviewed in the DEIS because it happened on October 20, 2010, after the publication of the DEIS. We note again that Contention 12 is filed within 30 days of the NEW information. This proposal would rededicate the CFB canal (while not impinging on navigation) by creating an in-land head of 2 feet that would reduce the inflow of tidal salt water, for purposes of impounding the fresh water that flows into the canal for municipal supply. Even with the restoration of flow from the Upper Withlacoochee, directly to the Lower Withlacoochee, the springs along the CFBC will continue to supply fresh water to the canal basin. While NRC Staff may not view this as a hydroecological issue - we remind Staff that Homo sapiens and its environment is in fact the primary purpose for the National Environmental Policy Act process that it has implemented, and that a species drinking water is a primary ecological issue.
In plain language: if the proposal is moved to the Crystal River Energy Center, both of these socially important, hydroecologically vital projects could proceed unhindered. The AP1000s would in fact be cooled with Gulf Water - rather than partially with Gulf Water; the 3
In plain language: if the proposal is moved to the Crystal River Energy Center, both of these socially important, hydroecologically vital projects could proceed unhindered. The AP1000s would in fact be cooled with Gulf Water - rather than partially with Gulf Water; the  


Withlacoochee River could be revived and the barge canal could serve an additional beneficial function.
4 Withlacoochee River could be revived and the barge canal could serve an additional beneficial function.
Let it be noted that Interveners do not venture to endorse any site for the proposed reactors. Interveners hold a clear wish that this project will be withdrawn by the applicant altogether and not put on any site. Nonetheless, the transcript from the NRCs September 23, 2010 public meeting on the DEIS held during the evening in Crystal River (Attachment 1) clearly reflects a strong wish on the part of some of our Members, and their neighbors, that if the reactor project will be built, that it be an addition to the existing Crystal River Energy Center, rather than located on the proposed site in Levy County. See the comments of: Mr Hopkins (page 52, also invoking comments of Bette Burger at the afternoon meeting); Ms Foley (pages 65-67); Mr Jones (pages 75-77); Ms Sieling (page 94). Other speakers register concerns about the ground water impacts if the reactor is sited in Levy County and broad hydrological and hydroecological concerns.
Let it be noted that Interveners do not venture to endorse any site for the proposed reactors. Interveners hold a clear wish that this project will be withdrawn by the applicant altogether and not put on any site. Nonetheless, the transcript from the NRCs September 23, 2010 public meeting on the DEIS held during the evening in Crystal River (Attachment 1) clearly reflects a strong wish on the part of some of our Members, and their neighbors, that if the reactor project will be built, that it be an addition to the existing Crystal River Energy Center, rather than located on the proposed site in Levy County. See the comments of: Mr Hopkins (page 52, also invoking comments of Bette Burger at the afternoon meeting); Ms Foley (pages 65-67); Mr Jones (pages 75-77); Ms Sieling (page 94). Other speakers register concerns about the ground water impacts if the reactor is sited in Levy County and broad hydrological and hydroecological concerns.
It was NRC Staffs attack on the good reasons which form the basis for Interveners to bring matters late to the table, that caused sufficient reflection to remember hearing these voices at the public meeting in Crystal River, urging the reconsideration of the site selection.
It was NRC Staffs attack on the good reasons which form the basis for Interveners to bring matters late to the table, that caused sufficient reflection to remember hearing these voices at the public meeting in Crystal River, urging the reconsideration of the site selection.
The NRC Staffs answer have caused Interveners to note that an additional good reason to venture into these large matters at this juncture: the local people are asking for this outcome.
The NRC Staffs answer have caused Interveners to note that an additional good reason to venture into these large matters at this juncture: the local people are asking for this outcome.
Whether the applicant or the Commission is willing to serve these voices (who are, by the way, more supportive of the project than the Interveners) remains to be seen; we, however, cannot turn away.
Whether the applicant or the Commission is willing to serve these voices (who are, by the way, more supportive of the project than the Interveners) remains to be seen; we, however, cannot turn away.
Whether one talks about preferable or superior the point of Contention 12 is that with respect impact to the human environment, the designated site is inferior - and the ways in which it is inferior should be weighed in the determination that is made under NEPA with respect 4
Whether one talks about preferable or superior the point of Contention 12 is that with respect impact to the human environment, the designated site is inferior - and the ways in which it is inferior should be weighed in the determination that is made under NEPA with respect  


to viable alternatives: billions of gallons of drinking water and the restoration of a degraded river are priorities that NRC has an obligation not simply to note but rather to factor in to the outcome of its NEPA analysis - with whatever terms of trade it so chooses.
5 to viable alternatives: billions of gallons of drinking water and the restoration of a degraded river are priorities that NRC has an obligation not simply to note but rather to factor in to the outcome of its NEPA analysis - with whatever terms of trade it so chooses.
As for the newness of our action: as noted in the contention filing, the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) met on October 20, 2010 and heard the proposal to create a freshwater impoundment in the CFBC. The minutes of that meeting are now available and attached here (Attachement 2) and state in part:
As for the newness of our action: as noted in the contention filing, the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) met on October 20, 2010 and heard the proposal to create a freshwater impoundment in the CFBC. The minutes of that meeting are now available and attached here (Attachement 2) and state in part:
Mr. Hubbell recommended to the Board to accept this project as a long-term (20 to 25 years) alternative water supply project to be studied for consideration and development in the future when other alternative water supply projects are further analyzed. (WRWSA Minutes from Oct 20, 2010 page 2)
Mr. Hubbell recommended to the Board to accept this project as a long-term (20 to 25 years) alternative water supply project to be studied for consideration and development in the future when other alternative water supply projects are further analyzed. (WRWSA Minutes from Oct 20, 2010 page 2)
Line 44: Line 44:
It is true that this action is prospective; so is Progress Energys. The function of the National Environmental Policy Act is to ensure that major federal actions are fully informed. This action on October 20 is material: the approval of 52-029-COL and 52-030-COL on the proposed Levy site would preclude the implementation of this alternate water supply for 1/2 century; likely longer. We do not think that this action was reasonably foreseeable by NRC Staff; it is NEW.
It is true that this action is prospective; so is Progress Energys. The function of the National Environmental Policy Act is to ensure that major federal actions are fully informed. This action on October 20 is material: the approval of 52-029-COL and 52-030-COL on the proposed Levy site would preclude the implementation of this alternate water supply for 1/2 century; likely longer. We do not think that this action was reasonably foreseeable by NRC Staff; it is NEW.
We find it to be a good reason to re-open the matter of where Progress Energy Florida would construct its proposed reactors. The existing Crystal River Energy Center (CREC) would remove the need to use water from the CFBC and would allow the restoration of the upper and lower Withlacoochee.
We find it to be a good reason to re-open the matter of where Progress Energy Florida would construct its proposed reactors. The existing Crystal River Energy Center (CREC) would remove the need to use water from the CFBC and would allow the restoration of the upper and lower Withlacoochee.
If the process of identifying alternative sites results only in a paper trail to support a fete a compli decision of the applicant, then Interveners have made a bad calculation as to the value of the time invested in this project. We do not judge the new generation of regulators be 5
If the process of identifying alternative sites results only in a paper trail to support a fete a compli decision of the applicant, then Interveners have made a bad calculation as to the value of the time invested in this project. We do not judge the new generation of regulators be  


so futile. We stand by our submission of Contention 12. We find that although it is a bit of a patchwork quilt, all of the relevant admissibility requirements have been met, an Contention 12 should be admitted for a full hearing.
6 so futile. We stand by our submission of Contention 12. We find that although it is a bit of a patchwork quilt, all of the relevant admissibility requirements have been met, an Contention 12 should be admitted for a full hearing.
Respectfully Submitted,
Respectfully Submitted,
__________/s/__________________
__________/s/__________________
Mary Olson Nuclear Information and Resource Service Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802 828-252-8409 on behalf of the Co-Interveners December 28, 2010 6
Mary Olson Nuclear Information and Resource Service Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802 828-252-8409 on behalf of the Co-Interveners December 28, 2010  


               

    !" # #
         !"# !$
                  $  %
%  &


Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


==Title:==
==Title:==
Levy Nuclear Plant Draft EIS Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number:    52-029, 52-030 Location:        Crystal River, Florida Date:            Thursday, September 23, 2010 Work Order No.:  NRC-443                           Pages 1-112 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Docket Number:
Location:
Date:
Work Order No.:
1 Levy Nuclear Plant Draft EIS Public Meeting: Evening Session 52-029, 52-030 Crystal River, Florida Thursday, September 23, 2010 NRC-443 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1                UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Pages 1-112


2 1                   NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2                                 + + + + +
2 1
3                             PUBLIC MEETING 4                                   + + + + +
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2  
5         DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 6                   LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 7                     COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 8                           EVENING SESSION 9                                 + + + + +
+ + + + +
10                                   Thursday 11                           September 23, 2010 12                                   + + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING 4  
13             The meeting convened at the Plantation Inn,                         9301 14 West       Fort   Island   Trail,         Crystal       River, Florida,           at 15 7:00 p.m.
+ + + + +
5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 6
LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 7
COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 8
EVENING SESSION 9  
+ + + + +
10 Thursday 11 September 23, 2010 12  
+ + + + +
13 The meeting convened at the Plantation Inn, 9301 14 West Fort Island Trail, Crystal River, Florida, at 15 7:00 p.m.
16 BEFORE:
16 BEFORE:
17             FRANCIS "CHIP" CAMERON, Facilitator 18             ROBERT SCHAAF, Presenter 19              GORDON "DON" HAMBRICK, Presenter 20              DOUGLAS BRUNER, Presenter 21 22 23 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701         WWN. nealrgross,com
17 FRANCIS "CHIP" CAMERON, Facilitator 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ROBERT SCHAAF, Presenter GORDON "DON" HAMBRICK, Presenter DOUGLAS BRUNER, Presenter (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


3 1                            I N D E X 2 AGENDA                                                   PAGE 3 Welcome and Introductory statements                                   4 4 u.s. Army Corps of Engineers statements                             14 5 Overview of NRC Environmental Review Process                       20 6 Public Questions                                                   33 7 Public Comments                                                   59 8 Closing statements                                                 110 9
1 2
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433        WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 I N D E X AGENDA Welcome and Introductory statements u.s. Army Corps of Engineers statements Overview of NRC Environmental Review Process Public Questions Public Comments Closing statements (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 3
PAGE 4
14 20 33 59 110 WWN. nealrgross,com  


4 1                       PRO C E E DIN G S 2                                                                     7:03 P.M.
4 1
3                   MR. CAMERON:             Good evening,       everyone,           and 4 welcome       to the   public       meeting.           My   name     is       Chip 5 Cameron,       and I'm going to serve as your facilitator 6 for the meeting tonight.                   And in that role,         I'm going 7 to try to help you all to have a productive meeting.
PRO C E E DIN G S 2
8                   Our topic tonight is the NRC,                   the Nuclear 9 Regulatory Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers 10 environmental review of the license application that 11 the NRC received from Progress Energy Florida to build 12 two new nuclear power plants here in Levy County.                                   And 13 the environmental review that the NRC and the Corps of 14 Engineers       conducted         is         documented       in     a       draft 15 Environmental Impact statement.
7:03 P.M.
16                   And I   just wanted to talk a little about 17 meeting process,         so     that         you'll     understand     what         to 18 expect during the meeting tonight.                           And I'd like to 19 tell you about the format for the meeting.                           I'll talk 20 a little bit about some simple ground rules and then 21 introduce the speakers from the NRC and the Corps of 22 Engineers, who will be talking to you tonight.
3 MR.
23                   In terms       of     the     meeting   format,       it's         a 24 two-part format,         or at least there's two segments to 25 it.       And the first segment is to give you information NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
CAMERON:
Good evening, everyone, and 4
welcome to the public meeting.
My name is Chip 5
Cameron, and I'm going to serve as your facilitator 6
for the meeting tonight.
And in that role, I'm going 7
to try to help you all to have a productive meeting.
8 Our topic tonight is the NRC, the Nuclear 9
Regulatory Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers 10 environmental review of the license application that 11 the NRC received from Progress Energy Florida to build 12 two new nuclear power plants here in Levy County.
And 13 the environmental review that the NRC and the Corps of 14 Engineers conducted is documented in a
draft 15 Environmental Impact statement.
16 And I just wanted to talk a little about 17 meeting process, so that you'll understand what to 18 expect during the meeting tonight.
And I'd like to 19 tell you about the format for the meeting.
I'll talk 20 a little bit about some simple ground rules and then 21 introduce the speakers from the NRC and the Corps of 22 Engineers, who will be talking to you tonight.
23 In terms of the meeting format, it's a 24 two-part format, or at least there's two segments to 25 it.
And the first segment is to give you information (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


5 1 on the environmental review process and also on what 2 the       findings     are   in     the       Draft       Environmental         Impact 3 statement.           And   we're         going         to   have   a   couple           of 4 speakers         from the NRC and one speaker from the Army 5 Corps of Engineers to give you that background.
5 1
6                     We'll have some time for questions after 7 those presentations to make sure that we were clear 8 about everything.             And then we're going to go to the 9 second         segment     of     the       meeting.             And   that's             an 10 opportuni ty for         the NRC staff and the Army Corps of 11 Engineers         staff     to     listen           to     you,   to   what           your 12 concerns,         your   recommendations,                   your   advice       are 13 advice is on these environmental review issues.
on the environmental review process and also on what 2
14                     And if you want to talk to us about that 15 tonight,         if you could fill out a yellow card that's 16 back at the desk,             if you haven't already done so,                             and 17 then we'll ask you to come up to this podium to speak 18 to us.
the findings are in the Draft Environmental Impact 3
19                     The NRC staff is going to tell you about 20 their       written   comment         process.             We're   also       taking 21 written         comments     on     these         issues.       But   I   want           to 22 assure       you that     anything that                 you   say tonight will 23 carry the same weight as a written comment,                                     and you 24 can       feel   free   to     amplify           what     you   say   tonight             by 25 sending in a written comment.
statement.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
And we're going to have a
couple of 4
speakers from the NRC and one speaker from the Army 5
Corps of Engineers to give you that background.
6 We'll have some time for questions after 7
those presentations to make sure that we were clear 8
about everything.
And then we're going to go to the 9
second segment of the meeting.
And that's an 10 opportuni ty for the NRC staff and the Army Corps of 11 Engineers staff to listen to
: you, to what your 12
: concerns, your recommendations, your advice are 13 advice is on these environmental review issues.
14 And if you want to talk to us about that 15 tonight, if you could fill out a yellow card that's 16 back at the desk, if you haven't already done so, and 17 then we'll ask you to come up to this podium to speak 18 to us.
19 The NRC staff is going to tell you about 20 their written comment process.
We're also taking 21 written comments on these issues.
But I
want to 22 assure you that anything that you say tonight will 23 carry the same weight as a written comment, and you 24 can feel free to amplify what you say tonight by 25 sending in a written comment.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


6 1                     In terms of ground rules for the meeting, 2 the       first     one   is       please             wait   until   all           the 3 presentations are done before you ask questions.                                       And 4 that way we'll give you a complete picture of what's 5 going on.         And if you do have a question, to signal me 6 and I'll bring you this.                       I t used     to be     well,           it 7 was       never   a   cordless       microphone,             but usually         it's 8 cordless.         But I'll try to get this out to you.                                   If 9 not,       I'll have to ask you to come closer to me and 10 just introduce yoursel f and we'll try to answer your 11 question for you.
6 1
12                     If   we   can't         get       to   all   the questions 13 before we have to go onto the comment period,                               the NRC 14 staff and our expert consultant staff,                             they have the 15 white name tags on, they will be glad to try to answer 16 any questions that you have.
In terms of ground rules for the meeting, 2
17                   And the       second ground rule,                 I would ask 18 that only one person speak at a time.                               First of all, 19 so that we can give our full attention to whomever has 20 the       floor   at   the   moment.               And   secondly,   so         that 21 Gretchen,       our court reporter,                   our stenographer,           will 22 be able to get a clean transcript.                             She will know who 23 is talking at the moment.
the first one is please wait until all the 3
24                     Third ground rule is,                   I would ask you to 25 be concise in your comments so that we can make sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
presentations are done before you ask questions.
And 4
that way we'll give you a complete picture of what's 5
going on.
And if you do have a question, to signal me 6
and I'll bring you this.
It used to be well, it 7
was never a
cordless microphone, but usually it's 8
cordless.
But I'll try to get this out to you.
If 9
not, I'll have to ask you to come closer to me and 10 just introduce yoursel f and we'll try to answer your 11 question for you.
12 If we can't get to all the questions 13 before we have to go onto the comment period, the NRC 14 staff and our expert consultant staff, they have the 15 white name tags on, they will be glad to try to answer 16 any questions that you have.
17 And the second ground rule, I would ask 18 that only one person speak at a time.
First of all, 19 so that we can give our full attention to whomever has 20 the floor at the moment.
And secondly, so that 21 Gretchen, our court reporter, our stenographer, will 22 be able to get a clean transcript.
She will know who 23 is talking at the moment.
24 Third ground rule is, I would ask you to 25 be concise in your comments so that we can make sure (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


7 1 that we can hear from everyone.                             Usually,   we have a 2 three to five minute guideline for speaking,                                 because 3 we might have 4C or 50 people that we need to hear 4 from.       We don't have anywhere near that tonight, so we 5 can be a little bit flexible on the time.
7 1
6                   So, I'll just start watching at the five 7 minute point, and I may have to ask you to sum up, if 8 you get into the, you know,                     the seven or eight minute 9 range.       Not that you have to take that much time.                               But 10 if     I   do ask you to       sum up,           I     apologize   in advance 11 because I know that you spent a lot of time preparing 12 for these meetings.
that we can hear from everyone.
13                   And during the comment period, when you're 14 talking to us         from up there,                   the   NRC and the Army 15 Corps       of Engineers     staff,           they're       not going       to     be 16 responding to things that you say.                             They're going to 17 be listening to what               you're         saying.         But they will 18 document       their   response           to     your     comments     and         any 19 questions that you ask from up there when they prepare 20 the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Usually, we have a 2
21                   And,   finally,           just please extend courtesy 22 to       everybody.     You       may         hear       opinions   that           are 23 different from yours.                 But please respect the person 24 who's giving those comments.
three to five minute guideline for speaking, because 3
25                   And let me go to introductions.                           And I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
we might have 4C or 50 people that we need to hear 4
from.
We don't have anywhere near that tonight, so we 5
can be a little bit flexible on the time.
6 So, I'll just start watching at the five 7
minute point, and I may have to ask you to sum up, if 8
you get into the, you know, the seven or eight minute 9
range.
Not that you have to take that much time.
But 10 if I do ask you to sum up, I apologize in advance 11 because I know that you spent a lot of time preparing 12 for these meetings.
13 And during the comment period, when you're 14 talking to us from up there, the NRC and the Army 15 Corps of Engineers staff, they're not going to be 16 responding to things that you say.
They're going to 17 be listening to what you're saying.
But they will 18 document their response to your comments and any 19 questions that you ask from up there when they prepare 20 the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
21 And, finally, just please extend courtesy 22 to everybody.
You may hear opinions that are 23 different from yours.
But please respect the person 24 who's giving those comments.
25 (202) 23H433 And let me go to introductions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 And I'm WWN. nealrgross,com  


8 1 going to tell you a little bit about the background of 2 each of these people, so you'll get a clear picture of 3 what their areas of expertise are.
8 1
4                   And we're going to start with Bob Schaaf.
going to tell you a little bit about the background of 2
5 And       Bob   is the   Chief       of       the     Environmental     Review 6 Branch that's managing the review on this application 7 from Progress Energy Florida,                         and that branch is               in 8 the Division of Site and Environmental Review in the 9 Office of New Reactors at the NRC.
each of these people, so you'll get a clear picture of 3
10                   And Bob's been with the NRC for about 20 11 years and doing a lot of environmental reviews,                                     not 12 only for these new reactor applications, but also for 13 the license applications that the NRC gets to renew 14 the license for existing operating plants.
what their areas of expertise are.
15                   He's   also       been         a     project manager             for 16 operating reactors,           and before he came to the NRC he 17 was     at   the Charleston Nuclear                       or the   Charleston 18 Naval Shipyard, working on nuclear submarine overhaul.
4 And we're going to start with Bob Schaaf.
19 He has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering 20 from       Georgia   Tech.         Bob       is     going   to give     you       an 21 overview of the NRC responsibilities.
5 And Bob is the Chief of the Environmental Review 6
22                   And then we're going to go to the Corps, 23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and we have Don Hambrick 24 with us.         And he's the Project Manager for the Corps 25 of Engineers on their review aspects on this license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
Branch that's managing the review on this application 7
from Progress Energy Florida, and that branch is in 8
the Division of Site and Environmental Review in the 9
Office of New Reactors at the NRC.
10 And Bob's been with the NRC for about 20 11 years and doing a lot of environmental reviews, not 12 only for these new reactor applications, but also for 13 the license applications that the NRC gets to renew 14 the license for existing operating plants.
15 He's also been a
project manager for 16 operating reactors, and before he came to the NRC he 17 was at the Charleston Nuclear or the Charleston 18 Naval Shipyard, working on nuclear submarine overhaul.
19 He has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering 20 from Georgia Tech.
Bob is going to give you an 21 overview of the NRC responsibilities.
22 And then we're going to go to the Corps, 23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and we have Don Hambrick 24 with us.
And he's the Project Manager for the Corps 25 of Engineers on their review aspects on this license (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


9 1 application.         And he's been with Corps for a number of 2 years and I always forget the number, but 3                     MR. HAMBRICK:             Twenty-four.
9 1
4                     MR. CAMERON:               Twenty-four.           Twenty-four 5 years.         And he's the Senior Project Manager with them 6 and       he's   in   the   Northern             Permits       Section     of       the 7 Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers.                                       He's 8 a biologist.           His Bachelor's Degree is in Chemistry 9 and Biology,         and he has             a Master of Science Degree 10 from Louisiana State University.                             He's going to tell 11 you about the Corps review so that you can understand 12 that.
application.
13                     And then we're                 going to go         to   the         real 14 substantive part of the presentation and go to Doug 15 Bruner, who's right here, who is with the NRC and he's 16 the       Proj ect Manager         on     the       Environmental         Review of 17 this       license   application.                 He     is   in Bob   Schaaf's 18 branch.         And Doug has           been with             the NRC     for       three 19 years.         He's been working on environmental reviews for 20 new reactors.
And he's been with Corps for a number of 2
21                     And before         that,           he   was     with   the       Army 22 Corps         of   Engineers,         working             as     an   Environmental 23 Specialist and a Geologist.                         And in his work with the 24 Army Corps of Engineers,                     he spent some time in Iraq 25 working on the Iraqi electricity program.                                 And he was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
years and I always forget the number, but 3
MR. HAMBRICK:
Twenty-four.
4 MR.
CAMERON:
Twenty-four.
Twenty-four 5
years.
And he's the Senior Project Manager with them 6
and he's in the Northern Permits Section of the 7
Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers.
He's 8
a biologist.
His Bachelor's Degree is in Chemistry 9
and Biology, and he has a Master of Science Degree 10 from Louisiana State University.
He's going to tell 11 you about the Corps review so that you can understand 12 that.
13 And then we're going to go to the real 14 substantive part of the presentation and go to Doug 15 Bruner, who's right here, who is with the NRC and he's 16 the Proj ect Manager on the Environmental Review of 17 this license application.
He is in Bob Schaaf's 18 branch.
And Doug has been with the NRC for three 19 years.
He's been working on environmental reviews for 20 new reactors.
21 And before that, he was with the Army 22 Corps of Engineers, working as an Environmental 23 Specialist and a Geologist.
And in his work with the 24 Army Corps of Engineers, he spent some time in Iraq 25 working on the Iraqi electricity program.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 And he was WWN. nealrgross,com  


10 1 also in Afghanistan on construction proj ects for the 2 Afghanistan         National       Police             Force.       He     has         a 3 Bachelor's in Geology from the University of Southern 4 Maine       and he has   a     Master's             Degree   in   Engineering 5 Geology from Purdue University.
10 1
6                   And   just     let       me     introduce     a couple           of 7 people briefly so that you know who they are.                               We have 8 Scott Flanders here.                 And Scott is             the -- he's             the 9 Division         Director     of       the         Division       of   Site           and 10 Environmental Reviews in the Office of New Reactors, 11 and that's where Bob's environmental review branch is.
also in Afghanistan on construction proj ects for the 2
12                   We   have       our         Safety       Project     Manager.
Afghanistan National Police Force.
He has a
3 Bachelor's in Geology from the University of Southern 4
Maine and he has a Master's Degree in Engineering 5
Geology from Purdue University.
6 And just let me introduce a couple of 7
people briefly so that you know who they are.
We have 8
Scott Flanders here.
And Scott is the --
he's the 9
Division Director of the Division of Site and 10 Environmental Reviews in the Office of New Reactors, 11 and that's where Bob's environmental review branch is.
12 We have our Safety Project Manager.
13 You'll hear about the two parts to the NRC review and 14 that's Brian Anderson, the Safety Project Manager.
13 You'll hear about the two parts to the NRC review and 14 that's Brian Anderson, the Safety Project Manager.
15                   I don't     know         if           is Roger   here,           our 16 resident?         Okay, Roger's not here now.                     But we have a 17 number of NRC staff in various disciplines; radiation, 18 safety, emergency planning here tonight so that we can 19 try to answer all of your questions.
15 I don't know if is Roger here, our 16 resident?
20                   And I just want to make one little note on 21 the Army Corps of Engineers and the NRC to make sure 22 that you know what that relationship is like.                               There's 23 two       federal   agencies       involved           here,   two   decisions.
Okay, Roger's not here now.
24 The NRC's decision on whether to grant the license to 25 Progress Energy Florida and the Army Corps decision on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
But we have a 17 number of NRC staff in various disciplines; radiation, 18 safety, emergency planning here tonight so that we can 19 try to answer all of your questions.
20 And I just want to make one little note on 21 the Army Corps of Engineers and the NRC to make sure 22 that you know what that relationship is like.
There's 23 two federal agencies involved here, two decisions.
24 The NRC's decision on whether to grant the license to 25 Progress Energy Florida and the Army Corps decision on (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


11 1 whether to grant the permit for the work that Progress 2 needs to do.
11 1
3                   There's one Environmental Impact statement 4 that's       going   to   provide           support       for   each   agency's 5 decision under the National Environmental Policy Act.
whether to grant the permit for the work that Progress 2
6                   NRC is the lead agency because that's the 7 broader decision,         whether to license the plant.                               And 8 the Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency.                                     They 9 have       the very important             job of         deciding whether               to 10 issue a permit for the work that's going to be done in 11 wetlands       and navigable         waters.             And Don' s   going           to 12 tell you more about that.
needs to do.
13                   Each   of     these           agencies       has   a     public 14 participation process.                   This       public meeting         on       the 15 Draft         Environmental           Impact             statement       is           the 16 traditional             part     of     the       traditional     NRC       public 17 participation process.
3 There's one Environmental Impact statement 4
18                   The       Corps               of       Engineers           public 19 participation process involves what's called a public 20 hearing.       NOW, that public hearing is being satisfied 21 by this NRC public meeting tonight.
that's going to provide support for each agency's 5
22                   And with that,               I' 11 let everybody get to 23 the substance of tonight's discussion and turn it over 24 to Bob.
decision under the National Environmental Policy Act.
25                   MR. SCHAAF:           And thanks,         Chip.       As Chip NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
6 NRC is the lead agency because that's the 7
broader decision, whether to license the plant.
And 8
the Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency.
They 9
have the very important job of deciding whether to 10 issue a permit for the work that's going to be done in 11 wetlands and navigable waters.
And Don' s going to 12 tell you more about that.
13 Each of these agencies has a
public 14 participation process.
This public meeting on the 15 Draft Environmental Impact statement is the 16 traditional part of the traditional NRC public 17 participation process.
18 The Corps of Engineers public 19 participation process involves what's called a public 20 hearing.
NOW, that public hearing is being satisfied 21 by this NRC public meeting tonight.
22 And with that, I' 11 let everybody get to 23 the substance of tonight's discussion and turn it over 24 to Bob.
25 (202) 23H433 MR.
SCHAAF:
And thanks, Chip.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 As Chip WWN. nealrgross,com  


12 1 said, my name's Bob Schaaf.                         I'm Chief of one of the 2 branches         responsible         for       Environmental         Reviews           for 3 proposed new nuclear power plants.                               I would like to 4 welcome         everyone       to         this         meeting     about           our 5 environmental         of   Progress             Energy's       application           to 6 construct and operate two new nuclear power units at 7 the Levy County site.
12 1
8                     I'd also like to take a moment to thank 9 you all         for coming out.               Public participation is an 10 important part of our environmental review process and 11 so we         appreciate   your       attendance.               We do   find         that 12 local communities are often aware of issues that can 13 help us in completing our review.
said, my name's Bob Schaaf.
14                     First,   I'll take just a few moments to go 15 over the purposes of tonight's meeting.                                 I'll begin 16 with       a   few words     about         the     mission of       the     Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.                   Then,         as Chip mentioned,               Don 18 will       discuss   the   Corps           role       in   the   environmental 19 review and in -- and their permit decision.
I'm Chief of one of the 2
20                     You'll       hear           Don       describe,     as         Chip 21 mentioned,         you'll hear Don describe tonight's meeting 22 as     a   public   hearing       for       the       Corps'   purposes.             The 23 Corps         hearing   is   distinct             from     the   NRC's     formal 24 licensing hearing process.
branches responsible for Environmental Reviews for 3
25                     Today's meeting is not part of that formal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
proposed new nuclear power plants.
I would like to 4
welcome everyone to this meeting about our 5
environmental of Progress Energy's application to 6
construct and operate two new nuclear power units at 7
the Levy County site.
8 I'd also like to take a moment to thank 9
you all for coming out.
Public participation is an 10 important part of our environmental review process and 11 so we appreciate your attendance.
We do find that 12 local communities are often aware of issues that can 13 help us in completing our review.
14 First, I'll take just a few moments to go 15 over the purposes of tonight's meeting.
I'll begin 16 with a few words about the mission of the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
Then, as Chip mentioned, Don 18 will discuss the Corps role in the environmental 19 review and in -- and their permit decision.
20 You'll hear Don
: describe, as Chip 21 mentioned, you'll hear Don describe tonight's meeting 22 as a public hearing for the Corps' purposes.
The 23 Corps hearing is distinct from the NRC's formal 24 licensing hearing process.
25 Today's meeting is not part of that formal (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


13 1 hearing process for the NRC.                         Rather, we are here to 2 gather       comments   for     consideration in completing our 3 environmental review.
13 1
4                   Following         these           introductory         remarks, 5 Doug, the Project Manager for the environmental review 6 of     the   Levy   County     application,                 will   describe           the 7 review process,         preliminary findings,                       and ways           that 8 public comments may be provided on the Environmental 9 Impact statement.
hearing process for the NRC.
10                   And most importantly,                     as Chip mentioned, 11 we're here tonight           to     receive your comments                     on the 12 Draft       Environmental       Impact           statement.           After           our 13 presentations,       you'll have the opportunity to provide 14 comments.       And as was mentioned, the meeting is being 15 transcribed       so that     we     can       accurately capture                 your 16 comments and reflect on them.
Rather, we are here to 2
17                   So,   now       I'd       like         to   provide     a       brief 18 background on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.                                         The 19 NRC       was   created     by       Congress             in   1974     and       began 20 operations       at   the     beginning               of     1975   to     provide 21 independent       oversight         of       civilian         uses   of     nuclear 22 materials,       including the generation of electricity in 23 nuclear       power   plants.             Our     mission       is   to     protect 24 public health and safety,                   promote common defense and 25 security, and protect the environment.                             The NRC is not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
gather comments for consideration in completing our 3
environmental review.
4 Following these introductory
: remarks, 5
Doug, the Project Manager for the environmental review 6
of the Levy County application, will describe the 7
review process, preliminary findings, and ways that 8
public comments may be provided on the Environmental 9
Impact statement.
10 And most importantly, as Chip mentioned, 11 we're here tonight to receive your comments on the 12 Draft Environmental Impact statement.
After our 13 presentations, you'll have the opportunity to provide 14 comments.
And as was mentioned, the meeting is being 15 transcribed so that we can accurately capture your 16 comments and reflect on them.
17 So, now I'd like to provide a
brief 18 background on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The 19 NRC was created by Congress in 1974 and began 20 operations at the beginning of 1975 to provide 21 independent oversight of civilian uses of nuclear 22 materials, including the generation of electricity in 23 nuclear power plants.
Our mission is to protect 24 public health and safety, promote common defense and 25 security, and protect the environment.
The NRC is not (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


14 1 a proponent of any project.                       We do not propose, build, 2 or operate any nuclear facilities.
14 1
3                   In this case,             Progress Energy Florida has 4 proposed       to construct         and       operate     two   new     nuclear 5 power       units     on     the         Levy         county     site.               Our 6 responsibility is to ensure that this facility can be 7 constructed and operated safely and securely and in a 8 manner that protects the environment from radioactive 9 materials.         We must make those determinations before 10 we decide whether to issue the requested licenses.
a proponent of any project.
11                   That   concludes             my     introductory     remarks.
We do not propose, build, 2
12 Again,       I would like to express my thanks to everyone 13 for coming out and joining us tonight.
or operate any nuclear facilities.
14                   MR. HAMBRICK:               Good     evening,   everybody.
3 In this case, Progress Energy Florida has 4
15 As Chip said, my name is Don Hambrick.                             I am a Senior 16 Project       Manager   with       the       Army     Corps   of Engineers 17 Jacksonville District in the Regulatory Division.                                         I 18 work for       our North Permits Branch,                     which covers the 19 northern       two-thirds       of       Florida         and   includes           four 20 sections       with   offices         in       Pensacola,       Panama         City, 21 Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Cocoa.                           I personally am 22 stationed out of Panama City.
proposed to construct and operate two new nuclear 5
23                   The   Corps           of       Engineers       Jacksonville 24 District,       as co-sponsor with the NRC of this public 25 hearing,         welcomes           you           and       encourages            your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
power units on the Levy county site.
Our 6
responsibility is to ensure that this facility can be 7
constructed and operated safely and securely and in a 8
manner that protects the environment from radioactive 9
materials.
We must make those determinations before 10 we decide whether to issue the requested licenses.
11 That concludes my introductory remarks.
12
: Again, I would like to express my thanks to everyone 13 for coming out and joining us tonight.
14 MR.
HAMBRICK:
Good evening, everybody.
15 As Chip said, my name is Don Hambrick.
I am a Senior 16 Project Manager with the Army Corps of Engineers 17 Jacksonville District in the Regulatory Division.
I 18 work for our North Permits Branch, which covers the 19 northern two-thirds of Florida and includes four 20 sections with offices in Pensacola, Panama
: City, 21 Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Cocoa.
I personally am 22 stationed out of Panama City.
23 The Corps of Engineers Jacksonville 24 District, as co-sponsor with the NRC of this public 25
: hearing, (202) 23H433 welcomes you and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 encourages your WWN. nealrgross,com  


15 1 participation           by   the     submittal             of   your   written           or 2 spoken         comments     during           this         public     hearing,             or 3 submittal         of   written         comments             that   you   may         send 4 directly to the NRC.
15 1
5                     Review of your comments are an important 6 part         of   the   Corps'         evaluation             of     the   proposed 7 construction of Progress Energy Florida's Levy Nuclear 8 Power       Plant   units     1     and       2.         And   it   includes           the 9 upgrade or construction of approximately 180 miles of 10 transmission lines.               Next slide.
participation by the submittal of your written or 2
11                     Now, a lot of people say, why is the Corps 12 of Engineers involved in projects like this?                                   And, of 13 course,         it's because of various Federal statutes and 14 Regulations.
spoken comments during this public
15                     The Corps of Engineers,                     we also refer to 16 ourselves at USACE,             is the Federal agency responsible 17 for administrating section 404 of the Clean Water Act 18 and section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899.
: hearing, or 3
submittal of written comments that you may send 4
directly to the NRC.
5 Review of your comments are an important 6
part of the Corps' evaluation of the proposed 7
construction of Progress Energy Florida's Levy Nuclear 8
Power Plant units 1 and 2.
And it includes the 9
upgrade or construction of approximately 180 miles of 10 transmission lines.
Next slide.
11 Now, a lot of people say, why is the Corps 12 of Engineers involved in projects like this?
And, of 13 course, it's because of various Federal statutes and 14 Regulations.
15 The Corps of Engineers, we also refer to 16 ourselves at USACE, is the Federal agency responsible 17 for administrating section 404 of the Clean Water Act 18 and section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899.
19 The Corps regulates the discharge of dredge and fill 20 material into all jurisdictional waters of the united 21 states, including wetlands.
19 The Corps regulates the discharge of dredge and fill 20 material into all jurisdictional waters of the united 21 states, including wetlands.
22                     And   we     also         regulate         dredging     and         the 23 construction           of   structures               in,     over,     or under           all 24 navigable         waters,     including wetlands                   located wi thin 25 those navigable waters.
22 And we also regulate dredging and the 23 construction of structures in,
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
: over, or under all 24 navigable waters, including wetlands located wi thin 25 those navigable waters.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


16 1                     Corps permit decisions are federal actions 2 and must comply with the National Environmental Policy 3 Act, commonly called NEPA.
16 1
4                     We are     also         charged         to   review     projects 5 through           when they involve the discharge of dredged 6 or     fill   material   into       waters         of   the United states, 7 that they comply with the requirements of the section 8 404 Ib) (1) Guidelines.             We also are charged for all the 9 proj ects for review to determine whether or not that 10 project is contrary to                 the public interest.                     That's 11 called our public interest review.
Corps permit decisions are federal actions 2
12                     But be aware,             the standard is not that we 13 have       to   find   that       the       project         is   in   the     public 14 interest.           The standard is               that the proj ect is not 15 contrary to the public interest.                           And the next slide.
and must comply with the National Environmental Policy 3
16                     The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the 17 lead agency in the preparation of the Environmental 18 Impact       statement     under         NEPA,         and   as   already         been 19 mentioned,         the Corps is the cooperating agency in the 20 preparation of the Environmental Impact statement.
Act, commonly called NEPA.
21                     The Corps evaluation decision whether to 22 issue a Department of Army permit, will be documented 23 in a separate Record of Decision, which we will refer 24 to as ROD, and also is combined with our statement of 25 findings,         no earlier than 30 days after issuance of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
4 We are also charged to review projects 5
through when they involve the discharge of dredged 6
or fill material into waters of the United states, 7
that they comply with the requirements of the section 8
404 Ib) (1) Guidelines.
We also are charged for all the 9
proj ects for review to determine whether or not that 10 project is contrary to the public interest.
That's 11 called our public interest review.
12 But be aware, the standard is not that we 13 have to find that the project is in the public 14 interest.
The standard is that the proj ect is not 15 contrary to the public interest.
And the next slide.
16 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the 17 lead agency in the preparation of the Environmental 18 Impact statement under
: NEPA, and as already been 19 mentioned, the Corps is the cooperating agency in the 20 preparation of the Environmental Impact statement.
21 The Corps evaluation decision whether to 22 issue a Department of Army permit, will be documented 23 in a separate Record of Decision, which we will refer 24 to as ROD, and also is combined with our statement of 25 findings, no earlier than 30 days after issuance of (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


17 1 the Final EIS.           The ROD will reference information in 2 the       FEIS     and   present           any       additional     information 3 required by the Corps to support the permit decision.
17 1
4                       Under   our       regulations,           the   Corps           is 5 neither         a   proponent       nor         opponent     of   any     project 6 undergoing our regulatory review.                             The Corps has not 7 made a decision as to whether or not a permit will be 8 issued.           The solicitation and review of the comments 9 provided         in   response       to       the       DEIS are   part     of       our 10 evaluation of this project.                         Okay. The next slide.
the Final EIS. The ROD will reference information in 2
11                       This is     just a general overview of what 12 the Corps is regulating,                     what we are being asked to 13 permit.         As far as on the actual project site itself, 14 at       the       reactor     site,           including       the   associated 15 structure,           such   as   administration building,                   parking 16 lots,       roads,   switch yards, et cetera, about 312 -- no 17 excuse me,         372 acres of fill material -- 372 acres of 18 wetlands would be impacted.
the FEIS and present any additional information 3
19                     Associated with the transmission lines, an 20 additional approximately 319 acres of wetlands would 21 be impacted.
required by the Corps to support the permit decision.
22                       For   the     blowdown             pipelines   that       would 23 carry the           cooling water             and discharge         it   from Levy 24 down to the Crystal River Energy Complex a distance of 25 about         13   miles,   approximately                 30 acres   of   wetlands NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
4 Under our regulations, the Corps is 5
neither a
proponent nor opponent of any project 6
undergoing our regulatory review.
The Corps has not 7
made a decision as to whether or not a permit will be 8
issued.
The solicitation and review of the comments 9
provided in response to the DEIS are part of our 10 evaluation of this project.
Okay.
The next slide.
11 This is just a general overview of what 12 the Corps is regulating, what we are being asked to 13 permit.
As far as on the actual project site itself, 14 at the reactor
: site, including the associated 15 structure, such as administration building, parking 16 lots, roads, switch yards, et cetera, about 312 -- no 17 excuse me, 372 acres of fill material --
372 acres of 18 wetlands would be impacted.
19 Associated with the transmission lines, an 20 additional approximately 319 acres of wetlands would 21 be impacted.
22 For the blowdown pipelines that would 23 carry the cooling water and discharge it from Levy 24 down to the Crystal River Energy Complex a distance of 25 about 13 miles, approximately 30 acres of wetlands (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


18 1 would be impacted.
18 1
2                   Then,   at     the       Cross-Florida         Barge       Canal, 3 PEF proposes to construct the boats -- excuse me,                                         a 4 barge slip and boat ramp in order to transport large 5 components       of   the     facility             up     to   the site.             And 6 approximately 1.1 acres                 of wetlands             and open waters 7 would be impacted by that.
would be impacted.
8                   We will also be evaluating for whether or 9 not       to issue   a   permit         for       structures     in   navigable 10 waters,     which would include the cooling water intake 11 structure       at the   Cross-Florida                 Barge   Canal   and         the 12 cooling water discharge structure at the Crystal River 13 Energy Complex.         Okay.       Next slide.
2
14                   Under our regulations,                   the Corps will not 15 provide       responses       during             this       hearing     to         your 16 comments.       All oral testimony will be recorded and a 17 transcript prepared by the NRC.                           Comments,   as I said 18 before,     may also be submitted in writing through the 19 end of the DEIS comment period to the NRC,                               which is 20 October 27th.
: Then, at the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, 3
21                   All received comments will become part of 22 the       official   record       for       the       project   and   will           be 23 addressed by the Corps with the NRC in the Final EIS 24 or separately by the Corps in its combined Record of 25 Decision and statement of Findings.
PEF proposes to construct the boats --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
excuse me, a
4 barge slip and boat ramp in order to transport large 5
components of the facility up to the site.
And 6
approximately 1.1 acres of wetlands and open waters 7
would be impacted by that.
8 We will also be evaluating for whether or 9
not to issue a permit for structures in navigable 10 waters, which would include the cooling water intake 11 structure at the Cross-Florida Barge Canal and the 12 cooling water discharge structure at the Crystal River 13 Energy Complex.
Okay.
Next slide.
14 Under our regulations, the Corps will not 15 provide responses during this hearing to your 16 comments.
All oral testimony will be recorded and a 17 transcript prepared by the NRC.
Comments, as I said 18 before, may also be submitted in writing through the 19 end of the DEIS comment period to the NRC, which is 20 October 27th.
21 All received comments will become part of 22 the official record for the project and will be 23 addressed by the Corps with the NRC in the Final EIS 24 or separately by the Corps in its combined Record of 25 Decision and statement of Findings.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


19 1                     At the bottom,               the last two bullets,                 the 2 third         one   provides         there         our     permit   application 3 number.         Tha t' s how we         reference this proj ect,                     SAJ-4 2008-00490 (IP).           That stands for Individual Permit and 5 that's the type of permit that we're evaluating for, 6 and my initials.             And then my name, e-mail,                   and phone 7 number.
19 1
8                     And you're free to contact me if you have 9 any questions           in regard           to     the     actual   process         that 10 we're         going     through         in         the     evaluation.               Your 11 opportunity,           again,       to     comment         on   the   merits           and 12 concerns         of   the   proj ect           are     afforded     through         this 13 public hearing,           plus     the comments you can submit up 14 through October 27th.
At the bottom, the last two bullets, the 2
15                     If you do have any comments in regard to 16 the       Corps   permitting         process           this   evening,     I'll         be 17 happy to answer them after the public hearing or after 18 this meeting.
third one provides there our permit application 3
19                     I   do want to offer my thanks to the NRC 20 and to         their consultants with the                       Paci fic Northwest 21 National Labs and Information Systems Laboratories for 22 all of the hard work, and it really has been a lot of 23 work that went into the preparation of the DEIS,                                         the 24 work         that     will     be       continuing             on   through           the 25 development of the Final EIS,                         and for putting on this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
number.
Tha t' s how we reference this proj ect, SAJ-4 2008-00490 (IP).
That stands for Individual Permit and 5
that's the type of permit that we're evaluating for, 6
and my initials.
And then my name, e-mail, and phone 7
number.
8 And you're free to contact me if you have 9
any questions in regard to the actual process that 10 we're going through in the evaluation.
Your 11 opportunity,
: again, to comment on the merits and 12 concerns of the proj ect are afforded through this 13 public hearing, plus the comments you can submit up 14 through October 27th.
15 If you do have any comments in regard to 16 the Corps permitting process this evening, I'll be 17 happy to answer them after the public hearing or after 18 this meeting.
19 I do want to offer my thanks to the NRC 20 and to their consultants with the Paci fic Northwest 21 National Labs and Information Systems Laboratories for 22 all of the hard work, and it really has been a lot of 23 work that went into the preparation of the DEIS, the 24 work that will be continuing on through the 25 development of the Final EIS, and for putting on this (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


20 1 workshop and meeting.             Thank you.
20 1
2                   MR. CAMERON:             Thank you, Don.           We're going 3 to hear from Doug Bruner right now.
workshop and meeting.
4                   MR. BRUNER:             Thank you,         Chip. Again, my 5 name       is Doug   Bruner.           And       I     would like     to       thank 6 everybody       for   coming       out       here       and giving     us         your 7 feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact statement.
Thank you.
8                   It's interesting how quickly time passes.
2 MR. CAMERON:
9 It's been almost two years ago since we were last here 10 seeking your input for the Draft Environmental Impact 11 statement.         This evening,             I would like to provide a 12 brief overview of the environmental review process, as 13 well as the environmental review.
Thank you, Don.
14                   In July 2008, Progress Energy submitted an 15 application to the NRC for combined licenses for the 16 Levy       proj ect. The     combined             licenses,   if   granted, 17 would be authorization to construct and operate                                       two 18 new nuclear units on the Levy site.
We're going 3
19                   For the Levy combined license application, 20 the NRC is conducting two reviews at the same time, a 21 safety review and an environmental review.                               And this 22 evening I will be discussing the environmental review.
to hear from Doug Bruner right now.
23                   Oh,   we're on the wrong slide.                       There you 24 go.       The product of our environmental review is the 25 Environmental Impact statement and it's called an EIS.
4 MR.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
BRUNER:
Thank you, Chip.
Again, my 5
name is Doug Bruner.
And I
would like to thank 6
everybody for coming out here and giving us your 7
feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact statement.
8 It's interesting how quickly time passes.
9 It's been almost two years ago since we were last here 10 seeking your input for the Draft Environmental Impact 11 statement.
This evening, I would like to provide a 12 brief overview of the environmental review process, as 13 well as the environmental review.
14 In July 2008, Progress Energy submitted an 15 application to the NRC for combined licenses for the 16 Levy proj ect.
The combined licenses, if granted, 17 would be authorization to construct and operate two 18 new nuclear units on the Levy site.
19 For the Levy combined license application, 20 the NRC is conducting two reviews at the same time, a 21 safety review and an environmental review.
And this 22 evening I will be discussing the environmental review.
23 Oh, we're on the wrong slide.
There you 24 go.
The product of our environmental review is the 25 Environmental Impact statement and it's called an EIS.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


21 1 The       staff   began   its       review           of     Progress   Energy's 2 application for combined licenses for the Levy site in 3 October       of 2008,   which         included           the   review     of       the 4 applicant's environmental report that was included as 5 part of the application.
21 1
6                   The staff conducted site audits, visits to 7 alternative         sites,       and           interacted           with         local 8 officials,       and state       and other               federal   agencies,           as 9 well as Native American tribes.
The staff began its review of Progress Energy's 2
10                   The   staff         gathered             information       through 11 scoping to help us determine which issues                               should be 12 considered       in   the       review.                   We   also   requested 13 additional information from Progress Energy.
application for combined licenses for the Levy site in 3
14                   All   of     this         information           was   used           to 15 prepare       the   Draft     Environmental                   Impact   statement, 16 which was published this past August, last month.
October of 2008, which included the review of the 4
17                   As   a member of               the     team,   the   Corps has 18 been on site visits and has actively participated in 19 agency       interactions           and         technical         reviews             in 20 developing the EIS. Next slide, please.
applicant's environmental report that was included as 5
21                   This   slide           is       an       overview     of       NRC's 22 environmental review process.                       This step-wise approach 23 is how we meet our responsibilities under the National 24 Environmental       Policy Act.                 We     are     currently in           the 25 comment       period   stage         for       the       Draft   Environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
part of the application.
6 The staff conducted site audits, visits to 7
alternative
: sites, and interacted with local 8
officials, and state and other federal agencies, as 9
well as Native American tribes.
10 The staff gathered information through 11 scoping to help us determine which issues should be 12 considered in the review.
We also requested 13 additional information from Progress Energy.
14 All of this information was used to 15 prepare the Draft Environmental Impact statement, 16 which was published this past August, last month.
17 As a member of the team, the Corps has 18 been on site visits and has actively participated in 19 agency interactions and technical reviews in 20 developing the EIS. Next slide, please.
21 This slide is an overview of NRC's 22 environmental review process.
This step-wise approach 23 is how we meet our responsibilities under the National 24 Environmental Policy Act.
We are currently in the 25 comment period stage for the Draft Environmental (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


22 1 Impact statement, which is the fourth bullet down.
22 1
2                   Previously, the NRC and Corps were seeking 3 your input for the EIS during the scoping period.                                   And 4 your       comments   were     presented               in   a Scoping     Summary 5 Report which was published in May of 2009.                           It is also 6 inc I uded as Appendix             D to         the     Environmental     Impact 7 Statement for those comments that were within scope of 8 the environmental review.
Impact statement, which is the fourth bullet down.
9                   To assist us in our review,                     the NRC and 10 Corps       are currently     seeking public               comments     on       the 11 Draft       Environmental       Impact           Statement.       The     75-day 12 comment period on the Draft EIS began on August 13 and 13 will remain open until October 27th.
2 Previously, the NRC and Corps were seeking 3
14                   Once the comment period is over, the staff 15 will       start   processing         all         of     comments   that         were 16 received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
your input for the EIS during the scoping period.
And 4
your comments were presented in a Scoping Summary 5
Report which was published in May of 2009.
It is also 6
inc I uded as Appendix D to the Environmental Impact 7
Statement for those comments that were within scope of 8
the environmental review.
9 To assist us in our review, the NRC and 10 Corps are currently seeking public comments on the 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The 75-day 12 comment period on the Draft EIS began on August 13 and 13 will remain open until October 27th.
14 Once the comment period is over, the staff 15 will start processing all of comments that were 16 received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
17 That includes anything that you would like to share 18 with us this evening.
17 That includes anything that you would like to share 18 with us this evening.
19                   Based on the comments that we receive, we 20 will adjust our analysis as needed and finalize the 21 Environmental Impact Statement.
19 Based on the comments that we receive, we 20 will adjust our analysis as needed and finalize the 21 Environmental Impact Statement.
22                   The target date for issuing the draft --
22 The target date for issuing the draft --
23 for issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 is July of 2011.           The comments and responses on the 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be included NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
23 for issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 is July of 2011.
The comments and responses on the 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be included (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


23 1 as       an Appendix   in     the       Final         Environmental         Impact 2 statement.       Next slide.
23 1
3                   To prepare the EIS,                     we have assembled a 4 team with backgrounds in the necessary scientific and 5 technical disciplines.                 The NRC has               contracted with 6 Pacific       Northwest         National               Labs,       as   well           as 7 Information       Systems       Laboratories               to   assist       us       in 8 preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.
as an Appendix in the Final Environmental Impact 2
9                   The NRC team, which includes the PNNL and 10 ISL     contractors,   is     comprised             of   a   wide   range           of 11 experts knowledgeable in environmental issues and in 12 nuclear power plants.
statement.
13                   As mentioned before,                     the   Corps has           also 14 provided technical           expertise             in developing the                 EIS.
Next slide.
3 To prepare the EIS, we have assembled a 4
team with backgrounds in the necessary scientific and 5
technical disciplines.
The NRC has contracted with 6
Pacific Northwest National
: Labs, as well as 7
Information Systems Laboratories to assist us in 8
preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.
9 The NRC team, which includes the PNNL and 10 ISL contractors, is comprised of a
wide range of 11 experts knowledgeable in environmental issues and in 12 nuclear power plants.
13 As mentioned before, the Corps has also 14 provided technical expertise in developing the EIS.
15 This slide shows most of the resource areas that were 16 considered in the EIS, and many of these staff experts 17 are here this evening to receive your comments.
15 This slide shows most of the resource areas that were 16 considered in the EIS, and many of these staff experts 17 are here this evening to receive your comments.
18                   The NRC would like to provide time for you 19 to present comments this evening; therefore, I will be 20 discussing       the   results         of       the       analysis     of   some         of 21 these resource areas depicted here.                             But before I do 22 that -- next slide, please.
18 The NRC would like to provide time for you 19 to present comments this evening; therefore, I will be 20 discussing the results of the analysis of some of 21 these resource areas depicted here.
23                   This slide depicts how the impacts to the 24 environment       are   categorized                 in     the   Environmental 25 Impact     Statement.         The       NRC       has     established         three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
But before I do 22 that -- next slide, please.
23 This slide depicts how the impacts to the 24 environment are categorized in the Environmental 25 Impact Statement.
The NRC has established three (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


24 1 impact category levels; small, moderate, and large, to 2 help explain the effects of the project in consistent 3 terms for each of the resource areas.
24 1
4                     As the team was developing its analysis, 5 the team members would ask, is the effect minor, which 6 would be a small effect.                       Does the effect noticeably 7 alter       important     attributes             of     the   resource,         which 8 would       be   a moderate       effect.               Or,   does   the     effect 9 destabilize         important         attributes             of   the   resource, 10 which would be a large effect.
impact category levels; small, moderate, and large, to 2
11                     So, throughout               the     Environmental         Impact 12 Statement for each of the technical areas,                                 like the 13 ones       we   saw in   the     previous             slide,     the   team would 14 develop         its   analysis       and       then       assign     a   level           of 15 significance         of   small,         moderate,           or   large.           Next 16 slide, please.
help explain the effects of the project in consistent 3
17                     Now we'll       get into a               little more detail 18 about some of the technical areas.                               First,   is water 19 resources.         Our evaluation considered groundwater and 20 surface water,         both the use and quality of these two 21 resources.
terms for each of the resource areas.
22                     Groundwater           will         be     used     during           the 23 building         of   units   1   and         2,     for   controlling           dust, 24 mixing         concrete,     for       soil         compaction,         and       other 25 construction         uses.       Later,           during       operation of             the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
4 As the team was developing its analysis, 5
the team members would ask, is the effect minor, which 6
would be a small effect.
Does the effect noticeably 7
alter important attributes of the
: resource, which 8
would be a moderate effect.
Or, does the effect 9
destabilize important attributes of the
: resource, 10 which would be a large effect.
11 So, throughout the Environmental Impact 12 Statement for each of the technical areas, like the 13 ones we saw in the previous slide, the team would 14 develop its analysis and then assign a
level of 15 significance of small,
: moderate, or large.
Next 16 slide, please.
17 Now we'll get into a little more detail 18 about some of the technical areas.
First, is water 19 resources.
Our evaluation considered groundwater and 20 surface water, both the use and quality of these two 21 resources.
22 Groundwater will be used during the 23 building of units 1
and 2, for controlling dust, 24 25 mixing
: concrete, for soil compaction, and other construction uses.
Later, during operation of the (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


25 1 plant,         groundwater         will           be       used   for     drinking, 2 sanitation,         fire   protection,               and cooling of           smaller 3 plant components.
25 1
4                     The   primary         source           of water   to be           used 5 during operation is surface water, which will be used 6 to cool units 1 and 2.                   The source for surface water 7 is     the Cross-Florida Barge Canal,                       which is directly 8 connected to the Gulf of Mexico.
: plant, groundwater will be used for
9                     Water being discharged from the plant will 10 be       directed     to   the     existing             Crystal   River       Energy 11 Complex       and   discharged.                 Progress       Energy   would           be 12 required to comply with all state and federal permits 13 for groundwater withdrawals and discharges to the Gulf 14 of Mexico.
: drinking, 2
15                     Therefore, the review team determined that 16 the impacts of building and operation of units 1 and 2 17 on     the   use   and   quality           of     groundwater       and     surface 18 water would be small.               Next slide, please.
sanitation, fire protection, and cooling of smaller 3
19                     Next,   is ecological resources.                       Our team 20 evaluated the           terrestrial             impacts       on local     wildlife 21 that either live on the Levy site and the surrounding 22 area       or   in   nearby     water           bodies.         The   evaluation 23 covered         many     species.                 Some     examples     are           the 24 Loggerhead Turtle,           the Gulf Sturgeon, and Wood Stork.
plant components.
25                     The NRC staff,               along with the Corps,                   is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
4 The primary source of water to be used 5
during operation is surface water, which will be used 6
to cool units 1 and 2.
The source for surface water 7
is the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, which is directly 8
connected to the Gulf of Mexico.
9 Water being discharged from the plant will 10 be directed to the existing Crystal River Energy 11 Complex and discharged.
Progress Energy would be 12 required to comply with all state and federal permits 13 for groundwater withdrawals and discharges to the Gulf 14 of Mexico.
15 Therefore, the review team determined that 16 the impacts of building and operation of units 1 and 2 17 on the use and quality of groundwater and surface 18 water would be small.
Next slide, please.
19 Next, is ecological resources.
Our team 20 evaluated the terrestrial impacts on local wildlife 21 that either live on the Levy site and the surrounding 22 area or in nearby water bodies.
The evaluation 23 covered many species.
Some examples are the 24 Loggerhead Turtle, the Gulf Sturgeon, and Wood Stork.
25 (202) 23H433 The NRC staff, along with the Corps, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


26 1 consul ting with other agencies,                           such as   the     Florida 2 Department of Environmental Protection,                             the u. S.         Fish 3 and wildlife Service,             and the National Marine Fishery 4 Service, on impacts to ecological resources.
26 1
5                     The   review           team         concluded     that           the 6 terrestrial impacts from building units 1 and 2 would 7 be moderate,         primarily due               to     the   loss   of wetlands 8 habitat,         and   small     to       moderate         during   operation 9 because of the range of possible impacts to wetlands 10 from groundwater withdrawal.                           Impacts on the aquatic 11 ecosystems are considered small for both building and 12 operation.         Next slide, please.
consul ting with other agencies, such as the Florida 2
13                     As part of the NRC staff's analysis,                                 we 14 evaluated           potential         doses             to     workers         during 15 construction, doses to members of the public and plant 16 workers         during   operation,               and     doses   received             by 17 wildlife.
Department of Environmental Protection, the u. S. Fish 3
18                     The NRC's regulation limit the whole body 19 dose       to   a   member   of     the public             to   around   5     to     10 20 millirem per year from a nuclear power plant.                                 The EPA 21 standard is 25 millirem per year for the entire fuel 22 cycle.
and wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fishery 4
23                     Radiation exposure is a very well-studied 24 health       risk. To put       the       above       radiation   exposures 25 into perspective, the average dose to an individual in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Service, on impacts to ecological resources.
5 The review team concluded that the 6
terrestrial impacts from building units 1 and 2 would 7
be moderate, primarily due to the loss of wetlands 8
: habitat, and small to moderate during operation 9
because of the range of possible impacts to wetlands 10 from groundwater withdrawal.
Impacts on the aquatic 11 ecosystems are considered small for both building and 12 operation.
Next slide, please.
13 As part of the NRC staff's analysis, we 14 evaluated potential doses to workers during 15 construction, doses to members of the public and plant 16 workers during operation, and doses received by 17 wildlife.
18 The NRC's regulation limit the whole body 19 dose to a member of the public to around 5 to 10 20 millirem per year from a nuclear power plant.
The EPA 21 standard is 25 millirem per year for the entire fuel 22 cycle.
23 Radiation exposure is a very well-studied 24 health risk.
To put the above radiation exposures 25 into perspective, the average dose to an individual in (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


27 1 the     united     states     from natural                 background,     such         as 2 cosmic         radiation,       naturally               occurring     radioactive 3 material         in   the   soil,         and       building       materials,             is 4 around 300 millirem per year.
27 1
5                     The NRC's regulated limit is less than ten 6 percent         of   the   total       of       natural       background.               The 7 impacts on all three groups:                         doses to members of the 8 public,         plant   workers       and wildlife would be                     small, 9 since       Progress     Energy must               continue     to   comply with 10 stringent         NRC   and     EPA         regulations.             Next       slide, 11 please.
the united states from natural background, such as 2
12                     Socioeconomics and environmental justice.
cosmic radiation, naturally occurring radioactive 3
13   It's       about     people.               The         socioeconomics           review 14 encompasses           many   different               things,       such   as       local 15 economy,         taxes,     housing,               education,       traffic             and 16 transportation,             populations,                   infrastructure,               and 17 community services.
material in the soil, and building materials, is 4
18                     The   adverse           socioeconomic           impacts         range 19 from small to moderate for the building phase of units 20 1 and 2.           The moderate adverse impacts are primarily 21 in     Levy and Marion Counties                       due     to the   impacts           on 22 public         services     and     schools.                 There   would         be       a 23 moderate         impact     associated               with     traffic     in         Levy 24 County.         Additionally,         a moderate aesthetic impact is 25 expected from transmission lines and corridors.
around 300 millirem per year.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
5 The NRC's regulated limit is less than ten 6
percent of the total of natural background.
The 7
impacts on all three groups: doses to members of the 8
public, plant workers and wildlife would be small, 9
since Progress Energy must continue to comply with 10 stringent NRC and EPA regulations.
Next
: slide, 11 please.
12 Socioeconomics and environmental justice.
13 It's about people.
The socioeconomics review 14 encompasses many different
: things, such as local 15
: economy, taxes,
: housing, education, traffic and 16 transportation, populations, infrastructure, and 17 community services.
18 The adverse socioeconomic impacts range 19 from small to moderate for the building phase of units 20 1 and 2.
The moderate adverse impacts are primarily 21 in Levy and Marion Counties due to the impacts on 22 public services and schools.
There would be a
23 moderate impact associated with traffic in Levy 24 County.
Additionally, a moderate aesthetic impact is 25 expected from transmission lines and corridors.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


28 1                     On the other hand,                     there is a beneficial 2 impact       from taxes that           range         from small to moderate 3 during         construction,           and         small       to   large       during 4 operation, particularly in Levy County.
28 1
5                     The   environmental                 justice review focuses 6 on low income and minority populations to understand 7 if they would be unevenly and adversely affected by 8 the       proposed     action.             During           our   review,       we       did 9 identify         several       minority             and       low-income         census 10 blocks, but did not find any evidence that minority or 11 low         income       populations                   would       be       affected 12 disproportionately by                 construction               and   operation             of 13 the new plant.           Next slide, please.
On the other hand, there is a beneficial 2
14                     An   important             part       of   the   environmental 15 review under the National Environmental Policy Act is 16 the evaluation of cumulative impacts.                                 In Chapter 7, 17 the team evaluated the impacts of units 1 and 2,                                             in 18 addition to other proposed and existing activities in 19 the review area,             such as the existing Crystal River 20 Energy         Complex,     the       proposed             Tarmac     King           Road 21 Limestone         Mine,     and     the       expansion         of   the   Suncoast 22 Parkway.
impact from taxes that range from small to moderate 3
23                     So,   as an example,                 surface water quality.
during construction, and small to large during 4
24 In     Chapters     4   and     5,     the       team       determined     that         the 25 impacts on surface water quality from the building and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
operation, particularly in Levy County.
5 The environmental justice review focuses 6
on low income and minority populations to understand 7
if they would be unevenly and adversely affected by 8
the proposed action.
During our
: review, we did 9
identify several minority and low-income census 10 blocks, but did not find any evidence that minority or 11 low income populations would be affected 12 disproportionately by construction and operation of 13 the new plant.
Next slide, please.
14 An important part of the environmental 15 review under the National Environmental Policy Act is 16 the evaluation of cumulative impacts.
In Chapter 7, 17 the team evaluated the impacts of units 1 and 2, in 18 addition to other proposed and existing activities in 19 the review area, such as the existing Crystal River 20 Energy
: Complex, the proposed Tarmac King Road 21 Limestone Mine, and the expansion of the Suncoast 22 Parkway.
23 So, as an example, surface water quality.
24 In Chapters 4 and 5, the team determined that the 25 impacts on surface water quality from the building and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


29 1 operation of units 1 and 2 would be small.
29 1
2                     However,         in         Chapter         7,     when         those 3 construction and operation impacts                               are   added to             the 4 impacts         from   other       past,         present,         and   reasonably 5 foreseeable future development acti vi ties,                               the impact 6 on       surface     water     quality             would       be   categorized             as 7 moderate.
operation of units 1 and 2 would be small.
8                     Overall,         the       cumulative           adverse       impacts 9 ranged from small to moderate,                             with the exception of 10 the       generally     beneficial             impact         from   taxes,         which 11 would range         from small           adverse           to   large beneficial.
2
: However, in Chapter 7,
when those 3
construction and operation impacts are added to the 4
impacts from other past,
: present, and reasonably 5
foreseeable future development acti vi ties, the impact 6
on surface water quality would be categorized as 7
moderate.
8
: Overall, the cumulative adverse impacts 9
ranged from small to moderate, with the exception of 10 the generally beneficial impact from taxes, which 11 would range from small adverse to large beneficial.
12 Next slide, please.
12 Next slide, please.
13                     As part of our review,                       the team needs to 14 make a determination of whether or not there is a need 15 for additional power from the licensee.                                   For proposed 16 units       1   and   2,   the       area         evaluated         was     Progress 17 Energy's service territory.
13 As part of our review, the team needs to 14 make a determination of whether or not there is a need 15 for additional power from the licensee.
18                     The     Commission                 has       acknowledged               the 19 state's         primary     role       in       assessing         their     need           for 20 power-generating facilities.                         For this reason, the NRC 21 staff's review was targeted at determining whether the 22 Florida         Public     Service               Commission's           order             was 23 adequate.         Based on this review, and that it meets the 24 four criteria listed in the second bullet here on the 25 slide,         the   staff     gives           deference           to   the       FPSC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701                 WWN. nealrgross,com
For proposed 16 units 1
and 2,
the area evaluated was Progress 17 Energy's service territory.
18 The Commission has acknowledged the 19 state's primary role in assessing their need for 20 power-generating facilities.
For this reason, the NRC 21 staff's review was targeted at determining whether the 22 Florida Public Service Commission's order was 23 adequate.
Based on this review, and that it meets the 24 four criteria listed in the second bullet here on the 25
: slide, (202) 23H433 the staff gives deference to the FPSC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


30 1 conclusion that the power produced by the proposed new 2 units would be needed.                     You can read more about the 3 power       analysis     in   Chapter             8     of   the   Environmental 4 Impact statement.           Next slide, please.
30 1
5                     Alternatives is often referred to as the 6 heart       of   NEPA. In     Chapter           9,   the   staff   evaluated 7 alternative           energy   sources,             alternative       sites,           and 8 alternative system designs,                       as well as the no-action 9 alternative.
conclusion that the power produced by the proposed new 2
10                     In our   al ternati ve             energy     analysis,           the 11 review       team evaluated           generation of baseload power, 12 which is continuously produced 24/7.                             For baseload, we 13 examined sources such as coal and natural gas,                                       and a 14 combination of energy sources,                           such as natural               gas, 15 solar, wind,         biomass,     and additional conservation and 16 demand         side   management       programs.               The   review           team 17 determined           that   none       of         the     feasible     base           load 18 energies would be environmentally preferable.
units would be needed.
19                     The review team compared the proposed Levy 20 site       to   four   other     alternative               sites     in   Florida, 21 including         the   site     adjacent             to   the   Crystal         River 22 Energy Complex.           The NRC staff determined that none of 23 the       alternative       sites           would         be     environmentally 24 preferable to the Levy site.
You can read more about the 3
25                     And lastly,         the review team determined no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
power analysis in Chapter 8 of the Environmental 4
Impact statement.
Next slide, please.
5 Alternatives is often referred to as the 6
heart of NEPA.
In Chapter 9, the staff evaluated 7
alternative energy sources, alternative sites, and 8
alternative system designs, as well as the no-action 9
alternative.
10 In our al ternati ve energy analysis, the 11 review team evaluated generation of baseload power, 12 which is continuously produced 24/7.
For baseload, we 13 examined sources such as coal and natural gas, and a 14 combination of energy sources, such as natural gas, 15 solar, wind, biomass, and additional conservation and 16 demand side management programs.
The review team 17 determined that none of the feasible base load 18 energies would be environmentally preferable.
19 The review team compared the proposed Levy 20 site to four other alternative sites in Florida, 21 including the site adjacent to the Crystal River 22 Energy Complex.
The NRC staff determined that none of 23 the alternative sites would be environmentally 24 preferable to the Levy site.
25 And lastly, the review team determined no (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


31 1 alternative         cooling       system would be                 environmentally 2 preferable to the proposed design.                             Next slide.
31 1
3                     In Chapter 10 of the EIS,                         the NRC staff 4 makes a preliminary recommendation to the Commission.
alternative cooling system would be environmentally 2
5 This       recommendation         is     based         on   the   mostly         small 6 environmental         impacts,         mitigation measures,                 and         the 7 NRC       staff's   conclusion           that       no     alternative       site         or 8 base load             or   alternative               baseload       energy       source 9 would be environmentally preferable.
preferable to the proposed design.
10                   Based on the results of the environmental 11 review,       the   preliminary             recommendation           to   the         NRC 12 Commission         is   that     the       combined           licenses     for         Levy 13 units       1 and   2   be     issued.               The     recommendation             is 14 considered preliminary until we evaluate your comments 15 on the Draft Environmental Impact statement.
Next slide.
16                     This preliminary recommendation is for the 17 environmental review only.                           As mentioned earlier                   in 18 this presentation,             there are two concurrent reviews.
3 In Chapter 10 of the EIS, the NRC staff 4
makes a preliminary recommendation to the Commission.
5 This recommendation is based on the mostly small 6
environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and the 7
NRC staff's conclusion that no alternative site or 8
base load or alternative baseload energy source 9
would be environmentally preferable.
10 Based on the results of the environmental 11
: review, the preliminary recommendation to the NRC 12 Commission is that the combined licenses for Levy 13 units 1
and 2
be issued.
The recommendation is 14 considered preliminary until we evaluate your comments 15 on the Draft Environmental Impact statement.
16 This preliminary recommendation is for the 17 environmental review only.
As mentioned earlier in 18 this presentation, there are two concurrent reviews.
19 One is the environmental review and one is the safety 20 review.
19 One is the environmental review and one is the safety 20 review.
21                     The     safety         review           is   ongoing       and         is 22 anticipated         to   be     completed               in     July   2011,         with 23 issuance of the Final Safety Evaluation Report.                                           The 24 Final         Safety     Evaluation             Report         will   present           the 25 results of the staff's safety review.
21 The safety review is ongoing and is 22 anticipated to be completed in July
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
: 2011, with 23 issuance of the Final Safety Evaluation Report.
The 24 Final Safety Evaluation Report will present the 25 results of the staff's safety review.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


32 1                   If you don't already have a copy of the 2 Draft Environmental Impact statement,                             there are hard 3 copies in the lobby,             as well as CDs, or you can call 4 me,     using   the   number       on this             screen,     to request             a 5 copy.         My   contact     information                 is   provided     on       this 6 slide.
32 1
7                   There is also a toll free number that you 8 can call       and that's               and if           you can approach me 9 later       after   this   meeting             and       I'll   give   you         that 10 number, as well.           But it's 1-800-368-5642.                       That's 1-11 800-368-5642.         And it would be the same extension on 12 my number, 2730.           You could also find it online at the 13 website presented on this slide, or you can find them 14 in the Reference section of the four libraries -- the 15 four local libraries listed here on this slide.                                       Next 16 slide, please.
If you don't already have a copy of the 2
17                   As Bob stated earlier this                         evening,           the 18 main       purpose   of   this       meeting           is   to listen       to       and 19 gather       your   comments         on       the       environmental         review.
Draft Environmental Impact statement, there are hard 3
20 Many of you have already signed up to speak during 21 this       meeting;   however,         if       you       are   not   comfortable 22 speaking in front of large crowds or if you need to 23 leave early, there are forms on the table at the back 24 of the room.         And you can write comments and mail it 25 into us or hand it to an NRC staffer, or you can type NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
copies in the lobby, as well as CDs, or you can call 4
me, using the number on this screen, to request a 5
copy.
My contact information is provided on this 6
slide.
7 There is also a toll free number that you 8
can call and that's and if you can approach me 9
later after this meeting and I'll give you that 10 number, as well.
But it's 1-800-368-5642.
That's 1-11 800-368-5642.
And it would be the same extension on 12 my number, 2730.
You could also find it online at the 13 website presented on this slide, or you can find them 14 in the Reference section of the four libraries -- the 15 four local libraries listed here on this slide.
Next 16 slide, please.
17 As Bob stated earlier this evening, the 18 main purpose of this meeting is to listen to and 19 gather your comments on the environmental review.
20 Many of you have already signed up to speak during 21 this meeting;
: however, if you are not comfortable 22 speaking in front of large crowds or if you need to 23 leave early, there are forms on the table at the back 24 of the room.
And you can write comments and mail it 25 into us or hand it to an NRC staffer, or you can type (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


33 1 it and submit it electronically.
33 1
2                 We also know that some of you have come 3 here to collect information at this time; however, if 4 you think of something later and would like to submit 5 comments to us,       there are other ways to do that,                               as 6 you can see on the slide,                     as well.       You can e-mail 7 them to the NRC,         you can submit them online,                       you can 8 mail them or you can fax them.
it and submit it electronically.
9                 And   please         note,           as we   had   mentioned 10 earlier,     this   is   a     75-day           review.       It   began           on 11 September 13 and it ends on October -- it remains open 12 until October 27th.
2 We also know that some of you have come 3
13                 And with that, I conclude my presentation.
here to collect information at this time; however, if 4
14 I   appreciate   your time         and look           forward   to     hearing 15 your comments.       Thank you.
you think of something later and would like to submit 5
16                 MR. CAMERON:               Thank     you,   Doug.           We've 17 gotten a pretty good overview of the process and some 18 of the findings and preliminary recommendation in the 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
comments to us, there are other ways to do that, as 6
20                 Can we clear up anything about the review 21 process     for you or       anything that             you heard in               the 22 presentation?       Is there any questions?
you can see on the slide, as well.
23                 Yes, Barbara, right?
You can e-mail 7
24                  MS. SIELING:             Yep.
them to the NRC, you can submit them online, you can 8
25                  MR. CAMERON:             Barbara, could you -- would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
mail them or you can fax them.
9 And please note, as we had mentioned 10
: earlier, this is a 75-day review.
It began on 11 September 13 and it ends on October -- it remains open 12 until October 27th.
13 And with that, I conclude my presentation.
14 I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing 15 your comments.
Thank you.
16 MR.
CAMERON:
Thank you, Doug.
We've 17 gotten a pretty good overview of the process and some 18 of the findings and preliminary recommendation in the 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
20 Can we clear up anything about the review 21 process for you or anything that you heard in the 22 presentation?
Is there any questions?
23 24 25 (202) 23H433 Yes, Barbara, right?
MS. SIELING:
Yep.
MR. CAMERON:
Barbara, could you -- would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


34 1 you --
34 1
2                   MS. SIELING:             I've got a big mouth.                   I may 3 not need that.
you --
4                   MR. CAMERON:                 Well,       I'm   not   going           to 5 comment on that, but --
2 MS. SIELING:
6                   MS. SIELING:             That's good.             It's better 7 for you.
I've got a big mouth.
8                   I'm   still       confused,             and   I've   talked           to 9 quite a few people and the one question that I still 10 haven't         gotten   cleared             up       is     like   everyone's 11 contradicting themselves,                   and it has to do with why 12 it's not going on the old site.
I may 3
13                   I talked to people before the meeting and 14 they say that, well, we can't tell you why Florida 15 or Progress Energy chose to have it here instead of 16 over on the current site, the nuclear plant.                               But then 17 here I hear them saying that it was because you guys 18 determined that that the site wasn't better than this 19 site.         And so I'm still confused on that.
not need that.
20                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         And let's see if we 21 can help you with that.                     And I         think that partially 22 it's       a   question   of     timing           also,       in   terms     of       the 23 license applicant's business decision versus the NRC's 24 evaluation of alternatives.                       And Bob, are you going to 25 do this one?
4 MR.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
CAMERON:
: Well, I'm not going to 5
comment on that, but --
6 MS.
SIELING:
That's good.
It's better 7
for you.
8 I'm still confused, and I've talked to 9
quite a few people and the one question that I still 10 haven't gotten cleared up is like everyone's 11 contradicting themselves, and it has to do with why 12 it's not going on the old site.
13 I talked to people before the meeting and 14 they say that, well, we can't tell you why Florida 15 or Progress Energy chose to have it here instead of 16 over on the current site, the nuclear plant.
But then 17 here I hear them saying that it was because you guys 18 determined that that the site wasn't better than this 19 site.
And so I'm still confused on that.
20 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
And let's see if we 21 can help you with that.
And I think that partially 22 it's a question of timing also, in terms of the 23 license applicant's business decision versus the NRC's 24 evaluation of alternatives.
And Bob, are you going to 25 do this one?
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


35 1                   MR. SCHAAF:             Yeah.         Let me see if I               can 2 take a stab at this.
35 1
3                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.
MR.
4                   MR. SCHAAF:               Basically,         it   is   Progress 5 Energy's business decision to propose where they want 6 to site the facility.
SCHAAF:
7                   Applicants           provide             an   application,               a 8 request to the NRC, and we basically have two options.
Yeah.
9 We     can tell     them,     yes,       here's         your permit,         or,       no, 10 that's not an appropriate location.
Let me see if I can 2
11                   As   part     of     the       environmental       review,           we 12 look       at   the   potential         alternatives,             including           the 13 alternative site analysis.                       And we look for,         are there 14 any other sites that are,                       what we call,         potentially 15 environmentally preferable to the proposed site.
take a stab at this.
16                   And   if   we     were         to     find   one,   which           we 17 determined         might   be     environmentally               preferable,             we 18 would go the additional                   step of then evaluating,                         is 19 that other site obviously superior.                               In other words, 20 it's so much better that we really shouldn't grant the 21 applicant's request.
3 MR. CAMERON:
22                     In     this         case,             in   evaluating               the 23 alternative sites, the decision of the review team was 24 that       none   of   those       sites           met     the   environmentally 25 preferable threshold.               And--
Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
4 MR.
SCHAAF:
Basically, it is Progress 5
Energy's business decision to propose where they want 6
to site the facility.
7 Applicants provide an application, a
8 request to the NRC, and we basically have two options.
9 We can tell them, yes, here's your permit, or, no, 10 that's not an appropriate location.
11 As part of the environmental review, we 12 look at the potential alternatives, including the 13 alternative site analysis.
And we look for, are there 14 any other sites that are, what we call, potentially 15 environmentally preferable to the proposed site.
16 And if we were to find one, which we 17 determined might be environmentally preferable, we 18 would go the additional step of then evaluating, is 19 that other site obviously superior.
In other words, 20 it's so much better that we really shouldn't grant the 21 applicant's request.
22 In this
: case, in evaluating the 23 alternative sites, the decision of the review team was 24 that none of those sites met the environmentally 25 preferable threshold.
And--
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


36 1               MS. SIELING:             (Inaudible.)
36 1
2               MR. CAMERON:             Barbara,         Barbara.     We need 3 to -- Barbara,     we need to get you on the transcript.
MS. SIELING:
4 I'm going to ask you to do one follow-up question,                                   if 5 this still isn't clear to you.                       And then I'm going to 6 ask the staff to talk to Barbara after the meeting to 7 see if they can explain it.
(Inaudible.)
8               But,   do     you       have       a   follow-up   question 9 based on what Bob said?
2 MR.
10               MS. SIELING:               Yes.         It's   basically           the 11 same thing. I'm being told that it was -- you're now, 12 in the conversation we had, was that it was Progress 13 Energy's     choice   to     go     here.               But   when the       other 14 gentleman, whichever one it was, was speaking, he said 15 that you all had already determined that there wasn't 16 one that was better.
CAMERON:
17               MR. CAMERON:             Well, let's -- let's --
Barbara, Barbara.
18               MS. SIELING:             How is that?
We need 3
19               MR. CAMERON:             Let's focus not on what the 20 other gentleman was saying, but on what Bob -- on what 21 -- on what 22               MS. SIELING:             Well,         like what he said is 23 just as important.
to -- Barbara, we need to get you on the transcript.
24               MR. CAMERON:             Bob -- well,           Bob is trying 25 to clear this up for you.                 The first decision that was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433            WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
4 I'm going to ask you to do one follow-up question, if 5
this still isn't clear to you.
And then I'm going to 6
ask the staff to talk to Barbara after the meeting to 7
see if they can explain it.
8
: But, do you have a
follow-up question 9
based on what Bob said?
10 MS.
SIELING:
Yes.
It's basically the 11 same thing.
I'm being told that it was -- you're now, 12 in the conversation we had, was that it was Progress 13 Energy's choice to go here.
But when the other 14 gentleman, whichever one it was, was speaking, he said 15 that you all had already determined that there wasn't 16 one that was better.
17 MR. CAMERON:
Well, let's -- let's --
18 MS. SIELING:
How is that?
19 MR. CAMERON:
Let's focus not on what the 20 other gentleman was saying, but on what Bob -- on what 21  
-- on what 22 MS. SIELING:
Well, like what he said is 23 just as important.
24 MR.
CAMERON:
Bob -- well, Bob is trying 25 to clear this up for you.
The first decision that was (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


37 1 made,       as I   understand what                 Bob's       saying,   the       first 2 decision         that's     made       in       any       of   these   new     reactor 3 applications,             is     that         the       company,       the     license 4 applicant,           is   going     to   come         in with an application 5 that       has   a   site   specified               on     it.     That's         their 6 decision.           And there could be many reasons why they 7 chose that site.
37 1
8                       NRC has nothing to do with what is in that 9 license application,               as far as the site is concerned.
: made, as I understand what Bob's saying, the first 2
10 But,     once the NRC gets the application with that site 11 in it, then they have to do their environmental review 12 of that site.
decision that's made in any of these new reactor 3
13                       As part of that environmental review,                                 the 14 NRC looks         to   see whether there                   is any site that is 15 obviously         superior       from         an     environmental         point           of 16 view.         NRC did that analysis and said they could not 17 find       that     none   of   those         sites       were   environmentally 18 preferable.
applications, is that the
19                       MS. SIELING:             Why?
: company, the license 4
20                       MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         NOW,   that's a           fair 21 question and if you want to just address that, Bob.
applicant, is going to come in with an application 5
22                       MR. SCHAAF:           Well,         I guess,     you know,           I'm 23 not prepared to             go     into       all     of   the details         of       the 24 evaluation.             I mean,       that's         all     spelled out       in the 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.                               And if there is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
that has a
site specified on it.
That's their 6
decision.
And there could be many reasons why they 7
chose that site.
8 NRC has nothing to do with what is in that 9
license application, as far as the site is concerned.
10 But, once the NRC gets the application with that site 11 in it, then they have to do their environmental review 12 of that site.
13 As part of that environmental review, the 14 NRC looks to see whether there is any site that is 15 obviously superior from an environmental point of 16 view.
NRC did that analysis and said they could not 17 find that none of those sites were environmentally 18 preferable.
19 MS. SIELING:
Why?
20 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
NOW, that's a fair 21 question and if you want to just address that, Bob.
22 MR. SCHAAF:
Well, I guess, you know, I'm 23 not prepared to go into all of the details of the 24 evaluation.
I mean, that's all spelled out in the 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
And if there is (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


38 1 some logic there that -- that you have a question or 2 concern       about,   we   would         certainly         welcome     comments 3 regarding that, for us to take and consider, you know, 4 did -- did we miss something in our evaluation of --
38 1
some logic there that -- that you have a question or 2
concern about, we would certainly welcome comments 3
regarding that, for us to take and consider, you know, 4
did -- did we miss something in our evaluation of --
5 of that alternative site analysis.
5 of that alternative site analysis.
6                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Thank you. Yes?
6 MR. CAMERON:
7                   MS. FOLEY:           I     have       a question regarding 8 the way this hurts --
Okay.
9                   MR. CAMERON:                 Could       you     I'm       sorry.
Thank you.
10 Could you use this,             please?             And introduce yourself, 11 please.
Yes?
12                   MS FOLEY:         My name is Beth Foley.                   And I'm 13 just       curious   about               so,       the     Nuclear   Regulatory 14 Commission is a government agency, right?                             And we, the 15 taxpayers, pay for your                       and you did the study, not 16 Progress       Energy.       So,     we       paid       for   this study,           not 17 Progress Energy.           I guess that I was just confused.                               I 18 thought it was Progress Energy that --
7 MS.
19                   MR. SCHAAF:           Two studies.
FOLEY:
20                   MR. CAMERON:                 Right.         Actually           the 21 analysis is initially provided by the applicant.
I have a question regarding 8
22                   MS. FOLEY:           Okay.         Then I'm back on track.
the way this hurts --
23                   MR. CAMERON:               They do as         part of their 24 decision on where to request.
9 MR.
25                   MS. FOLEY:           You look at then carefully and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
CAMERON:
Could you I'm sorry.
10 Could you use this, please?
And introduce yourself, 11 please.
12 MS FOLEY:
My name is Beth Foley.
And I'm 13 just curious about so, the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission is a government agency, right?
And we, the 15 taxpayers, pay for your and you did the study, not 16 Progress Energy.
So, we paid for this study, not 17 Progress Energy.
I guess that I was just confused.
I 18 thought it was Progress Energy that --
19 MR. SCHAAF:
Two studies.
20 MR.
CAMERON:
Right.
Actually the 21 analysis is initially provided by the applicant.
22 MS. FOLEY:
Okay.
Then I'm back on track.
23 MR.
CAMERON:
They do as part of their 24 decision on where to request.
25 (202) 23H433 MS. FOLEY:
You look at then carefully and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


39 1 say, is this okay or not.
39 1
2                   MR. SCHAAF:             Right.         We   evaluate         their 3 analysis,       do independent           analysis,         and come       to       our 4 conclusion       regarding       whether           there   is   an   obviously 5 superior site.
say, is this okay or not.
6                   MR. CAMERON:             So,     the applicant         submits 7 what they call an environmental report.                           And then the 8 NRC uses that,       plus     its own independent analysis to 9 prepare       the   Environmental               Impact     Statement.               And 10 that's       the   government       document           that   we're     talking 11 about tonight, the Environmental Impact Statement.
2 MR.
12                   MS. FOLEY:           But you're using those that 13 Progress Energy's information?                       Or you --
SCHAAF:
14                   MR. CAMERON:             We have to             again,           I'm 15 sorry.       This is awkward,             I know,       but we have to get 16 you on the transcript, so 17                   MS. FOLEY:         So,       are you using scientists 18 that are your scientists or Progress Energy selects 19 the       scientists   or             I     guess       I'm   just   a     little 20 confused,       because   I     really           thought     it was     Progress 21 Energy's study that you were evaluating and reviewing, 22 really reviewing.           But       that's not           really the case.
Right.
We evaluate their 3
: analysis, do independent analysis, and come to our 4
conclusion regarding whether there is an obviously 5
superior site.
6 MR.
CAMERON:
So, the applicant submits 7
what they call an environmental report.
And then the 8
NRC uses that, plus its own independent analysis to 9
prepare the Environmental Impact Statement.
And 10 that's the government document that we're talking 11 about tonight, the Environmental Impact Statement.
12 MS.
FOLEY:
But you're using those that 13 Progress Energy's information?
Or you --
14 MR.
CAMERON:
We have to again, I'm 15 sorry.
This is awkward, I know, but we have to get 16 you on the transcript, so 17 MS.
FOLEY:
So, are you using scientists 18 that are your scientists or Progress Energy selects 19 the scientists or I
guess I'm just a little 20 confused, because I really thought it was Progress 21 Energy's study that you were evaluating and reviewing, 22 really reviewing.
But that's not really the case.
23 It's --
23 It's --
24                   MR. CAMERON:           Well, no.         It is the case.
24 25 (202) 23H433 MR. CAMERON:
25                  MS. FOLEY:         That is the case?
Well, no.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
It is the case.
MS. FOLEY:
That is the case?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


40 1                   MR. CAMERON:             Then does someone want to 2 I     shouldn't   be   explaining this                   as the   facilitator, 3 because I might get it wrong, too.
40 1
4                   MR. MASNIK:                 I'm     Mike   Masnik.             The 5 licensee,       in their environmental report -- part of it 6 has to do with alternatives.                         And they do an analysis 7 in which they use a               series of criteria to identify 8 some alternative sites.                     Okay.           They use their own 9 scientists,         their   own       consultants             to   produce         this 10 document, which looks at the area -- the service area 11 and comes up with some alternatives.
MR. CAMERON:
12                   We then take that as part of our review 13 and       look to   see   if     the               the     way   in which           they 14 identified the site was a reasonable and thorough and 15 comprehensive manner.               And then we also independently 16 review       each of   the     sites,           looking       at what we           call 17 reconnaissance level data.                     So it's a review of what's 18 submitted to us,         plus additional work on the part of 19 our contractors and our scientific personnel to look 20 at     various   components         related             to those   particular 21 sites.
Then does someone want to 2
22                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.
I shouldn't be explaining this as the facilitator, 3
23                   MR. MASNIK:             Maybe we can talk afterwards 24 and I can give you a little bit more information on 25 that.
because I might get it wrong, too.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
4 MR.
MASNIK:
I'm Mike Masnik.
The 5
licensee, in their environmental report -- part of it 6
has to do with alternatives.
And they do an analysis 7
in which they use a series of criteria to identify 8
some alternative sites.
Okay.
They use their own 9
scientists, their own consultants to produce this 10 document, which looks at the area -- the service area 11 and comes up with some alternatives.
12 We then take that as part of our review 13 and look to see if the the way in which they 14 identified the site was a reasonable and thorough and 15 comprehensive manner.
And then we also independently 16 review each of the sites, looking at what we call 17 reconnaissance level data.
So it's a review of what's 18 submitted to us, plus additional work on the part of 19 our contractors and our scientific personnel to look 20 at various components related to those particular 21 sites.
22 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
23 MR. MASNIK:
Maybe we can talk afterwards 24 and I can give you a little bit more information on 25 that.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


41 1                   MS. FOLEY:         Well,         we the taxpayer aren't 2 paying       from the   ground up.                 You did     get   a     lot       of 3 information 4                   MR. MASNIK:         Oh yes.
41 1
5                   MS. FOLEY:                 from the Progress Energy.
MS.
6                   MR. CAMERON:               Beth,       Beth,   I'm going             to 7 repeat       this   again.           We       need       to get   you     on       the 8 transcript.         So,   that means             you need to       speak in to 9 this thing.
FOLEY:
10                   MS. FOLEY:           I     guess unless         I understand 11 where the money is, I don't understand things.                                 And if 12 Progress Energy paid for most of this, or did they?
Well, we the taxpayer aren't 2
13                   MR. CAMERON:             You keep -- you keep saying 14 "this."       Progress Energy 15                   MS. FOLEY:         The Draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement is what I meant.
paying from the ground up.
17                   MR. CAMERON:                 The     Draft   Environmental 18 Impact Statement -- does anybody                             dare we go in to 19 the fee business?           But I can explain that, but Scott, 20 why don't you -- why don't you just try to give Beth 21 an idea of how this works.
You did get a lot of 3
22                   MR. FLANDERS:             Let me just take a minute.
information 4
23                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.
MR. MASNIK:
24                   MR. FLANDERS:               I   don't want to get into 25 the fee aspect of it.
Oh yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
5 MS.
FOLEY:
from the Progress Energy.
6 MR.
CAMERON:
: Beth, Beth, I'm going to 7
repeat this again.
We need to get you on the 8
transcript.
So, that means you need to speak in to 9
this thing.
10 MS.
FOLEY:
I guess unless I understand 11 where the money is, I don't understand things.
And if 12 Progress Energy paid for most of this, or did they?
13 MR. CAMERON:
You keep -- you keep saying 14 "this."
Progress Energy 15 MS. FOLEY:
The Draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement is what I meant.
17 MR.
CAMERON:
The Draft Environmental 18 Impact Statement --
does anybody dare we go in to 19 the fee business?
But I can explain that, but Scott, 20 why don't you -- why don't you just try to give Beth 21 an idea of how this works.
22 MR. FLANDERS:
Let me just take a minute.
23 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
24 MR.
FLANDERS:
I don't want to get into 25 the fee aspect of it.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


42 1                 But     simply         put,         if     you     look     at       our 2 regulation     in   10   CFR       Part         51,     the     applicant             is 3 required     to   submit       an       environmental             report.               An 4 environmental report is a technical analysis product 5 that they generate that examines what they believe the 6 environmental       impacts       would         be     from   their     proposed 7 action.       And   their       proposed             action     is to       build, 8 construct,     and   operate         a     nuclear       power     plant         at     a 9 particular location.
42 1
10                 When they come in with their application, 11 they have done, through their own business process and 12 other evaluations, have picked a particular location.
But simply
13 They submit the application to us.                             So,   that's their 14 scientific work and analysis that's done.
: put, if you look at our 2
15                 We get that scientific work and analysis 16 and that's     a   starting point                 for     us.     We take         that 17 information in and we have scientists and experts.                                       We 18 reference some of our contractors that we have and we 19 analyze that information in their particular areas of 20 expertise.
regulation in 10 CFR Part 51, the applicant is 3
21                 Also collect other information by going to 22 the site and examining the site and the environment, 23 and also through their own knowledge and understanding 24 of the various       technical subj ect matter.                         They have 25 information       from       other             journals         and    research NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
required to submit an environmental report.
An 4
environmental report is a technical analysis product 5
that they generate that examines what they believe the 6
environmental impacts would be from their proposed 7
action.
And their proposed action is to build, 8
construct, and operate a nuclear power plant at a 9
particular location.
10 When they come in with their application, 11 they have done, through their own business process and 12 other evaluations, have picked a particular location.
13 They submit the application to us.
So, that's their 14 scientific work and analysis that's done.
15 We get that scientific work and analysis 16 and that's a starting point for us.
We take that 17 information in and we have scientists and experts.
We 18 reference some of our contractors that we have and we 19 analyze that information in their particular areas of 20 expertise.
21 Also collect other information by going to 22 the site and examining the site and the environment, 23 and also through their own knowledge and understanding 24 25 of the various technical subj ect matter.
information (202) 23H433 from other journals NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 and They have research WWN. nealrgross,com  


43 1 documents,         et   cetera.               And       those   references             are 2 identified in the Environmental Impact statement.                                       All 3 that information that they use.
43 1
4                   And they take all that information in and 5 they analyze it.           And they make a judgment as to what 6 the     Nuclear     Regulatory Commission believes would be 7 the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 8 action.
documents, et cetera.
9                     So, that's how the entire process works.
And those references are 2
10 And that process is the same process that's done when 11 you       go   through   the     alternate             site   review.               The 12 applicant has a process that they use,                             which we ask 13 them to describe, how they come to and arrive at the 14 site that they selected.                 And then we analyze that.
identified in the Environmental Impact statement.
15                   And as part of that analysis,                       we look at 16 other sites that filter through our process that                                         to 17 compare whether or not                 there         is   a site   that       is 18 would       be   what   one       would         consider       environmentally 19 preferable.           And   what       we       mean     by   "environmentally 20 preferable" is,         if you look at all the environmental 21 impacts,         whether     it       be         water       or   ecology             or 22 radiological         impacts       in       terms       of   impacts       to       the 23 public,       all   those   things,             historic     properties,             all 24 those activities.
All 3
25                   And, you look at them all and you compare NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
that information that they use.
4 And they take all that information in and 5
they analyze it.
And they make a judgment as to what 6
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes would be 7
the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 8
action.
9 So, that's how the entire process works.
10 And that process is the same process that's done when 11 you go through the alternate site review.
The 12 applicant has a process that they use, which we ask 13 them to describe, how they come to and arrive at the 14 site that they selected.
And then we analyze that.
15 And as part of that analysis, we look at 16 other sites that filter through our process that to 17 compare whether or not there is a site that is 18 would be what one would consider environmentally 19 preferable.
And what we mean by "environmentally 20 preferable" is, if you look at all the environmental 21
: impacts, whether it be water or ecology or 22 radiological impacts in terms of impacts to the 23 public, all those things, historic properties, all 24 those activities.
25 And, you look at them all and you compare (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


44 1 them from one site to the next,                           as Mike said,           using 2 reconnaissance         level     information,               which includes our 3 scientists go into these alternate sites and looking 4 through       and   making       sure           that       we   have     a       good 5 understanding of the site, as well as not just solely 6 relying on the information that's submitted.
44 1
7                   And   take     that       all     in,   and then we make 8 some       evaluations;     is     there         a     site   that   is     really 9 environmentally preferable, where all the impacts were 10 much less than what was proposed.
them from one site to the next, as Mike said, using 2
11                   If we   see something like that,                     then the 12 next question is,         is it so much better,                     such that if 13 the     license or the       request shouldn't be granted for 14 the proposed site.
reconnaissance level information, which includes our 3
15                   So,   that's the process that we use.                                 So, 16 we do our own scientific work.                         It's not solely relied 17 on by the applicants.
scientists go into these alternate sites and looking 4
18                   And I think -- I guess in the interests, 19 maybe we can have further discussions.
through and making sure that we have a
20                   MS. FOLEY:         One quick question.               Have you 21 ever changed a site?
good 5
22                   MR. FLANDERS:                 Have     we   ever   changed             a 23 site?
understanding of the site, as well as not just solely 6
24                   MS. FOLEY:           Have you ever made a change to 25 a site and said, no, no, no, this is not good?
relying on the information that's submitted.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
7 And take that all in, and then we make 8
some evaluations; is there a
site that is really 9
environmentally preferable, where all the impacts were 10 much less than what was proposed.
11 If we see something like that, then the 12 next question is, is it so much better, such that if 13 the license or the request shouldn't be granted for 14 the proposed site.
15 So, that's the process that we use.
So, 16 we do our own scientific work.
It's not solely relied 17 on by the applicants.
18 And I think --
I guess in the interests, 19 maybe we can have further discussions.
20 MS. FOLEY:
One quick question.
Have you 21 ever changed a site?
22 MR.
FLANDERS:
Have we ever changed a 23 site?
24 MS. FOLEY:
Have you ever made a change to 25 a site and said, no, no, no, this is not good?
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


45 1                   MR. CAMERON:                 Okay.         I   hear       someone 2 speaking.
45 1
3                   And it's Beth.                 Beth.       And this is going 4 to be the last one.
MR.
5                   MS. FOLEY:           Real quick question.                 Have you 6 ever changed the site?
CAMERON:
7                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         The question,       I   think 8 you       understand     it,       is       when         we   did           do         the 9 environmental         alternate           site         review,     have     we         ever 10 found         one   that's       been         environmentally             superior?
Okay.
11 Michael?         Mike Masnik.
I hear someone 2
12                   MR. MASNIK:               When       we had   a   flurry           of 13 applications         back       in         '70s,           there   were       several 14 instances in which the site was actually changed from 15 the       preferred     site,       from         the     applicant's       preferred 16 site.       So, the answer to your question is, yes.
speaking.
17                   MR. CAMERON:               Okay.         And   Beth     are         you 18 going       to be       can     you       stay       till   the   end     of       the 19 meeting?
3 And it's Beth.
20                   MS. FOLEY:           Yes.
Beth.
21                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Well,   I think we'll 22 talk to you -- staff will talk to you more about this 23 if you have any questions.                         And of course,           that goes 24 for Barbara too.
And this is going 4
25                   And let's -- we have four questions here NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
to be the last one.
5 MS. FOLEY:
Real quick question.
Have you 6
ever changed the site?
7 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
The question, I think 8
you understand it, is when we did do the 9
environmental alternate site review, have we ever 10 found one that's been environmentally superior?
11 Michael?
Mike Masnik.
12 MR.
MASNIK:
When we had a flurry of 13 applications back in  
'70s, there were several 14 instances in which the site was actually changed from 15 the preferred site, from the applicant's preferred 16 site.
So, the answer to your question is, yes.
17 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
And Beth are you 18 going to be can you stay till the end of the 19 meeting?
20 MS. FOLEY:
Yes.
21 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Well, I think we'll 22 talk to you -- staff will talk to you more about this 23 if you have any questions.
And of course, that goes 24 for Barbara too.
25 And let's --
we have four questions here (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


46 1 and then I think we're going to have to -- we're going 2 to go to comment and let's see how much rope I have.
46 1
3                 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:                   That's it.
and then I think we're going to have to -- we're going 2
4                 MR. CAMERON:               Okay.       Why don't       you       go 5 first and then we'll go there,                         and then we'll go to 6 you and then we'll go to Mr. Hopkins.
to go to comment and let's see how much rope I have.
7                 MR. JONES:         I'm hopefully a quick -- my 8 name is Art Jones.         I live here in Crystal River.                           And 9 I hopefully have a quick, easy question for somebody.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
10                 As I was learning from the slides we have 11 over           a total   of     over         720     acres of fresh       water 12 wetlands that will be destroyed and lost at the Levy 13 County site.       And I was wondering, how many acres of 14 fresh water wetlands would be lost at the in Crystal 15 River site if the new power plant was built there?
That's it.
16                 MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Peyton, can you 17 can you do this for us?                 This is Peyton Doub with the 18 NRC.
4 MR.
19                 MR. DOUB:         I'm Peyton Doub.               I     am the 20 terrestrial ecologist and wetland scientist on the NRC 21 staff       and the   one     responsible             for reviewing           the 22 analyses in those fields,                 you know, in the Draft EIS.
CAMERON:
23                 To answer         your         question,     we do     provide 24 wetland impact acreage data for the alternative sites 25 in Chapter 9 of the DEIS.                   The level of detail that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
Okay.
Why don't you go 5
first and then we'll go there, and then we'll go to 6
you and then we'll go to Mr. Hopkins.
7 MR.
JONES:
I'm hopefully a quick --
my 8
name is Art Jones.
I live here in Crystal River.
And 9
I hopefully have a quick, easy question for somebody.
10 As I was learning from the slides we have 11 over a total of over 720 acres of fresh water 12 wetlands that will be destroyed and lost at the Levy 13 County site.
And I was wondering, how many acres of 14 fresh water wetlands would be lost at the in Crystal 15 River site if the new power plant was built there?
16 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Peyton, can you 17 can you do this for us?
This is Peyton Doub with the 18 NRC.
19 MR.
DOUB:
I'm Peyton Doub.
I am the 20 terrestrial ecologist and wetland scientist on the NRC 21 staff and the one responsible for reviewing the 22 analyses in those fields, you know, in the Draft EIS.
23 To answer your question, we do provide 24 wetland impact acreage data for the alternative sites 25 in Chapter 9 of the DEIS.
The level of detail that we (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


47 1 collect for the alternative sites is based on public 2 information and brief reconnaissance, whereas for the 3 Levy site,         it was more detailed of site specific data 4 collection.         But we did use published wetland maps and 5 other sources           of published data                   to   quantify wetland 6 impacts at the alternative sites,                             enough to a degree 7 that we could determine whether or not any of those 8 sites       is         could       potentially             be   environmentally 9 superior         and     obviously                       were     environmentally 10 preferable and obviously superior to the Levy site.
47 1
11                     One   thing         to       bear       in   mind   about           the 12 Crystal River site is                 that even though there is the 13 existing         nuclear     power       plant           there,     the land         that 14 would be         used   at   that       site         for   developing       the       new 15 uni ts,       is,   at   the     present           time,     supporting       natural 16 vegetation over -- over most of that land.
collect for the alternative sites is based on public 2
17                     So,   that       even         though       the   Levy   site         is 18 greenfield and Crystal River is not.                             Most of the land 19 that would be impacted at Crystal River does,                                   at the 20 present         time,   support         natural           habitats,     including 21 wetlands.
information and brief reconnaissance, whereas for the 3
22                     So,   it's not like the Crystal River site, 23 were       it used,     everything would be builtin an area 24 that had previously been disturbed.
Levy site, it was more detailed of site specific data 4
25                     Once again,         I'll refer you to Chapter 9 of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
collection.
But we did use published wetland maps and 5
other sources of published data to quantify wetland 6
impacts at the alternative sites, enough to a degree 7
that we could determine whether or not any of those 8
sites is could potentially be environmentally 9
superior and obviously were environmentally 10 preferable and obviously superior to the Levy site.
11 One thing to bear in mind about the 12 Crystal River site is that even though there is the 13 existing nuclear power plant there, the land that 14 would be used at that site for developing the new 15 uni ts, is, at the present time, supporting natural 16 vegetation over -- over most of that land.
17 So, that even though the Levy site is 18 greenfield and Crystal River is not.
Most of the land 19 that would be impacted at Crystal River does, at the 20 present
: time, support natural
: habitats, including 21 wetlands.
22 So, it's not like the Crystal River site, 23 were it used, everything would be builtin an area 24 that had previously been disturbed.
25 Once again, I'll refer you to Chapter 9 of (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


48 1 the Draft EIS for more detailed quantitative data.
48 1
2                   MR. CAMERON:               Okay.         Thanks,     Peyton.
the Draft EIS for more detailed quantitative data.
3 Could you come up here,                 please?           And just introduce 4 yourself to us, please.
2 MR.
5                   MS. CASEY:         Emily Casey,             and I just have 6 two       questions.     I   believe           it     was   you. You         said 7 something I couldn't really understand what you had --
CAMERON:
Okay.
: Thanks, Peyton.
3 Could you come up here, please?
And just introduce 4
yourself to us, please.
5 MS.
CASEY:
Emily Casey, and I just have 6
two questions.
I believe it was you.
You said 7
something I couldn't really understand what you had --
8 the complete sentence.
8 the complete sentence.
9                   You said something about the -- if it was 10 reliable,         based   on     cognitive               blank   data                 or 11 cognizance       blank   data?             I   couldn't       understand           the 12 content.
9 You said something about the -- if it was 10
13                   MR. DOUB:       Reconnaissance.
: reliable, based on cognitive blank data or 11 cognizance blank data?
14                   MS. CASEY:               Could       you   explain         that, 15 please?       Because I didn't understand at all what you 16 said.
I couldn't understand the 12 content.
17                   MR. DOUB:             Reconnaissance           level       data.
13 MR. DOUB:
18 It's a term of mine that we use.                             And basically,             it 19 means       data   that's     readily             available.         We       don't 20 necessarily require a lO-year study to collect data on 21 alternative sites.           But data that's readily available 22 in the literature other published reports.
Reconnaissance.
23                   MS. CASEY:               Okay.           I  just    couldn't 24 understand it.
14 MS.
25                   MR. DOUB:       Sorry.
CASEY:
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Could you explain
: that, 15 please?
Because I didn't understand at all what you 16 said.
17 MR.
DOUB:
Reconnaissance level data.
18 It's a term of mine that we use.
And basically, it 19 means data that's readily available.
We don't 20 necessarily require a lO-year study to collect data on 21 alternative sites.
But data that's readily available 22 in the literature other published reports.
23 MS.
CASEY:
Okay.
24 understand it.
25 MR. DOUB:
Sorry.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 I
just couldn't WWN. nealrgross,com  


49 1                   MR. CAMERON:             And another one?
49 1
2                   MS. CASEY:                 The       other   question           was 3 partially answered by the gentleman there.
MR. CAMERON:
4                   What I was wanting to ask you is, if there 5 was       there   more   scientific               data     on   the   alternative 6 si tes,     and even more than what was explained in the 7 Draft Review that we could get a hold of and look at.
And another one?
8                   MR. CAMERON:             So,     is there,     for example, 9 references that were given in the Draft Review?
2 MS.
10                   MS. CASEY:           Right.
CASEY:
11                   MR. CAMERON:             Peyton?
The other question was 3
12                   MR. DOUB:             The       analysis     of   potential 13 impacts to terrestrial ecology and wetlands in Chapter 14 9 was based on the best available data that we had at 15 our hands,       both provided by the appl ican t                     in the ER 16 and that we could obtain from published sources and 17 general         reconnaissance,                 just       like   Mike       Masnik 18 previously explained.
partially answered by the gentleman there.
19                   However,     we did not actually require the 20 applicant to go out and do detailed,                             long-term field 21 studies for the alternative sites.                             That, we believe, 22 would not be necessary for the purposes of determining 23 whether or not we have an environmentally preferable 24 site or an obviously superior site.
4 What I was wanting to ask you is, if there 5
25                   MS. CASEY:           All that's in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
was there more scientific data on the alternative 6
si tes, and even more than what was explained in the 7
Draft Review that we could get a hold of and look at.
8 MR.
CAMERON:
So, is there, for example, 9
references that were given in the Draft Review?
10 MS. CASEY:
Right.
11 MR. CAMERON:
Peyton?
12 MR.
DOUB:
The analysis of potential 13 impacts to terrestrial ecology and wetlands in Chapter 14 9 was based on the best available data that we had at 15 our hands, both provided by the appl ican t in the ER 16 and that we could obtain from published sources and 17 general reconnaissance, just like Mike Masnik 18 previously explained.
19 However, we did not actually require the 20 applicant to go out and do detailed, long-term field 21 studies for the alternative sites.
That, we believe, 22 would not be necessary for the purposes of determining 23 whether or not we have an environmentally preferable 24 site or an obviously superior site.
25 (202) 23H433 MS. CASEY:
All that's in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


50 1                   MR. CAMERON:                 And         yeah.       Are           the 2 references listed?
50 1
3                   MR. DOUB:           Yes.           There   are   references 4 listed in the reference section for Chapter 9.
MR.
5                   MS. CASEY:         Thank you.
CAMERON:
6                   MR. CAMERON:             Thank you.         Yes?
And yeah.
7                   MR. HOPKINS:             Good afternoon.           My name is 8 Norman Hopkins.
Are the 2
9                   My   understanding                 is   that     the     scoping 10 period which -- upon which the Environmental                                   Impact 11 Statements       are based,       was       concluded       in   December of 12 2008.       I believe that to be true.
references listed?
13                   More     information                 is   being     developed 14 continually         by these         sort         of     meetings     and       other 15 meetings,         which     qualify               information         which           was 16 considered         to   determine               whether       there     was           an 17 alternative site which we                       which would be as good as 18 or better as -- or better than.
3 MR.
19                   Is there       a   mechanism           which   continually 20 updates the comparison between the chosen site by PEF 21 and any of the alternative sites?
DOUB:
22                   MR. CAMERON:             Thank you, Norman.             Doug, do 23 you want to try that?
Yes.
24                   MR. BRUNER:             I     think Andy would be                 the 25 best one to answer that one.
There are references 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
listed in the reference section for Chapter 9.
5 MS. CASEY:
Thank you.
6 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you.
Yes?
7 MR. HOPKINS:
Good afternoon.
My name is 8
Norman Hopkins.
9 My understanding is that the scoping 10 period which --
upon which the Environmental Impact 11 Statements are based, was concluded in December of 12 2008.
I believe that to be true.
13 More information is being developed 14 continually by these sort of meetings and other 15
: meetings, which qualify information which was 16 considered to determine whether there was an 17 alternative site which we which would be as good as 18 or better as -- or better than.
19 Is there a
mechanism which continually 20 updates the comparison between the chosen site by PEF 21 and any of the alternative sites?
22 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you, Norman.
Doug, do 23 you want to try that?
24 MR.
BRUNER:
I think Andy would be the 25 best one to answer that one.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


51 1                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.
51 1
2                   MR. BRUNER:               It     falls     under     new         and 3 significant information.
MR. CAMERON:
4                   MR. CAMERON:             Oh, good.         All right.           Well, 5 thank you, Doug.           Andy?       This is Andy Kugler.
Okay.
6                   MR. KUGLER:               In     terms   of     a continuous 7 process,       I'd   have   to     say,       no.       The   environmental 8 review process is not completed yet.                             So,   information 9 that we're provided in these meetings or that come to 10 us in any other comments we receive in writing on the 11 draft,       we   will   consider before                 we   issue     the       Final 12 Environmental Impact Statement.
2 MR.
13                   So,   up until that point,                     if there's new 14 information that we're provided with, we can consider 15 that information.           But I don't know of anybody who has 16 any process         in place where               there's       some   sort       of     a 17 continuous         search       and         update         for     environmental 18 impacts.         Because,     really,           if you look at           National 19 Environmental         Policy Act           it's       not   set up     that way.
BRUNER:
It falls under new and 3
significant information.
4 MR. CAMERON:
Oh, good.
All right.
: Well, 5
thank you, Doug.
Andy?
This is Andy Kugler.
6 MR.
KUGLER:
In terms of a continuous 7
: process, I'd have to say, no.
The environmental 8
review process is not completed yet.
So, information 9
that we're provided in these meetings or that come to 10 us in any other comments we receive in writing on the 11
: draft, we will consider before we issue the Final 12 Environmental Impact Statement.
13 So, up until that point, if there's new 14 information that we're provided with, we can consider 15 that information.
But I don't know of anybody who has 16 any process in place where there's some sort of a 17 continuous search and update for environmental 18 impacts.
Because, really, if you look at National 19 Environmental Policy Act it's not set up that way.
20 It's to reach a certain point and reach a decision on 21 an action.
20 It's to reach a certain point and reach a decision on 21 an action.
22                   So, I think -- does that -- hopefully that 23 answers your question.
22 So, I think -- does that -- hopefully that 23 answers your question.
24                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.
24 25 (202) 23H433 MR. CAMERON:
25                    MR. HOPKINS:             If I could just follow that.
Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
MR. HOPKINS:
If I could just follow that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


52 1                   If a decision is taken based upon the more 2 detailed and thorough case which is put forward by the 3 applicant,       then the odds are that any other competing 4 site       would   always     fall         short         and   it   will       be       an 5 automatic decision process that would result in going 6 wi th     the   applicant,       if     there         was   no   mechanism             for 7 assessing alternative sites.
52 1
8                   Now,   we've had today,                   this afternoon and 9 this evening, a considerable opinion expressed that it 10 would be better -- and I'm thinking particularly about 11 the testimony from Betty Berger                                 that it would be 12 better       placed,   for     all       sorts         of   reasons,       at       the 13 Crystal River site.
If a decision is taken based upon the more 2
14                   Now,   the     odds         are     stacked     in   favor           of 15 Levy,       but it   may   be     quite         wrong,       because     of       what 16 happens in the interim and also,                             as Betty explained, 17 there       were many   other       factors             arguing   in   favor           of 18 Crystal River.
detailed and thorough case which is put forward by the 3
19                   MR. CAMERON:             And we'll count that as a 20 comment.
applicant, then the odds are that any other competing 4
21                    MR. HOPKINS:             Oh, sorry.
site would always fall short and it will be an 5
22                    MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         That's all right.
automatic decision process that would result in going 6
23                    MR. HOPKINS:             Well,       I could have another 24 question.
wi th the applicant, if there was no mechanism for 7
25                    MR. CAMERON:               Let me         get   to   this       young NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
assessing alternative sites.
8 Now, we've had today, this afternoon and 9
this evening, a considerable opinion expressed that it 10 would be better -- and I'm thinking particularly about 11 the testimony from Betty Berger that it would be 12 better placed, for all sorts of reasons, at the 13 Crystal River site.
14
: Now, the odds are stacked in favor of 15
: Levy, but it may be quite wrong, because of what 16 happens in the interim and also, as Betty explained, 17 there were many other factors arguing in favor of 18 Crystal River.
19 20 comment.
21 22 23 24 question.
25 (202) 23H433 MR.
CAMERON:
And we'll count that as a MR. HOPKINS:
Oh, sorry.
MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
That's all right.
MR.
HOPKINS:
: Well, I could have another MR.
CAMERON:
Let me get to this young NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


53 1 lady       behind   you.       And         if     you     could   just       please 2 introduce yourself.
53 1
3                   MS. RICE:         Yes.         Thank you.         My name is 4 Darden Rice.         Mr. Schaaf, just a quick clarification.
lady behind you.
5                   The rejection of the alternative sites was 6 based       on   environmental             standards         or     on   business 7 standards?         Because       I've       heard       you   use   the     phrase 8 business considerations went into the rejection of the 9 practicable alternative sites as well.
And if you could just please 2
10                   MR. SCHAAF:               Well,       in   the   applicant's 11 decision on their request,                     it is a business decision 12 on their part.         But our evaluation is strictly on --
introduce yourself.
13 of     the environmental         criteria and assessment of the 14 environmental impacts at the proposed site against the 15 -- our assessment of the environmental impacts at the 16 alternative sites.
3 MS.
17                   MS. RICE:         So,       you took the applicant's 18 considerations             about             business           factors             into 19 consideration in you recommendation?
RICE:
20                   MR.     SCHAAF:                     No.     It's     strictly 21 environmental             environmental                 factors     in reaching a 22 decision         on    environmental                          on    environmental 23 preference.
Yes.
24                   MS. RICE:       Okay.           Thank you.
Thank you.
25                    MR. CAMERON:             Okay.       Norman,     please make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
My name is 4
Darden Rice.
Mr. Schaaf, just a quick clarification.
5 The rejection of the alternative sites was 6
based on environmental standards or on business 7
standards?
Because I've heard you use the phrase 8
business considerations went into the rejection of the 9
practicable alternative sites as well.
10 MR.
SCHAAF:
: Well, in the applicant's 11 decision on their request, it is a business decision 12 on their part.
But our evaluation is strictly on --
13 of the environmental criteria and assessment of the 14 environmental impacts at the proposed site against the 15  
-- our assessment of the environmental impacts at the 16 alternative sites.
17 MS.
RICE:
So, you took the applicant's 18 considerations about business factors into 19 consideration in you recommendation?
20 MR.
SCHAAF:
No.
It's strictly 21 environmental environmental factors in reaching a 22 decision 23 preference.
24 25 (202) 23H433 on environmental on environmental MS. RICE:
Okay.
Thank you.
MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Norman, please make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


54 1 this quick.         We're going to have to get to comments.
54 1
2 So, you have one more question.                           Let's go.
this quick.
3                   MR. HOPKINS:             This concerns used fuel rods 4 and how         frequently     and how many               are   changed.               And 5 they're frequent termed "spent fuel."
We're going to have to get to comments.
6                   Is it   true       that         the   rods,   once     they've 7 been used in a reactor,                 are in fact more radioactive 8 after they've been used than when they were put in?
2 So, you have one more question.
9                   MR. CAMERON:             Brian or Richard?             Who's 10 Richard?         Richard Emch.
Let's go.
11                   MR. EMCH:       I'll take a stab at it and then 12 if Brian needs to follow-up.
3 MR. HOPKINS:
13                   My name is Richard Emch.                       I'm the Senior 14 Health         Physicist         for         the         Nuclear       Regulatory 15 Commission.
This concerns used fuel rods 4
16                   Okay.       Just       a     few bits       of   information.
and how frequently and how many are changed.
17 They go through about three cycles in the reactor from 18 where       they're new.         Three           cycles     later     is     usually 19 where they're replaced.                 At that point,             the amount of 20 usable Uranium 235 has diminished.                           It's been used up.
And 5
they're frequent termed "spent fuel."
6 Is it true that the rods, once they've 7
been used in a reactor, are in fact more radioactive 8
after they've been used than when they were put in?
9 MR. CAMERON:
Brian or Richard?
Who's 10 Richard?
Richard Emch.
11 MR. EMCH:
I'll take a stab at it and then 12 if Brian needs to follow-up.
13 My name is Richard Emch.
I'm the Senior 14 Health Physicist for the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission.
16 Okay.
Just a few bits of information.
17 They go through about three cycles in the reactor from 18 where they're new.
Three cycles later is usually 19 where they're replaced.
At that point, the amount of 20 usable Uranium 235 has diminished.
It's been used up.
21 It's to the point where it's not economically viable 22 for them to use it anymore.
21 It's to the point where it's not economically viable 22 for them to use it anymore.
23                   Okay. Now then,             of course,       as you know, 24 you could actually put your hand on fresh fuel.                                         You 25 could put your hand right up on the cladding.                                         It's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
23 Okay.
Now then, of course, as you know, 24 you could actually put your hand on fresh fuel.
You 25 could put your hand right up on the cladding.
It's (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


55 1 not hot.       There's no big dose rate coming off of it.
55 1
not hot.
There's no big dose rate coming off of it.
2 All right.
2 All right.
3                 Once you put it inside the reactor and it 4 starts going -- and it makes electric -- it makes heat 5 by fission,       okay.     Now,       the     fission     causes           with 6 each fission you get about two fission products.                                     In 7 other       words,   two       atoms           are       created that           are 8 radioactive.       Okay.       And so,           yes,     at the end of life 9 it is much more, to use your terminology, radioactive.
3 Once you put it inside the reactor and it 4
10 I would simply say it has a much higher dose rate at 11 the end of active -- at the end of its life, yes.
starts going -- and it makes electric -- it makes heat 5
12                 MR. CAMERON:               Thank       you, Richard.           And 13 thank you for those questions.                         We are going to go to 14 the comment part of the meeting at this point and --
by fission, okay.
15                 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:                     One more question.
: Now, the fission causes with 6
16                 MR. CAMERON:                 Okay.       Please   introduce 17 yourself.
each fission you get about two fission products.
18                 MS. LOTT:         My name is Phyllis Lott.                         I'm 19 at     31 Magnolia Avenue           in Yankeetown.               I understand 20 that when we're up           there to make our comment,                         they 21 won't respond, so just make our comments.
In 7
22                 My question is,               is there a place to store 23 all this -- this tons of toxic nuclear waste that this 24 plant will produce?               I   mean,         I   know that   President 25 Obama has ordered Yucca Mountain to be closed at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
other
: words, two atoms are created that are 8
radioactive.
Okay.
And so, yes, at the end of life 9
it is much more, to use your terminology, radioactive.
10 I would simply say it has a much higher dose rate at 11 the end of active -- at the end of its life, yes.
12 MR.
CAMERON:
Thank you, Richard.
And 13 thank you for those questions.
We are going to go to 14 the comment part of the meeting at this point and --
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
One more question.
16 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Please introduce 17 yourself.
18 MS.
LOTT:
My name is Phyllis Lott.
I'm 19 at 31 Magnolia Avenue in Yankeetown.
I understand 20 that when we're up there to make our comment, they 21 won't respond, so just make our comments.
22 My question is, is there a place to store 23 all this -- this tons of toxic nuclear waste that this 24 plant will produce?
I mean, I
know that President 25 Obama has ordered Yucca Mountain to be closed at the (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


56 1 end of this month.             There are other places in Maine 2 and other storage sites                 throughout the country,                     and 3 right now everybody's in a battle royale of not taking 4 any more nuclear waste products, not storing anymore.
56 1
5                 So, my question is,                   is this site set up 6 for     the storage of all this tons of nuclear waste, 7 because it will be quite expensive,                         I understand,             to 8 do that.       You just can't build a shed and put stuff in 9 there.       So, what are they prepared to do this?
end of this month.
10                 MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Thank you.           Thank 11 you, Phyllis.       A good question.                   And does someone want 12 to explain to Phyllis what the on-site storage is and 13 put the whole thing in context?                         Thank you, Richard.
There are other places in Maine 2
14                 MR. EMCH:           Hi.           This   is Richard           Emch 15 again, Senior Health Physicist with Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission.
and other storage sites throughout the country, and 3
17                 I'm going to break your question into two 18 parts:       One that I am going to call high level waste 19 and spent fuel,       and then the other part I'm going to 20 talk about is what we generally refer to as low level 21 waste.
right now everybody's in a battle royale of not taking 4
22                 Okay.       And     let me             start with   the         high 23 level       waste. Yucca           Mountain           had   been             the 24 Administration and DOE's path forward.                         Their plan for 25 what we were going to do with high level waste and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
any more nuclear waste products, not storing anymore.
5 So, my question is, is this site set up 6
for the storage of all this tons of nuclear waste, 7
because it will be quite expensive, I understand, to 8
do that.
You just can't build a shed and put stuff in 9
there.
So, what are they prepared to do this?
10 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank 11 you, Phyllis.
A good question.
And does someone want 12 to explain to Phyllis what the on-site storage is and 13 put the whole thing in context?
Thank you, Richard.
14 MR.
EMCH:
Hi.
This is Richard Emch 15 again, Senior Health Physicist with Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission.
17 I'm going to break your question into two 18 parts:
One that I am going to call high level waste 19 and spent fuel, and then the other part I'm going to 20 talk about is what we generally refer to as low level 21 waste.
22 Okay.
And let me start with the high 23 level waste.
Yucca Mountain had been the 24 Administration and DOE's path forward.
Their plan for 25 what we were going to do with high level waste and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


57 1 spent fuel.         Okay.       You've already heard all the news, 2 just like we have,               about what the Administration has 3 decided, what the Congress has decided to do, what DOE 4 has decided.           I   would also add in,                     and probably not 5 everybody         reads     about       it,       but     there's     all   kinds           of 6 legal machinations going on.                             So,   this was the plan.
57 1
7 Okay.         That   plan       appears           to     no   longer     be     viable.
spent fuel.
Okay.
You've already heard all the news, 2
just like we have, about what the Administration has 3
decided, what the Congress has decided to do, what DOE 4
has decided.
I would also add in, and probably not 5
everybody reads about it, but there's all kinds of 6
legal machinations going on.
So, this was the plan.
7 Okay.
That plan appears to no longer be viable.
8 Okay.
8 Okay.
9                     And so, right now,                   and for the foreseeable 10 future,       nuclear     power       plants           will   be   storing         spent 11 fuel       either   in   their spent               fuel     pool   or   in what we 12 call         "dry   cask       storage."                   It's     large     concrete 13 canisters that they maintain control of.                                 After about 14 five       years,   the     fuel     can't         melt     itself     anymore           and 15 they put it in these canisters.                             Okay.
9 And so, right now, and for the foreseeable 10
16                     Now     let's       switch           to   the       because           the 17 only game         in town,       if you will,               was Yucca Mountain.
: future, nuclear power plants will be storing spent 11 fuel either in their spent fuel pool or in what we 12 call "dry cask storage."
18 And     that   game     doesn't       seem to           be   viable   right         now.
It's large concrete 13 canisters that they maintain control of.
After about 14 five years, the fuel can't melt itself anymore and 15 they put it in these canisters.
Okay.
16 Now let's switch to the because the 17 only game in town, if you will, was Yucca Mountain.
18 And that game doesn't seem to be viable right now.
19 Okay.
19 Okay.
20                     So,     DOE,     the       Administration           is   going           to 21 have to come up with another plan.                               I don't know what 22 that plan.         Okay.     I don't think anybody does.
20 So,
23                     Okay.       Let's         talk       about   low   level waste 24 for just a moment now.                   Okay.           Low level waste,           there 25 were       some places       in     the united States                 that   accepted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
: DOE, the Administration is going to 21 have to come up with another plan.
I don't know what 22 that plan.
Okay.
I don't think anybody does.
23 Okay.
Let's talk about low level waste 24 for just a moment now.
Okay.
Low level waste, there 25 were some places in the united States that accepted (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


58 1 various kinds,         and you'll hear people talk about Type 2 A, Type B, Type C.             All it means is the concentrations 3 of     radioactive material             in the waste.             Most of the 4 waste produced by nuclear power plants in the united 5 states is Type A, and a little bit of it is higher B's 6 and C's, et cetera.             Okay.
58 1
7                   There       are         waste         repositories,             like 8 Barnwell, that are sort of in the act of closing down.
various kinds, and you'll hear people talk about Type 2
9 There are new ones that are being developed in other 10 places.         There's a place in Utah that takes certain 11 kind of waste.           There's a place in Texas that is,                               as 12 best I understand it, getting licensed to take certain 13 kinds       of waste.       But     it's a business.                 Okay.           And 14 where       there's   a business             need,       somebody' s   going           to 15 come           is going to       come up and               fill it.       They're 16 going to develop new places to put it.
A, Type B, Type C.
17                     In the meantime, until all that gets taken 18 care of,         they do have                   the     facility,   the AP-1000 19 design has storage capacity built into it for these 20 lower level wastes.                 And it is a               relatively simple 21 matter         for   them   to     install             additional     storage 22 additional temporary storage capacity.                             In fact, a lot 23 of the nuclear power plants in the United states have 24 already done it.           If they need to, that's probably at 25 this point what they will do.
All it means is the concentrations 3
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
of radioactive material in the waste.
Most of the 4
waste produced by nuclear power plants in the united 5
states is Type A, and a little bit of it is higher B's 6
and C's, et cetera.
Okay.
7 There are waste repositories, like 8
Barnwell, that are sort of in the act of closing down.
9 There are new ones that are being developed in other 10 places.
There's a place in Utah that takes certain 11 kind of waste.
There's a place in Texas that is, as 12 best I understand it, getting licensed to take certain 13 kinds of waste.
But it's a business.
Okay.
And 14 where there's a business need, somebody' s going to 15 come is going to come up and fill it.
They're 16 going to develop new places to put it.
17 In the meantime, until all that gets taken 18 care of, they do have the facility, the AP-1000 19 design has storage capacity built into it for these 20 lower level wastes.
And it is a relatively simple 21 matter for them to install additional storage 22 additional temporary storage capacity.
In fact, a lot 23 of the nuclear power plants in the United states have 24 already done it.
If they need to, that's probably at 25 this point what they will do.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


59 1                   MR. CAMERON:           Great.         Thank you very much.
59 1
2   Thanks for that question, Phyllis.
MR. CAMERON:
3                   We're going to go to publ ic comment now.
Great.
4 And we're         going   to     hear         from       both Beth   Foley         and 5 Phyllis Lott.
Thank you very much.
6                   And in a minute we're going to start off 7 with         usually people would like to know about what 8 the       rationale   division         of       the     company   is   and         why 9 they're going forward with this.
2 Thanks for that question, Phyllis.
10                   And our first speaker is going to be John 11 Elnitsky, who is right here, who is the Vice President 12 of New Generation Projects and Programs for Progress 13 Energy Florida.
3 We're going to go to publ ic comment now.
14                   And then we'll go to Beth Foley and then 15 we'll go to Phyllis Lott as our next speakers after 16 that.       And then we'll continue on.
4 And we're going to hear from both Beth Foley and 5
17                   MR. ELNITSKY:             Well, thank you, Chip.                   And 18 good evening.         As Chip mentioned, my name is John 19 Elnitsky and I'm Progress Energy's Vice President for 20 New       Generation   Programs               and       Projects.         And         I 21 appreciate the chance to speak with all of you and 22 thanks for being here this evening.
Phyllis Lott.
23                   This is a very complex subj ect,                       but I'd 24 like to talk just about three simple points regarding 25 our plans to operate two new state-of-the-art plants NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
6 And in a minute we're going to start off 7
with usually people would like to know about what 8
the rationale division of the company is and why 9
they're going forward with this.
10 And our first speaker is going to be John 11 Elnitsky, who is right here, who is the Vice President 12 of New Generation Projects and Programs for Progress 13 Energy Florida.
14 And then we'll go to Beth Foley and then 15 we'll go to Phyllis Lott as our next speakers after 16 that.
And then we'll continue on.
17 MR. ELNITSKY:
Well, thank you, Chip.
And 18 good evening.
As Chip mentioned, my name is John 19 Elnitsky and I'm Progress Energy's Vice President for 20 New Generation Programs and Projects.
And I
21 appreciate the chance to speak with all of you and 22 thanks for being here this evening.
23 This is a very complex subj ect, but I'd 24 like to talk just about three simple points regarding 25 our plans to operate two new state-of-the-art plants (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


60 1 at Levy County.
60 1
2                   First,   I want to talk about our continued 3 focus on safety.           Secondly,             our continued commitment 4 to engage with the citizens of Florida.                               And third, 5 our dedication to the               long term energy and economic 6 security of Florida.
at Levy County.
7                   So, let's start with what's most important 8 first       and that's   focus       on safety.               Progress       Energy 9 Florida is       committed to providing safe                     and reliable 10 energy for our 1.6 million customers in Florida.                                       And 11 we plan to do that every hour of every day.
2 First, I want to talk about our continued 3
12                   Planning           for           the       region's         future 13 electricity       needs     is     a     responsibility           the     company 14 takes very seriously.               Our most important commitment, 15 though, is to safety.             The safety of our customers and 16 our employees.
focus on safety.
17                   We   have       worked             hard     to   achieve             an 18 outstanding         safety       and         environmental         stewardship 19 record at our nearby Crystal River Nuclear Plant,                                     and 20 that performance will continue with our operations of 21 the nuclear facility in Levy County.
Secondly, our continued commitment 4
22                   Second,       I'd       like         to talk   about           our 23 continued involvement with the local community and the 24 citizens of Florida.               This new nuclear project isn't 25 only about energy,         it's really about people.                       The 1. 6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
to engage with the citizens of Florida.
And third, 5
our dedication to the long term energy and economic 6
security of Florida.
7 So, let's start with what's most important 8
first and that's focus on safety.
Progress Energy 9
Florida is committed to providing safe and reliable 10 energy for our 1.6 million customers in Florida.
And 11 we plan to do that every hour of every day.
12 Planning for the region's future 13 electricity needs is a
responsibility the company 14 takes very seriously.
Our most important commitment, 15 though, is to safety.
The safety of our customers and 16 our employees.
17 We have worked hard to achieve an 18 outstanding safety and environmental stewardship 19 record at our nearby Crystal River Nuclear Plant, and 20 that performance will continue with our operations of 21 the nuclear facility in Levy County.
22
: Second, I'd like to talk about our 23 continued involvement with the local community and the 24 25 citizens of Florida.
This new nuclear project isn't only about energy, it's really about people.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 The 1. 6 WWN. nealrgross,com  


61 1 million         families     and business people we                     serve,           who 2 count on us each and every day to make sure that when 3 they       flip   that   light       switch on,               the   electricity is 4 there       to   support     it.         And       that     needs   to     happen, 5 whether the wind's blowing or whether the sun's not 6 shining.
61 1
7                     Progress Energy Florida has been working 8 with community leaders and property owners since late 9 2006, when we first announced our plans to build the 10 proposed Levy County nuclear power proj ect                                   and the 11 associated 200 miles or so of transmission cables and 12 transmission lines that go with it.
million families and business people we serve, who 2
13                     Since we started this process four years 14 ago,       we have remained committed to seeking community 15 input and encouraging public discourse like you hear 16 this evening.
count on us each and every day to make sure that when 3
17                     In   an     effort           to     provide     a meaningful 18 dialogue,         the company used an innovative,                       first-of-a-19 kind       public     outreach         process             that   we   called           the 20 Community         Partnership           for       Energy       Planning.             This 21 process         helped     Progress             Energy         gather   input           and 22 recommendations               from             local           governments               and 23 communities.
they flip that light switch on, the electricity is 4
24                     We also helped create the Levy Neighbors 25 Group       to   give   most       up-to-date               information       to       our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
there to support it.
And that needs to happen, 5
whether the wind's blowing or whether the sun's not 6
shining.
7 Progress Energy Florida has been working 8
with community leaders and property owners since late 9
2006, when we first announced our plans to build the 10 proposed Levy County nuclear power proj ect and the 11 associated 200 miles or so of transmission cables and 12 transmission lines that go with it.
13 Since we started this process four years 14 ago, we have remained committed to seeking community 15 input and encouraging public discourse like you hear 16 this evening.
17 In an effort to provide a
meaningful 18 dialogue, the company used an innovative, first-of-a-19 kind public outreach process that we called the 20 Community Partnership for Energy Planning.
This 21 process helped Progress Energy gather input and 22 recommendations from local governments and 23 communities.
24 We also helped create the Levy Neighbors 25 Group to give most up-to-date information to our (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


62 1 neighbors who live closest to the site of our proposed 2 plant.
62 1
3                   About 5,000 property owners and community 4 leaders attended 22 open houses across 10 counties as 5 we     narrowed     our   choices             for       locating   transmission 6 lines.
neighbors who live closest to the site of our proposed 2
7                   More than 40 other community informational 8 meetings were held across our region.                             And based on 9 the feedback from those meetings, more than 90 percent 10 of the preferred corridors for transmission lines are 11 located along, or adjacent to existing lines,                               thereby 12 minimizing the proj ect' s impact on the community and 13 the environment.
plant.
14                   We are committed to being open throughout 15 and during this process, as we continue to seek public 16 input and move forward with this important project.
3 About 5,000 property owners and community 4
17                   The Levy plant will play an important role 18 for       our   community,         as       well.         At   the   peak           of 19 construction, we will employ over 3,000 on the site at 20 Levy County.           The plant           itself,       when it comes             into 21 operation, will create 800 permanent, good-paying jobs 22 in our community.
leaders attended 22 open houses across 10 counties as 5
23                   Probably more significant than that is the 24 benefit       to community         service           that   these   jobs         will 25 create       as employees         forge         partnerships     with         their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
we narrowed our choices for locating transmission 6
lines.
7 More than 40 other community informational 8
meetings were held across our region.
And based on 9
the feedback from those meetings, more than 90 percent 10 of the preferred corridors for transmission lines are 11 located along, or adjacent to existing lines, thereby 12 minimizing the proj ect' s impact on the community and 13 the environment.
14 We are committed to being open throughout 15 and during this process, as we continue to seek public 16 input and move forward with this important project.
17 The Levy plant will play an important role 18 for our community, as well.
At the peak of 19 construction, we will employ over 3,000 on the site at 20 Levy County.
The plant itself, when it comes into 21 operation, will create 800 permanent, good-paying jobs 22 in our community.
23 Probably more significant than that is the 24 benefit to community service that these jobs will 25 create as employees forge partnerships with their (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


63 1 local       communities.           For       example,         in   Crystal         River 2 alone,       our employees have chartered schools,                             founded 3 churches,         created Little League teams and contributed 4 countless hours           to non-profit agencies and community 5 causes.         Our employees live and work here and we care 6 deeply about our communities.
63 1
7                     Finally,     let me address the importance of 8 the Levy nuclear project to the long term economic and 9 energy security of Florida.                           Florida is the nation's 10 fourth         most     populous         state,             but   we   rank         third 11 nationally in overall energy consumption.                               To properly 12 address the long term energy needs of our state,                                             we 13 must have long term planning and long range solutions.
local communities.
14                     Progress Energy is able to meet the energy 15 needs today because of the careful planning that went 16 on in this state decades ago.                           Just as we need to make 17 investment         in   other       infrastructure               proj ects       in       our 18 state, whether it's roads or schools, we need to plan 19 ahead for what we will need for energy supply in the 20 future that is reliable as it is today.
For example, in Crystal River 2
21                     Now,     energy           efficiency           and   renewable 22 energy         sources     are       a   vital           part     of   our     overall 23 strategy.           But   they alone cannot                     supply all of the 24 expected energy demand.                       That is why Progress Energy 25 Florida         is   planning       on     additional           power plants             and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
alone, our employees have chartered schools, founded 3
churches, created Little League teams and contributed 4
countless hours to non-profit agencies and community 5
causes.
Our employees live and work here and we care 6
deeply about our communities.
7 Finally, let me address the importance of 8
the Levy nuclear project to the long term economic and 9
energy security of Florida.
Florida is the nation's 10 fourth most populous
: state, but we rank third 11 nationally in overall energy consumption.
To properly 12 address the long term energy needs of our state, we 13 must have long term planning and long range solutions.
14 Progress Energy is able to meet the energy 15 needs today because of the careful planning that went 16 on in this state decades ago.
Just as we need to make 17 investment in other infrastructure proj ects in our 18 state, whether it's roads or schools, we need to plan 19 ahead for what we will need for energy supply in the 20 future that is reliable as it is today.
21
: Now, energy efficiency and renewable 22 energy sources are a
vital part of our overall 23 strategy.
But they alone cannot supply all of the 24 expected energy demand.
That is why Progress Energy 25 Florida is planning on additional power plants and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


64 1 transmission infrastructure to provide sufficient and 2 reliable electrical service to our customers.
64 1
3                     The Levy plant will also playa vital role 4 in     our   strategy     to     serve           Florida's       energy     future.
transmission infrastructure to provide sufficient and 2
5 This is a future that includes carbon-free generation, 6 24     hours   a   day,   7     days         a   week,     the   same   way         our 7 customers use their electricity.
reliable electrical service to our customers.
8                     By building fuel diversity and long term 9 fuel       cost   savings       into       our       plans,     Progress       Energy 10 Florida       is   helping       ensure           the     long   term   economic 11 competitiveness and viability of Florida.                                 In short, 12 the Levy nuclear proj ect will help ensure the right 13 balance       of   reliable,       environmentally-responsible                         and 14 cost-effective power tomorrow.
3 The Levy plant will also playa vital role 4
15                     So,   I     said         I     would       talk   about       three 16 things;       our     focus     and         commitment         to   safety,           our 17 continued         involvement           with         the     community,     and         our 18 dedication         to   the     long         term         energy   and   economic 19 security of Florida.
in our strategy to serve Florida's energy future.
20                     Energy for today and energy security for 21 tomorrow,       that's our pledge.                     And I'd like to invite 22 you       all   to   take       the         opportuni ty         to   meet           the 23 professionals from Progress Energy that are here this 24 evening.         I get to come up here and be the mouthpiece, 25 but they're the ones that do all the hard work.                                           So, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
5 This is a future that includes carbon-free generation, 6
24 hours a
: day, 7
days a
: week, the same way our 7
customers use their electricity.
8 By building fuel diversity and long term 9
fuel cost savings into our plans, Progress Energy 10 Florida is helping ensure the long term economic 11 competitiveness and viability of Florida.
In short, 12 the Levy nuclear proj ect will help ensure the right 13 balance of reliable, environmentally-responsible and 14 cost-effective power tomorrow.
15 So, I
said I
would talk about three 16 things; our focus and commitment to
: safety, our 17 continued involvement with the community, and our 18 dedication to the long term energy and economic 19 security of Florida.
20 Energy for today and energy security for 21 tomorrow, that's our pledge.
And I'd like to invite 22 you all to take the opportuni ty to meet the 23 professionals from Progress Energy that are here this 24 25 evening.
I get to come up here and be the mouthpiece, but they're the ones that do all the hard work.
So, (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


65 1 talk to them afterward.                   Get your questions answered.
65 1
talk to them afterward.
Get your questions answered.
2 That's why we're here.
2 That's why we're here.
3                   On behalf of the over 4,000 employees of 4 Progress       Energy Florida,           I'd like       to thank     you         for 5 your time here this evening, and I'd like to thank the 6 NRC and the Army Corps of Engineers for their on-going 7 support       of   energy     security             for   both   the   state           of 8 Florida and our nation.               Thank you very much.
3 On behalf of the over 4,000 employees of 4
9                   MR. CAMERON:               Okay.       Thank you.           Thank 10 you,       Don. Beth?     This       is Beth Foley.             Then we're 11 going to go to Phyllis Lott.                       And we're going to go to 12 Mark Klutho next after that.
Progress Energy Florida, I'd like to thank you for 5
13                   MS. FOLEY:         My question is what about salt 14 drift and the nuclear -- Levy Nuclear Plant site is 15 located about ten miles inland and in the middle of a 16 fresh water wetland.                 Yet,       the cooling tower source 17 will be salt water.           Is that not working?
your time here this evening, and I'd like to thank the 6
18                   MR. CAMERON:             Oh, it is.         I just was going 19 to put it down a little bit.
NRC and the Army Corps of Engineers for their on-going 7
20                   MS. FOLEY:         This freshwater wetland is a 21 recharge area for the drinking water for the people 22 who are living in the surrounding area since the upper 23 Floridan aquifer is at ground level in this particular 24 area of Florida.
support of energy security for both the state of 8
25                   Despite         this           unique       location,              the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Florida and our nation.
Thank you very much.
9 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank 10
: you, Don.
Beth?
This is Beth Foley.
Then we're 11 going to go to Phyllis Lott.
And we're going to go to 12 Mark Klutho next after that.
13 MS. FOLEY:
My question is what about salt 14 drift and the nuclear --
Levy Nuclear Plant site is 15 located about ten miles inland and in the middle of a 16 fresh water wetland.
Yet, the cooling tower source 17 will be salt water.
Is that not working?
18 MR. CAMERON:
Oh, it is.
I just was going 19 to put it down a little bit.
20 MS.
FOLEY:
This freshwater wetland is a 21 recharge area for the drinking water for the people 22 who are living in the surrounding area since the upper 23 Floridan aquifer is at ground level in this particular 24 area of Florida.
25 Despite this unique (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701
: location, the WWN. nealrgross,com  


66 1 introduction of salt, via drift from the nuclear plant 2 cooling towers       to   the environment,                   approximately 31 3 pounds of salt daily or 6.72 million pounds over the 4 60-year life of the plant,                     is only assigned a small 5 impact in Progress Energy's -- and I've given Progress 6 Energy credit -- I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do 7 the       Nuclear   Regulatory           Commission             credit             Draft 8 Environmental Impact study.                       So,     regardless of whose 9 study -- it's your study, I guess?                           Okay.
66 1
10                   When addressing the effect of salt drift 11 in the Levy Nuclear Plant Draft Environmental Impact 12 Study,       vegetation     comparisons                 with     Crystal       River's 13 nuclear plant, that is located on the Gulf of Mexico, 14 are made,       the results         of salt drift               at   this       plant 15 should not be equated with two nuclear plants located 16 ten miles inland in the middle of an aquifer recharge 17 wetland.
introduction of salt, via drift from the nuclear plant 2
18                   A search       for       other         u.s. nuclear       plants 19 located       inland   using       saltwater               for   their       cooling 20 towers resulted in none.
cooling towers to the environment, approximately 31 3
21                   That's my other question.                       Are there any 22 that use salt water that are located ten miles inland?
pounds of salt daily or 6.72 million pounds over the 4
23                   Because of the unique circumstances of the 24 Levy       Nuclear Plants       1     and       2     location,     scientific 25 modeling       must   be     arduously               done     to   assure           that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
60-year life of the plant, is only assigned a small 5
impact in Progress Energy's -- and I've given Progress 6
Energy credit --
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do 7
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission credit Draft 8
Environmental Impact study.
So, regardless of whose 9
study -- it's your study, I guess?
Okay.
10 When addressing the effect of salt drift 11 in the Levy Nuclear Plant Draft Environmental Impact 12
: Study, vegetation comparisons with Crystal River's 13 nuclear plant, that is located on the Gulf of Mexico, 14 are made, the results of salt drift at this plant 15 should not be equated with two nuclear plants located 16 ten miles inland in the middle of an aquifer recharge 17 wetland.
18 A search for other u.s. nuclear plants 19 located inland using saltwater for their cooling 20 towers resulted in none.
21 That's my other question.
Are there any 22 that use salt water that are located ten miles inland?
23 Because of the unique circumstances of the 24 Levy Nuclear Plants 1
and 2
: location, scientific 25 modeling must be arduously done to assure that (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


67 1 drinking       water   and     personal             property     and       nearby 2 conservation areas will not be adversely affected by 3 the unnatural spreading of approximately 3,360 tons of 4 salt by the cooling towers drift over a period of 60 5 years.
67 1
6                   The necessary modeling has not been done 7 in the apples and oranges comparison used in the NRC 8 Environmental         Impact         study,             and   is   completely 9 inadequate.
drinking water and personal property and nearby 2
10                   MR. CAMERON:               Okay.         Thank you.           Thank 11 you, Beth.
conservation areas will not be adversely affected by 3
12                   And I know the NRC staff people will talk 13 to you after the meeting about that,                           as well as the 14 other issue.
the unnatural spreading of approximately 3,360 tons of 4
15                   Phyllis,     are you ready?                 This is Phyllis 16 Lott, correct?
salt by the cooling towers drift over a period of 60 5
17                   MS. LOTT:       Yes.
years.
18                   MR. CAMERON:             Yes, please.
6 The necessary modeling has not been done 7
19                   MS. LOTT:         My name is Phyllis Lott, and I 20 have a home at 31 Magnolia Avenue in Yankeetown.                                           I 21 think the bottom line here,                     from what I understood, is 22 there       actually is   no     plan         in     place   to store         this 23 nuclear waste.
in the apples and oranges comparison used in the NRC 8
24                   Places -- you're right.                     It is a business 25 to set up facilities to store this.                           Places like Utah, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Environmental Impact
: study, and is completely 9
inadequate.
10 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank 11 you, Beth.
12 And I know the NRC staff people will talk 13 to you after the meeting about that, as well as the 14 other issue.
15 Phyllis, are you ready?
This is Phyllis 16 Lott, correct?
17 MS. LOTT:
Yes.
18 MR. CAMERON:
Yes, please.
19 MS. LOTT:
My name is Phyllis Lott, and I 20 have a home at 31 Magnolia Avenue in Yankeetown.
I 21 think the bottom line here, from what I understood, is 22 there actually is no plan in place to store this 23 nuclear waste.
24 Places -- you're right.
It is a business 25 to set up facilities to store this.
Places like Utah, (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


68 1 Texas, Maine,         and other places are closing down their 2 facilities, and the citizens in that area are fighting 3 -- I've looked at all these places online and there is 4 a battle royale going on amongst the elected officials 5 and ci ti zens       and they do not want any more nuclear 6 waste stored in their areas.
68 1
7                     We do know that Yucca Mountain is closing, 8 and that was           the main place that you had mentioned 9 that       you   were   going       to       store         this. So,     I     don't 10 understand         why   we're         going         to     spend   billions             of 11 dollars       building     a   facility             and we     don't     have         any 12 permanent         place     to     store         the       nuclear   waste.               You 13 cannot leave it in those containers for any length of 14 time.
Texas, Maine, and other places are closing down their 2
15                     So,   I'm     very much               concerned,     because             I 16 don't       believe,   when we           were         talking     about     building 17 this plant,         that we       thought this was                 going to be a 18 problem.           Now   I   think       it       is     a   major problem,             and 19 before we spend all this money building something, we 20 must have some place to store this nuclear waste.                                           It 21 would be         ridiculous       to build this,                 and what       are we 22 going to do with all                   that toxic chemicals that                           are 23 there, and rods and other things?
facilities, and the citizens in that area are fighting 3  
24                    I would like to say I own about 400 acres 25 also      next    to  where     Progress           Energy is      going        to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
-- I've looked at all these places online and there is 4
a battle royale going on amongst the elected officials 5
and ci ti zens and they do not want any more nuclear 6
waste stored in their areas.
7 We do know that Yucca Mountain is closing, 8
and that was the main place that you had mentioned 9
that you were going to store this.
So, I
don't 10 understand why we're going to spend billions of 11 dollars building a facility and we don't have any 12 permanent place to store the nuclear waste.
You 13 cannot leave it in those containers for any length of 14 time.
15 So, I'm very much concerned, because I 16 don't believe, when we were talking about building 17 this plant, that we thought this was going to be a 18 problem.
Now I
think it is a major problem, and 19 before we spend all this money building something, we 20 must have some place to store this nuclear waste.
It 21 would be 22 going to 23 there, and 24 25 also next (202) 23H433 ridiculous to build this, and what are we do with all that toxic chemicals that are rods and other things?
I to would like to say I own where Progress Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 about 400 acres is going to be WWN. nealrgross,com  


69 1 built,       or the proposed site.                     The land,   when it was 2 bought, was kept secretly.                     No one knew about it until 3 the deal was closed.                 And then we found out that it 4 was bought by Progress Energy to build a nuclear power 5 plant.
69 1
6                   And then they come in and say,                         well,           we 7 want       your   feedback.         Well,         at     that point   it was             a 8 little too late,           once they spend millions of dollars 9 buying up all this property.
built, or the proposed site.
10                   Unfortunately,             I'm afraid at this point.
The land, when it was 2
11 All the meetings I've been to and all the different 12 programs I've attended listening to all of this,                                         I'm 13 afraid once that land was purchased and it was a done 14 deal, that this will amount to nothing.
bought, was kept secretly.
15                   And that's -- that upsets me,                       because we 16 had a developer who had come in, the land that I own, 17 and was         going   to   build upscale                   homes, a   beautiful 18 neighborhood,         and homes in the 250 to $500,000 price 19 range.         And once he         found         out     Progress   Energy had 20 purchased this land for this nuclear power plant, they 21 pulled the contract that we had signed with them off.
No one knew about it until 3
22                   So,   I   have       a       lot       of reasons   for         not 23 wanting this plant built.                     But one of the ones that I 24 brought up tonight             is,     we cannot             spend billions of 25 dollars on something and have absolutely no place to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
the deal was closed.
And then we found out that it 4
was bought by Progress Energy to build a nuclear power 5
plant.
6 And then they come in and say, well, we 7
want your feedback.
Well, at that point it was a 8
little too late, once they spend millions of dollars 9
buying up all this property.
10 Unfortunately, I'm afraid at this point.
11 All the meetings I've been to and all the different 12 programs I've attended listening to all of this, I'm 13 afraid once that land was purchased and it was a done 14 deal, that this will amount to nothing.
15 And that's -- that upsets me, because we 16 had a developer who had come in, the land that I own, 17 and was going to build upscale homes, a beautiful 18 neighborhood, and homes in the 250 to $500,000 price 19 range.
And once he found out Progress Energy had 20 purchased this land for this nuclear power plant, they 21 pulled the contract that we had signed with them off.
22 So, I
have a
lot of reasons for not 23 wanting this plant built.
But one of the ones that I 24 brought up tonight is, we cannot spend billions of 25 dollars on something and have absolutely no place to (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


70 1 put this toxic nuclear waste.                       Thank you.
70 1
2                   MR. CAMERON:           And thank you, Phyllis.                   And 3 this is Mark Klutho coming up.                         Then we're going to go 4 to Art Jones, Ellen Avery-Smith, and Mary Olson.
put this toxic nuclear waste.
5                   MR. KLUTHO:           Mark Klutho,           Largo,   Florida.
Thank you.
6 I'm here from a unique perspective.                           Here's form --
2 MR. CAMERON:
7 Army       Form   DA-3180.         I     was       on   a nuclear     weapons 8 assembly team back in 1970.                     And here's the book, Non-9 Nuclear       Futures:   The       Case         for     an Ethical       Energy 10 Strategy, copyright 1975.
And thank you, Phyllis.
11                   And when you came in tonight,                     you saw a 12 beautiful rendering out there of what the new nuclear 13 plants were going to look like.                             Well, the original 14 renderings         that   were         in       the     newspaper   from           the 15 utility,       they were -- the plants were surrounded by 16 some crown shaft palms.                   Well,       the rendering changed 17 after       I made note     of     this       at     the Pinellas       County 18 Commission meetings.
And 3
19                   And my     point           here       is, perception           and 20 reality.         I spoke with a couple of people, the experts 21 I     guess   they're called,           from       regressive   energy out 22 there.         And they didn't             know what a T12           light bulb 23 was, what an imaging specular reflector was.                             But yet, 24 we're told we need nuclear power.
this is Mark Klutho coming up.
25                   And it's supposedly safe?                     But if you go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Then we're going to go 4
to Art Jones, Ellen Avery-Smith, and Mary Olson.
5 MR. KLUTHO:
Mark Klutho, Largo, Florida.
6 I'm here from a unique perspective.
Here's form --
7 Army Form DA-3180.
I was on a
nuclear weapons 8
assembly team back in 1970.
And here's the book, Non-9 Nuclear Futures:
The Case for an Ethical Energy 10 Strategy, copyright 1975.
11 And when you came in tonight, you saw a 12 beautiful rendering out there of what the new nuclear 13 plants were going to look like.
Well, the original 14 renderings that were in the newspaper from the 15 utility, they were --
the plants were surrounded by 16 some crown shaft palms.
Well, the rendering changed 17 after I made note of this at the Pinellas County 18 Commission meetings.
19 And my point here is, perception and 20 reality.
I spoke with a couple of people, the experts 21 I
guess they're called, from regressive energy out 22 there.
And they didn't know what a T12 light bulb 23 was, what an imaging specular reflector was.
But yet, 24 we're told we need nuclear power.
25 (202) 23H433 And it's supposedly safe?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 But if you go WWN. nealrgross,com  


71 1 to Vegas and you talk to the odds makers, and you want 2 to place a bet about whether or not there's going to 3 be a nuclear catastrophe, it's 50 percent, one in two, 4 that this might happen.
71 1
5                   And I put this to regressive energy.                                   If 6 it is so safe,       then you need to demand that they take 7 that Price-Anderson Act off the books.                           Why do we need 8 that after all these years?                         I mean,     I'm a child of 9 the '50s and I remember that it was supposed to be too 10 cheap to meter.
to Vegas and you talk to the odds makers, and you want 2
11                   And then,       what was in the New York Times 12 just       months   ago?       That       plant         over   in Finland,             50 13 percent over cost,           and they won't give a completion 14 date.         And this is supposed to be the blueprint for 15 what's coming here.           Oh, things are smelly in Denmark.
to place a bet about whether or not there's going to 3
16                   And then,       right outside here,                 regressive 17 energy has this Looking at                       Power in a New Light:                     A 18 Balanced Solution for the Future.                             Energy Efficiency 19 First.         Well,   here       is       this       National   Geographic, 20 Repowering the Planet, Energy for Tomorrow.                             And Amory 21 Lovins is interviewed here.                       He's the author of this 22 book,       Non-Nuclear   Futures:             The     Case for   an     Ethical 23 Energy Strategy.         And he says -- he's interviewed, you 24 popularized the term megawatt.                         What are megawatts and 25 why should we care about them?                             Megawatts are watts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
be a nuclear catastrophe, it's 50 percent, one in two, 4
that this might happen.
5 And I put this to regressive energy.
If 6
it is so safe, then you need to demand that they take 7
that Price-Anderson Act off the books.
Why do we need 8
that after all these years?
I mean, I'm a child of 9
the '50s and I remember that it was supposed to be too 10 cheap to meter.
11 And then, what was in the New York Times 12 just months ago?
That plant over in Finland, 50 13 percent over cost, and they won't give a completion 14 date.
And this is supposed to be the blueprint for 15 what's coming here.
Oh, things are smelly in Denmark.
16 And then, right outside here, regressive 17 energy has this Looking at Power in a New Light: A 18 Balanced Solution for the Future.
Energy Efficiency 19 First.
: Well, here is this National Geographic, 20 Repowering the Planet, Energy for Tomorrow.
And Amory 21 Lovins is interviewed here.
He's the author of this 22
: book, Non-Nuclear Futures:
The Case for an Ethical 23 Energy Strategy.
And he says -- he's interviewed, you 24 popularized the term megawatt.
What are megawatts and 25 why should we care about them?
Megawatts are watts (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


72 1 saved by more efficient use.                           It's enormously cheaper, 2 probably         eight   times         cheaper           on   average,     to         save 3 electricity than to make it.                           And nuclear power, as he 4 states         in   the   Rocky       Mountain             Institute   Newsletter 5 here,       is the most expensive way to make electricity.
72 1
saved by more efficient use.
It's enormously cheaper, 2
probably eight times cheaper on
: average, to save 3
electricity than to make it.
And nuclear power, as he 4
states in the Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter 5
here, is the most expensive way to make electricity.
6 New nuclear reactors, same old story.
6 New nuclear reactors, same old story.
7                     And it's really funny, because I hear from 8 the     Nuclear     Regulatory           Commission           that   conservation 9 and efficiency are the same thing.                               No, they're not.
7 And it's really funny, because I hear from 8
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that conservation 9
and efficiency are the same thing.
No, they're not.
10 They're not synonymous.
10 They're not synonymous.
11                     Now,   see,       you people can't reasonably be 12 making a determination on something like these plants 13 when you think that conservation and efficiency mean 14 the same thing.             I mean, we're in deep doo-doo here.
11
15 This       is         this     is     really         bad.       Look   at   all         the 16 incandescent bulbs here.
: Now, see, you people can't reasonably be 12 making a determination on something like these plants 13 when you think that conservation and efficiency mean 14 the same thing.
17                     When   I   went         to     that     last   hearing           over 18 there at the training center,                             where they're learning 19 to     work     at   the   nuke       plants,           what   does   regressive 20 energy have burning?                     T12 bulbs.             Archaic,     obsolete 21 bulbs.
I mean, we're in deep doo-doo here.
22                     And they say we need nuclear power.                               Well, 23 guess         what?       They       aren't           paying     for   that.             The 24 ratepayer pays for this.                       And then they add on their 25 12 percent.
15 This is this is really bad.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Look at all the 16 incandescent bulbs here.
17 When I
went to that last hearing over 18 there at the training center, where they're learning 19 to work at the nuke plants, what does regressive 20 energy have burning?
T12 bulbs.
Archaic, obsolete 21 bulbs.
22 And they say we need nuclear power.
: Well, 23 guess what?
They aren't paying for that.
The 24 ratepayer pays for this.
And then they add on their 25 12 percent.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


73 1                 And we hear that it's not environmentally 2 friendly or favorable with the conservation, when you 3 meant to say efficiency.                   Again, using -- transposing 4 these two words?         I mean, this whole gathering here is 5 nothing but a farce.
73 1
6                   See, the problem is,                   if you read the u.S.
And we hear that it's not environmentally 2
7 Today a couple of days ago,                     there was an article, and 8 it was about the economy coming out of the recession.
friendly or favorable with the conservation, when you 3
9 And       it said,   the   energy           States,       these   couple           few 10 energy       States   are       leading             the     way   out     of         the 11 recession.         No,   no,     it's       not     that   at all.       That's 12 what's causing the recession.
meant to say efficiency.
13                   The   u. S .A.,       less         than   5 percent       of       the 14 world's population,           and it's using 25 percent of the 15 world's energy.         And the majority is feeding these few 16 and there never will be a vitality as long as there is 17 that equation.         It isn't ever going to be that those 18 few will     ever be able           to throw it all back to                         the 19 majority.
Again, using -- transposing 4
20                   It is a sad situation, like today when we 21 have light bulbs that can't be right, but you say you 22 need the       technology of nuclear power and                         you still 23 have the Price-Anderson Act on the books.
these two words?
24                 MR. CAMERON:                 Mark,     that's   a       great 25 summary.      I'm going to have to ask you to finish up.
I mean, this whole gathering here is 5
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
nothing but a farce.
6 See, the problem is, if you read the u.S.
7 Today a couple of days ago, there was an article, and 8
it was about the economy coming out of the recession.
9 And it said, the energy States, these couple few 10 energy States are leading the way out of the 11 recession.
No, no, it's not that at all.
That's 12 what's causing the recession.
13 The u. S.A., less than 5 percent of the 14 world's population, and it's using 25 percent of the 15 world's energy.
And the majority is feeding these few 16 and there never will be a vitality as long as there is 17 that equation.
It isn't ever going to be that those 18 few will ever be able to throw it all back to the 19 majority.
20 It is a sad situation, like today when we 21 have light bulbs that can't be right, but you say you 22 need the technology of nuclear power and you still 23 have the Price-Anderson Act on the books.
24 25 summary.
(202) 23H433 MR.
CAMERON:
: Mark, that's a
great I'm going to have to ask you to finish up.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


74 1                     MR. KLUTHO:         Yeah, well --
74 1
2                     MR. CAMERON:             Thank you.
MR. KLUTHO:
3                     MR. KLUTHO:           Again,         it's the fox guarding 4 the hen house here.                 Oh yeah,             here's       here is one 5 more thing.           Regressi ve energy saying they're green.
Yeah, well --
6 That's       like   Alfred       E.     painting           the Hummer       green.
2 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you.
3 MR. KLUTHO:
Again, it's the fox guarding 4
the hen house here.
Oh yeah, here's here is one 5
more thing.
Regressi ve energy saying they're green.
6 That's like Alfred E.
painting the Hummer green.
7 That's regressive energy going green.
7 That's regressive energy going green.
8                     MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         And Art Jones.           Now, 9 Art.       Okay, this is Art Jones.
8 MR. CAMERON:
10                     MR. JONES:         Hello everybody.             Yes, I'm Art 11 Jones.         I   live here       in Crystal River and I've been 12 following this for a long time.                             And I went up to the 13 PSC and spoke up there.                     And I'm going to speak here 14 again and hopefully make a difference, because if you 15 don't speak out and if you don't at least try,                                         then 16 you'll never know.
Okay.
17                     I   believe       that         the     Levy   site   is       a     bad 18 location to build a power plant for many reasons.                                       And 19 some of them have already been spoken here                                 tonight, 20 because       it   is right       in     the       middle     of fresh       water 21 wetlands.           It's right       in the middle of the recharge 22 zone for our beautiful springs here in Florida.
And Art Jones.
23                     And   fresh       water         is     so   precious   on       this 24 planet.          It's so precious here to our people here in 25 Florida.          And it's only really 1 percent of the water NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
: Now, 9
Art.
Okay, this is Art Jones.
10 MR. JONES:
Hello everybody.
Yes, I'm Art 11 Jones.
I live here in Crystal River and I've been 12 following this for a long time.
And I went up to the 13 PSC and spoke up there.
And I'm going to speak here 14 again and hopefully make a difference, because if you 15 don't speak out and if you don't at least try, then 16 you'll never know.
17 I believe that the Levy site is a bad 18 location to build a power plant for many reasons.
And 19 some of them have already been spoken here tonight, 20 because it is right in the middle of fresh water 21 wetlands.
It's right in the middle of the recharge 22 zone for our beautiful springs here in Florida.
23 24 planet.
25 Florida.
(202) 23H433 And fresh water is so precious on this It's so precious here to our people here in And it's only really 1 percent of the water NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


75 1 on the planet is fresh water and drinkable.                                       So,       I 2 really think we need to protect it.
75 1
3                   And when I asked that question, you know, 4 we're going to lose 720 acres of fresh water wetlands 5 and how many acres would we lose out at the Crystal 6 River site, I think they kind of dodged my answer.
on the planet is fresh water and drinkable.
7                   I was   expecting,               you     know, a   number           of 8 acres of fresh water wetlands that would be impacted, 9 and I think the answer would have been that it would 10 have been zero.         There are no fresh water wetlands out 11 there right on the Gulf Coast.                             Those are salt water 12 marshes.
So, I
13                   So,   it makes sense to me that the plant, 14 if it has to be built,                   should be built out at that 15 site.
2 really think we need to protect it.
16                   So,   I think that,                 you know,     that -- how 17 can anybody possibly say that the Levy site does not 18 have environmental impacts that                           should stop the NRC 19 from       issuing   the     license             for     that   location.               Of 20 course, that site would have a very bad environmental 21 impact on many areas, you know, pumping over a million 22 gallons a day out of the aquifer there is -- that's a 23 million gallons less coming out of our springs.
3 And when I asked that question, you know, 4
24                   And   it's       been         shown       that   it   feeds         two 25 spring       sheds. And       then         just       right   next   to         that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
we're going to lose 720 acres of fresh water wetlands 5
and how many acres would we lose out at the Crystal 6
River site, I think they kind of dodged my answer.
7 I
was expecting, you know, a number of 8
acres of fresh water wetlands that would be impacted, 9
and I think the answer would have been that it would 10 have been zero.
There are no fresh water wetlands out 11 there right on the Gulf Coast.
Those are salt water 12 marshes.
13 So, it makes sense to me that the plant, 14 if it has to be built, should be built out at that 15 site.
16 So, I think that, you know, that --
how 17 can anybody possibly say that the Levy site does not 18 have environmental impacts that should stop the NRC 19 from issuing the license for that location.
Of 20 course, that site would have a very bad environmental 21 impact on many areas, you know, pumping over a million 22 gallons a day out of the aquifer there is -- that's a 23 million gallons less coming out of our springs.
24 25 And it's been shown that it feeds two spring sheds.
(202) 23H433 And then just right next to that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


76 1 location is         the whole Rainbow River spring shed and 2 estuary,       one of the most beautiful spring-fed rivers, 3 I think,     in the world.           So, I think that really needs 4 to be protected.
76 1
5                   And I was a little concerned to hear about 6 salt       water   drift             or,       yes,       salt   drift     in       the 7 atmosphere coming from these plants.                             You don't want 8 that       near   the Rainbow River.                     You don't   want         that 9 inland.       Let's put it back out on the coast.
location is the whole Rainbow River spring shed and 2
10                   And God forbid there ever is an accident 11 and there's a radioactive leak.                           At least we've got a 12 50 percent chance that the winds may be blowing out to 13 the open water         and not         inland where             the people and 14 plants and fresh water is.                       So,     I think from a safety 15 concern,       it would make more sense to put it out in 16 Crystal River.
estuary, one of the most beautiful spring-fed rivers, 3
17                   I don't think you can chop down a forest 18 and not kill all the trees.                       And you're going to kill 19 everything else that used to live there.                             So,   it just 20 makes more sense to put it out at Crystal River.
I think, in the world.
21                   Sure,   you're going to                   lose some more of 22 the salt water wetlands, but,                       you know,     I'd rather 23 you know, the salt water is a little bit more abundant 24 than our fresh water.
So, I think that really needs 4
25                   So, I think that really,                     if it has to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
to be protected.
5 And I was a little concerned to hear about 6
salt water drift or,
: yes, salt drift in the 7
atmosphere coming from these plants.
You don't want 8
that near the Rainbow River.
You don't want that 9
inland.
Let's put it back out on the coast.
10 And God forbid there ever is an accident 11 and there's a radioactive leak.
At least we've got a 12 50 percent chance that the winds may be blowing out to 13 the open water and not inland where the people and 14 plants and fresh water is.
So, I think from a safety 15 concern, it would make more sense to put it out in 16 Crystal River.
17 I don't think you can chop down a forest 18 and not kill all the trees.
And you're going to kill 19 everything else that used to live there.
So, it just 20 makes more sense to put it out at Crystal River.
21 Sure, you're going to lose some more of 22 the salt water wetlands, but, you know, I'd rather 23 you know, the salt water is a little bit more abundant 24 than our fresh water.
25 (202) 23H433 So, I think that really, if it has to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


77 1 built,       if they have to build another power plant,                                 it 2 really       needs to   go     out       there         at   the   Crystal       River 3 site.       Thank you.
77 1
4                   MR. CAMERON:             Thank you, Art.           Thank you 5 very much.         Ellen Avery-Smith?                   And then we'll go Mary 6 Olson.         This is Ellen Avery Smith.                     There's a team.
built, if they have to build another power plant, it 2
7                   MS. SMITH:         There is a team.
really needs to go out there at the Crystal River 3
8                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.
site.
9                   MS. SMITH:         We work best that way.                       I   am 10 Ellen Avery-Smith           and       I'm       an     attorney with         a     firm 11 called       Rogers   Towers,         and       I   practice     environmental 12 law.
Thank you.
13                   This is my client,                   Charles Smith,         so I'd 14 like       to   let him give         you some             preliminary     remarks.
4 MR.
CAMERON:
Thank you, Art.
Thank you 5
very much.
Ellen Avery-Smith?
And then we'll go Mary 6
Olson.
This is Ellen Avery Smith.
There's a team.
7 MS. SMITH:
There is a team.
8 MR. CAMERON:
Okay.
9 MS. SMITH:
We work best that way.
I am 10 Ellen Avery-Smith and I'm an attorney with a firm 11 called Rogers
: Towers, and I practice environmental 12 law.
13 This is my client, Charles Smith, so I'd 14 like to let him give you some preliminary remarks.
15 Then I'm going to follow up with the legal disclaimer 16 part.
15 Then I'm going to follow up with the legal disclaimer 16 part.
17                   MR. SMITH:         My name is Charles Smith and 18 I'm here this evening representing Robinson Estates, a 19 family-owned corporation.                     We own the 5,700-plus acre 20 tract       immediately     to     the       east       of the   proposed           LNP 21 site.
17 MR.
22                    with more         than         two     miles   of contiguous 23 border with the LNP site on our west and some three 24 and a half miles of contiguous border with the Goethe 25 National         Forest   to     our         north,         we   have   definite NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
SMITH:
My name is Charles Smith and 18 I'm here this evening representing Robinson Estates, a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 family-owned corporation.
We own the 5,700-plus acre tract immediately to the east of the proposed LNP site.
with more than two miles of contiguous border with the LNP site on our west and some three and a half miles of contiguous border with the Goethe National Forest to our
: north, we have definite (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


78 1 concerns           regarding       the         proposed         plans     for         this 2 facility,         primarily due to the ambiguity of the plant 3 itself and the uncertain effect of the plant upon our 4 property.
78 1
5                       In early     July         2008,       having   received           no 6 communication of any kind from anyone                                 regarding the 7 proposed plant,           we   contacted and arranged a meeting 8 with         a   Progress     Energy             corporate       officer.                 He 9 indicated some concern and confusion,                               since he           said 10 that       the     company     had       already             conducted     extensive 11 negotiations           with   someone           who       claimed   to   be       Chuck 12 Smith         and   had   the     right           to       negotiate     for         the 13 corporation.
concerns regarding the proposed plans for this 2
14                     At two breakfast meetings, he indicated to 15 us that the company had considerable interest in our 16 property,         both as     a   route         for     a proposed rail             line 17 and,       more     importantly,           as       the     site   for     wetland 18 mitigation           associated with               the       future nuclear plant 19 construction.
facility, primarily due to the ambiguity of the plant 3
20                       He arranged for the real es ta te group to 21 contact         us. This     was       the       first     notice     that         our 22 corporation received from anyone regarding the project 23 and their interest in our property.
itself and the uncertain effect of the plant upon our 4
24                     Apparently, other previous information and 25 notices were           delivered       to       someone       other   than               to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
property.
5 In early July 2008, having received no 6
communication of any kind from anyone regarding the 7
proposed plant, we contacted and arranged a meeting 8
with a
Progress Energy corporate officer.
He 9
indicated some concern and confusion, since he said 10 that the company had already conducted extensive 11 negotiations with someone who claimed to be Chuck 12 Smith and had the right to negotiate for the 13 corporation.
14 At two breakfast meetings, he indicated to 15 us that the company had considerable interest in our 16 property, both as a route for a proposed rail line 17
: and, more importantly, as the site for wetland 18 mitigation associated with the future nuclear plant 19 construction.
20 He arranged for the real es ta te group to 21 contact us.
This was the first notice that our 22 corporation received from anyone regarding the project 23 and their interest in our property.
24 Apparently, other previous information and 25 notices were delivered to someone other than to (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


79 1 some       other source     and     were         never     forwarded       to       our 2 attention.
79 1
3                   We   continue             to       have     bi-weekly         phone 4 conversations         with     Progress           Energy       regarding         their 5 interest in the property.                     We were even advised that 6 their interest in the use of their own property and 7 the Goethe state Forest had been discarded as possible 8 alternatives.
some other source and were never forwarded to our 2
9                   This   was     not       surprising,         as the     Goethe 10 Forest is already a protected public property, and the 11 use       of   their   own       property               would   hinder         their 12 construction efforts.             We, therefore, had no reason to 13 comment on the plan or express any concerns regarding 14 possible negative effects to our property.
attention.
15                   On   May     18th,           2010,       during   one     of       our 16 telephone conversations with Progress Energy, the worm 17 turned.       We were informed that they would not have 18 they would have no need for the Robinson property, as 19 they were now planning to use their own property and 20 the       Goethe   state       Forest           for     wetland     mitigation 21 purposes.
3 We continue to have bi-weekly phone 4
22                   We are not objecting to the need for the 23 nuclear plants.         We are asking for assurances from the 24 NRC and the Corps of Engineers that the new mitigation 25 plan, if accepted, will not have any adverse effect on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
conversations with Progress Energy regarding their 5
interest in the property.
We were even advised that 6
their interest in the use of their own property and 7
the Goethe state Forest had been discarded as possible 8
alternatives.
9 This was not surprising, as the Goethe 10 Forest is already a protected public property, and the 11 use of their own property would hinder their 12 construction efforts.
We, therefore, had no reason to 13 comment on the plan or express any concerns regarding 14 possible negative effects to our property.
15 On May
: 18th, 2010, during one of our 16 telephone conversations with Progress Energy, the worm 17 turned.
We were informed that they would not have 18 they would have no need for the Robinson property, as 19 they were now planning to use their own property and 20 the Goethe state Forest for wetland mitigation 21 purposes.
22 We are not objecting to the need for the 23 nuclear plants.
We are asking for assurances from the 24 NRC and the Corps of Engineers that the new mitigation 25 plan, if accepted, will not have any adverse effect on (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


80 1 the value or on the usage of our property for future 2 development.
80 1
3                   In     addition,               we       would     be       seeking 4 assurances       that     the     Progress             Energy plan would                 not 5 adversely affect current water                             flow onto or through 6 the       Robinson   tract,       as     a     result     of   alteration             and 7 changes made to the Goethe state Forest.
the value or on the usage of our property for future 2
8                   We currently have a hunting club leasing 9 our property.             Our   immediate             concern     is   that       there 10 will       be no   adverse       restrictions on                 the use       of this 11 property for this purpose.
development.
12                   On   a   longer         term basis,           we   are     seeking 13 assurances that there will be no adverse affect on the 14 property         for     future         residential             and     commercial 15 development.
3 In
16                   Finally, it seems that it would be a shame 17 that the effect of the proposed plan would necessarily 18 create a situation which would result in the loss of a 19 large,       protected habitat,               which could enable wildlife 20 movement through the Goethe state Forest all the way 21 to       the   withlacoochee         River,           with   the   accompanying 22 ecological advantage which would result, as well.                                         Few 23 areas       of this     size     and         magnitude         still   exist           in 24 Florida.           And     acceptance                 of     this   plan         would 25 necessarily result in the impossibility of this unique NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
: addition, we would be seeking 4
assurances that the Progress Energy plan would not 5
adversely affect current water flow onto or through 6
the Robinson tract, as a result of alteration and 7
changes made to the Goethe state Forest.
8 We currently have a hunting club leasing 9
our property.
Our immediate concern is that there 10 will be no adverse restrictions on the use of this 11 property for this purpose.
12 On a longer term basis, we are seeking 13 assurances that there will be no adverse affect on the 14 property for future residential and commercial 15 development.
16 Finally, it seems that it would be a shame 17 that the effect of the proposed plan would necessarily 18 create a situation which would result in the loss of a 19 large, protected habitat, which could enable wildlife 20 movement through the Goethe state Forest all the way 21 to the withlacoochee River, with the accompanying 22 ecological advantage which would result, as well.
Few 23 areas of this size and magnitude still exist in 24 Florida.
And acceptance of this plan would 25 necessarily result in the impossibility of this unique (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


81 1 benefit.
81 1
2                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Thank you, Mr. smith.
benefit.
3   Mrs. Ellen Avery-Smith.
2 MR. CAMERON:
4                   MS. SMITH:         Not related, surprisingly.
Okay.
5                   Just     to     give           you       a   little       bit         of 6 background about Mr.             Smith's           comments.         He     and his 7 family             when     you       look         at       the   environmental 8 mitigation report that was produced by Progress Energy 9 in January of 2009,           Mr.     Smith's property is referred 10 to as the Robinson property, or the Robinson Estate.
Thank you, Mr. smith.
11                   And   so,     when         he     was     referring       to       his 12 discussions with Progress Energy,                             he was   talking to 13 them over a period of two years about purchasing that 14 5,700 acre tract which lies immediately to the east of 15 the       Progress   Energy       site,         as     part     of the     wetland 16 mitigation       for   the     impacts           on     the   Progress       Energy 17 site.
3 Mrs. Ellen Avery-Smith.
18                   He   also       owns           a       number     of       parcels 19 surrounding the property.                       And so,         he was           during 20 the State of Florida's review process under the Siting 21 Act,       he did   not   participate               in   commenting       on       the 22 wetland mi tiga tion plan produced by                             Progress       Energy 23 because he was speaking to them about purchasing his 24 property.       He thought everything was fine.
4 MS. SMITH:
25                   And   then       Progress             Energy,     in   April           of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
Not related, surprisingly.
5 Just to give you a
little bit of 6
background about Mr.
Smith's comments.
He and his 7
family when you look at the environmental 8
mitigation report that was produced by Progress Energy 9
in January of 2009, Mr. Smith's property is referred 10 to as the Robinson property, or the Robinson Estate.
11 And so, when he was referring to his 12 discussions with Progress Energy, he was talking to 13 them over a period of two years about purchasing that 14 5,700 acre tract which lies immediately to the east of 15 the Progress Energy site, as part of the wetland 16 mitigation for the impacts on the Progress Energy 17 site.
18 He also owns a
number of parcels 19 surrounding the property.
And so, he was during 20 the State of Florida's review process under the Siting 21
: Act, he did not participate in commenting on the 22 wetland mi tiga tion plan produced by Progress Energy 23 because he was speaking to them about purchasing his 24 property.
He thought everything was fine.
25 (202) 23H433 And then Progress
: Energy, in April of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


82 1 2010,         changed   that       proposed             mitigation     plan           that 2 eliminated the         Robinson           Tract         from consideration as 3 wetland mitigation for the impacts on the site.
82 1
4                   And     so,     that's           why     we're   here       today, 5 because this is our only venue to voice his concerns 6 about potential environmental and other impacts to his 7 property.
: 2010, changed that proposed mitigation plan that 2
8                     So,   with that in mind,                   I'd like to start 9 wi th       talking   about     your         Draft         Environmental       Impact 10 Statement, starting with the wetland mitigation.
eliminated the Robinson Tract from consideration as 3
11                   As   I   said,       the       original Mitigation Plan 12 dated January 2009, Progress Energy proposed 764 acres 13 of     wetland     impacts,       which         resulted       at a   functional 14 loss under UMAM, or the Uniform Mitigation Assessment 15 Methodology,         which     is     the       recognized method             in       the 16 State of Florida under law, of 411 units.
wetland mitigation for the impacts on the site.
17                     The   revised         Plan,         which   is   dated April 18 23rd,       2010 -- I have a copy here.                       In that,     Progress 19 Energy proposed 722 acres of wetland impacts, with the 20 resulting functional loss of 289 UMAM units.                               So, that 21 was       a   reduction     of     41       acres         of proposed       wetland 22 impacts,         which is a 5.5 percent reduction.                           But the 23 proposed mitigation went                     down 121. 7 units,           which is 24 almost 30 percent.
4 And so, that's why we're here
25                     So, we're questioning the UMAM scores that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
: today, 5
because this is our only venue to voice his concerns 6
about potential environmental and other impacts to his 7
property.
8 So, with that in mind, I'd like to start 9
wi th talking about your Draft Environmental Impact 10 Statement, starting with the wetland mitigation.
11 As I said, the original Mitigation Plan 12 dated January 2009, Progress Energy proposed 764 acres 13 of wetland impacts, which resulted at a functional 14 loss under UMAM, or the Uniform Mitigation Assessment 15 Methodology, which is the recognized method in the 16 State of Florida under law, of 411 units.
17 The revised Plan, which is dated April 18 23rd, 2010 --
I have a copy here.
In that, Progress 19 Energy proposed 722 acres of wetland impacts, with the 20 resulting functional loss of 289 UMAM units.
So, that 21 was a
reduction of 41 acres of proposed wetland 22 impacts, which is a 5.5 percent reduction.
But the 23 proposed mitigation went down 121. 7 units, which is 24 almost 30 percent.
25 (202) 23H433 So, we're questioning the UMAM scores that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


83 1 are presented in the April 23rd, 2010 Mitigation Plan.
83 1
2 I will not bore you with the details of that.                                       But, I 3 think         that   scientific         judgment             is   required       by       the 4 rule, by Florida law, and we ask that you use that.
are presented in the April 23rd, 2010 Mitigation Plan.
5                     Also,     point           you       to     page   (ii)     of       the 6 Revised Mitigation Plan.                       And it does say it focuses 7 on     enhancing       and   restoring             ecological         functions             to 8 large areas of wetland habitat and supporting uplands.
2 I will not bore you with the details of that.
9 It provides           landscape         level         ecosystem benefits                 that 10 exceed         the     value     that         would         accrue     if     similar 11 mitigation activities were to occur on a piecemeal, 12 localized basis,             without considering the values that 13 come         from   improving         large           blocks       of   habitat           and 14 habitat corridors.
But, I 3
15                     And we question whether this Plan actually 16 achieves that.             Because if you look at page 1-11 of 17 that Plan,         it specifically calls for mitigation to be 18 provided in the Goethe state Forest.                                 The Goethe state 19 Forest is publicly owned land.                               And,   so,   we question 20 why the state of Florida and why the u.s. Army Corps 21 of     Engineers       would       allow         Progress         Energy     to         swap 22 mitigation         out   to   provide           that     mitigation       on       lands 23 that         are     already         publicly-owned                 and     therefore 24 protected,             instead           of         buying         privately-owned 25 properties and protecting larger areas of watershed, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
think that scientific judgment is required by the 4
rule, by Florida law, and we ask that you use that.
5
: Also, point you to page (ii) of the 6
Revised Mitigation Plan.
And it does say it focuses 7
on enhancing and restoring ecological functions to 8
large areas of wetland habitat and supporting uplands.
9 It provides landscape level ecosystem benefits that 10 exceed the value that would accrue if similar 11 mitigation activities were to occur on a piecemeal, 12 localized basis, without considering the values that 13 come from improving large blocks of habitat and 14 habitat corridors.
15 And we question whether this Plan actually 16 achieves that.
Because if you look at page 1-11 of 17 that Plan, it specifically calls for mitigation to be 18 provided in the Goethe state Forest.
The Goethe state 19 Forest is publicly owned land.
And, so, we question 20 why the state of Florida and why the u.s. Army Corps 21 of Engineers would allow Progress Energy to swap 22 mitigation out to provide that mitigation on lands 23 that are already publicly-owned and therefore 24 protected, instead of buying privately-owned 25 properties and protecting larger areas of watershed, (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


84 1 larger ecosystems, larger wildlife habitat.
84 1
2                   Also,     the       proposed           on-site     mitigation, 3 which has been heavily increased,                             talks about a UMAM 4 lift of 180.6 wetland UMAM lift units and 145 upland 5 UMAM       lift units.         And       so,       I'm     curious   as     to       why 6 uplands are being counted, because I don't see that --
larger ecosystems, larger wildlife habitat.
7 it         says     rehabilitation                 and       enhancement             and 8 preservation as the action.                         I don't see any wetland 9 creation that's listed.                     And so,         again,   why are you 10 giving credit under UMAM for upland rehabilitation and 11 not wetland creation in those areas?
2
12                   We would just,               in summary,       invite you to 13 take a closer look at this,                         this report,       because it 14 does       not   provide     adequate mitigation                   to   offset           the 15 impacts.         And it certainly is not equal to some of the 16 other         wetland     mi tiga tion             alternatives       that         were 17 provided in the January of 2009 report.
: Also, the proposed on-site mitigation, 3
18                   Going     onto           other         ecological     impacts.
which has been heavily increased, talks about a UMAM 4
19 Someone mentioned earlier the effects of the salt from 20 this       being   dispersed         from         the     plant.       And           I'm 21 speaking,       when   I   talk about these,                   specifically the 22 impacts on the Robinson tract property,                               which is the 23 largest, most heavily impacted property out there.
lift of 180.6 wetland UMAM lift units and 145 upland 5
24                   I   also     want         to     question     the   wildlife 25 corridors.          If you've got preservation on the -- or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
UMAM lift units.
And so, I'm curious as to why 6
uplands are being counted, because I don't see that --
7 it says rehabilitation and enhancement and 8
preservation as the action.
I don't see any wetland 9
creation that's listed.
And so, again, why are you 10 giving credit under UMAM for upland rehabilitation and 11 not wetland creation in those areas?
12 We would just, in summary, invite you to 13 take a closer look at this, this report, because it 14 does not provide adequate mitigation to offset the 15 impacts.
And it certainly is not equal to some of the 16 other wetland mi tiga tion alternatives that were 17 provided in the January of 2009 report.
18 Going onto other ecological impacts.
19 Someone mentioned earlier the effects of the salt from 20 this being dispersed from the plant.
And I'm 21 speaking, when I talk about these, specifically the 22 impacts on the Robinson tract property, which is the 23 largest, most heavily impacted property out there.
24 25 corridors.
(202) 23H433 I
also want to question the wildlife If you've got preservation on the --
or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


85 1 wetland mitigation on                   the       Progress       Energy site             and 2 then in the Goethe state Forest,                               the Robinson Estate 3 property         lies   in   between           those       two.     So,   Progress 4 Energy         is   relying     on     the       Robinson         Estate     property 5 remaining           undeveloped           in       order       to   provide           that 6 wildlife corridor.                 The       same could be             said for           the 7 flow of water and similar ecological attributes.
85 1
8                     Also,   we     question               whether     or   not         the 9 drainage pattern would be the same.                                 Pre-development 10 runoff         should   be   equal         to     post-development             runoff.
wetland mitigation on the Progress Energy site and 2
11 And also the groundwater usage,                               will the pumping of 12 water         on   the   Progress           Energy           site   draw   down           the 13 wetlands         and have     other         negative           attributes       on       the 14 Robinson Estate property?
then in the Goethe state Forest, the Robinson Estate 3
15                     Going to safety concerns.                         Again,     as Mr.
property lies in between those two.
16 Smith said, there is a hunting camp that hunts on the 17 Robinson Estate property.                       We hope that that will not 18 -- that activity will not be preempted or in any way 19 minimized by the acti vi ties,                       especially the shooting 20 range, on the Progress Energy site that's proposed.
So, Progress 4
21                     Also,   the storage of the spent fuel will 22 occur close to the Robinson Estate property.                                     We hope 23 that         you   will   take       those         kinds       of   issues           into 24 consideration.
Energy is relying on the Robinson Estate property 5
25                     The   Robinson           family         also   owns   28       acres NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
remaining undeveloped in order to provide that 6
wildlife corridor.
The same could be said for the 7
flow of water and similar ecological attributes.
8
: Also, we question whether or not the 9
drainage pattern would be the same.
Pre-development 10 runoff should be equal to post-development runoff.
11 And also the groundwater usage, will the pumping of 12 water on the Progress Energy site draw down the 13 wetlands and have other negative attributes on the 14 Robinson Estate property?
15 Going to safety concerns.
Again, as Mr.
16 Smith said, there is a hunting camp that hunts on the 17 Robinson Estate property.
We hope that that will not 18  
-- that activity will not be preempted or in any way 19 minimized by the acti vi ties, especially the shooting 20 range, on the Progress Energy site that's proposed.
21 Also, the storage of the spent fuel will 22 occur close to the Robinson Estate property.
We hope 23 that you will take those kinds of issues into 24 consideration.
25 The Robinson family also owns 28 acres (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


86 1 near the heavy-haul route.                       We would like you to take 2 into consideration what revisions Progress Energy is 3 making to ensure adequate legal access to Highway 40 4 from that property.
86 1
5                     What   safety           concerns         are   going     to       be 6 impacted or how is that property going to be impacted 7 by the use of that heavy-haul route?
near the heavy-haul route.
8                   And again,           when -- and the main concern 9 also is,       is there a diminution in value of either the 10 5,700       acres   or   this     28       acres         by Progress   Energy's 11 location next door and its,                         what will       amount       to     an 12 assumption that the Robinson Estate property will not 13 be developed, and hopefully that will not occur.
We would like you to take 2
14                   MR. CAMERON:             And Ellen, I'm going to have 15 to ask you to           finish up.                 And I     hope that     you can 16 memorialize this in writing, also.
into consideration what revisions Progress Energy is 3
17                   MS. SMITH:         We will do that.               So,     I just 18 ask you to wrap up -- you presented a slide about how 19 impacts are quantified during your presentation.                                       And 20 I would argue today that the impacts to the Robinson 21 Estate       property     from     this         project       are   going       to     be 22 large.         And   we're     talking           about     environmental           and 23 safety,       as   I've   outlined.               We     will   give   you         some 24 additional         comments       in     writing.             And   we appreciate 25 your protecting Mr. Smith and his family's value.
making to ensure adequate legal access to Highway 40 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
from that property.
5 What safety concerns are going to be 6
impacted or how is that property going to be impacted 7
by the use of that heavy-haul route?
8 And again, when --
and the main concern 9
also is, is there a diminution in value of either the 10 5,700 acres or this 28 acres by Progress Energy's 11 location next door and its, what will amount to an 12 assumption that the Robinson Estate property will not 13 be developed, and hopefully that will not occur.
14 MR. CAMERON:
And Ellen, I'm going to have 15 to ask you to finish up.
And I hope that you can 16 memorialize this in writing, also.
17 MS. SMITH:
We will do that.
So, I just 18 ask you to wrap up --
you presented a slide about how 19 impacts are quantified during your presentation.
And 20 I would argue today that the impacts to the Robinson 21 Estate property from this project are going to be 22 large.
And we're talking about environmental and 23
: safety, as I've outlined.
We will give you some 24 additional comments in writing.
And we appreciate 25 your protecting Mr. Smith and his family's value.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


87 1                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Thank you.     Thank you 2 both.         Mary Olson?         And then we're                 going to         go     to 3 Barbara, Barbara Seiling.                     And Mike Seymour.               This is 4 Mary Olson.
87 1
5                   MS. OLSON:         My name is Mary Olson.                           I'm 6 the       Director   of   the       Southeast             Office     of     Nuclear 7 Information       and     Resource               Service.           I     live           in 8 Asheville,       North     Carolina.                 But     I'm   here     tonight 9 because we have members here in the Levy and Citrus 10 Counties,       and we also have status as a party to this 11 licensing process.
MR. CAMERON:
12                   Combined with the Green Party of Florida 13 and       the Ecology     Party       of       Florida,       we submitted             a 14 peti tion to intervene two years                           ago,   just about,             at 15 the time that the opportunity to join in the licensing 16 process was made available by the federal regulator.
Okay.
17 We offered 12 key issues and of the 12 issues,                                   3 were 18 admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Thank you.
19                   We've heard a lot about water tonight and 20 I'm     pleased to   hear       the       level       of   concern     in       this 21 community about the water.                       That is one of the large, 22 substantial         issues         that           we       have     pending,             on 23 hydroecology, both surface water and groundwater.
Thank you 2
24                   I want to mention a couple of quick things 25 tonight.       The other two contentions are on waste.                                 And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
both.
Mary Olson?
And then we're going to go to 3
Barbara, Barbara Seiling.
And Mike Seymour.
This is 4
Mary Olson.
5 MS.
OLSON:
My name is Mary Olson.
I'm 6
the Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear 7
Information and Resource Service.
I live in 8
Asheville, North Carolina.
But I'm here tonight 9
because we have members here in the Levy and Citrus 10 Counties, and we also have status as a party to this 11 licensing process.
12 Combined with the Green Party of Florida 13 and the Ecology Party of Florida, we submitted a 14 peti tion to intervene two years ago, just about, at 15 the time that the opportunity to join in the licensing 16 process was made available by the federal regulator.
17 We offered 12 key issues and of the 12 issues, 3 were 18 admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
19 We've heard a lot about water tonight and 20 I'm pleased to hear the level of concern in this 21 community about the water.
That is one of the large, 22 substantial issues that we have
: pending, on 23 hydroecology, both surface water and groundwater.
24 I want to mention a couple of quick things 25 tonight.
(202) 23H433 The other two contentions are on waste.
And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


88 1   the       Nuclear   Regulatory               Commission         will       receive 2   comments in writing from us on these areas.                                 I'm not 3   going to say much about them tonight.
88 1
4                     But I do want to indicate that -- I think 5   it's page 15, where the water resources are discussed 6   in the handout.         The regulator finds that the impacts 7   would be       small. And our contention states                       that we 8   believe       the impacts       will       be     large.       And so,       we're 9   still in the process,             and the hearing is not due for 10   another year, but in the process of building the case l I o n these issues.
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will receive 2
12                     And I'd like to make myself available this 13   evening or after this evening.                             I'll give anyone my 14   contact information.             I'm more than happy to speak to 15   anybody here about what it means to be an intervener 16   and what this process is about.                             And I encourage you 17   to ask questions of everybody.
comments in writing from us on these areas.
18                     Okay.       That         said,         I   do want   to       say       a 19   couple of things about waste, because I think that the 20   earlier comments were spot on.                           There is no place to 21   send any of the waste that would be generated at this 22   proposed site at this time.
I'm not 3
23                     And in fact, in the last month the Nuclear 24   Regulatory Commission has issued a new ruling saying 25   that       their basis of         confidence               for approving       a     new NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
going to say much about them tonight.
4 But I do want to indicate that --
I think 5
it's page 15, where the water resources are discussed 6
in the handout.
The regulator finds that the impacts 7
would be small.
And our contention states that we 8
believe the impacts will be large.
And so, we're 9
still in the process, and the hearing is not due for 10 another year, but in the process of building the case lIon these issues.
12 And I'd like to make myself available this 13 evening or after this evening.
I'll give anyone my 14 contact information.
I'm more than happy to speak to 15 anybody here about what it means to be an intervener 16 and what this process is about.
And I encourage you 17 to ask questions of everybody.
18 Okay.
That said, I
do want to say a 19 couple of things about waste, because I think that the 20 earlier comments were spot on.
There is no place to 21 send any of the waste that would be generated at this 22 proposed site at this time.
23 And in fact, in the last month the Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission has issued a new ruling saying 25 that their basis of confidence for approving a new (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


89 1 reactor,         whether     it     be     in       Levy     County     or   anywhere 2 else,       is   that   the     high         level       nuclear     waste,           the 3 irradiated fuel           rods       that were described to us this 4 evening -- and just so you know,                                 technical analysis 5 says       that     on   average         they're           6 million       times         more 6 radioacti ve         than the       uranium that's put                   in,     and it 7 does give a lethal exposure if unshielded and in less 8 than 30 seconds.             So, this is a very tricky material.
89 1
9                     I'm   not       saying           that     Progress     Energy or 10 anyone else is handling it in an unsafe manner,                                               but 11 the fact is that the regulator has determined that the 12 basis for issuing a license to make more of this stuff 13 is that it can be stored where it is generated for up 14 to 120 years.
: reactor, whether it be in Levy County or anywhere 2
15                     So,   this       community has               a   right       to       know 16 that       (a)   I cannot bring this issue in the licensing 17 process         as   an intervener               because       it   is   considered 18 generic and so,             therefore,             not subject to litigation 19 at     the   level     of   the     license,             and   (b)   you     haven't 20 really been given disclosure,                             have you,       that you're 21 signing up for 120 levels of high level nuclear waste 22 storage, unless a new option becomes available.
: else, is that the high level nuclear waste, the 3
23                     So, I want to use my time tonight to talk 24 about       the     things     I     can't           bring       in   intervention, 25 because this is a different opportunity to comment.
irradiated fuel rods that were described to us this 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701                 WWN. nealrgross,com
evening --
and just so you know, technical analysis 5
says that on average they're 6 million times more 6
radioacti ve than the uranium that's put in, and it 7
does give a lethal exposure if unshielded and in less 8
than 30 seconds.
So, this is a very tricky material.
9 I'm not saying that Progress Energy or 10 anyone else is handling it in an unsafe manner, but 11 the fact is that the regulator has determined that the 12 basis for issuing a license to make more of this stuff 13 is that it can be stored where it is generated for up 14 to 120 years.
15 So, this community has a right to know 16 that (a)
I cannot bring this issue in the licensing 17 process as an intervener because it is considered 18 generic and so, therefore, not subject to litigation 19 at the level of the license, and (b) you haven't 20 really been given disclosure, have you, that you're 21 signing up for 120 levels of high level nuclear waste 22 storage, unless a new option becomes available.
23 So, I want to use my time tonight to talk 24 about the things I
can't bring in intervention, 25 because this is a different opportunity to comment.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


90 1                   So, the so-called low level waste we are 2 litigating       on.     And     I'll         simply     that,   again,           the 3 comment was spot on.               The communities in this country 4 are standing up and saying no,                             we don't want to be 5 dumps.         The dumps     that       are       there have been closed, 6 except       for   there very         few       exceptions.       utah       is     an 7 exception.
90 1
8                   There are dumps that are taking waste from 9 specific       states,   like       South Carolina's             still     taking 10 from Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina only.
So, the so-called low level waste we are 2
litigating on.
And I'll simply that,
: again, the 3
comment was spot on.
The communities in this country 4
are standing up and saying no, we don't want to be 5
dumps.
The dumps that are there have been closed, 6
except for there very few exceptions.
utah is an 7
exception.
8 There are dumps that are taking waste from 9
specific states, like South Carolina's still taking 10 from Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina only.
11 But that's what's forcing every reactor in the united 12 States to either store or ship to a temporary location 13 their so-called low level waste.
11 But that's what's forcing every reactor in the united 12 States to either store or ship to a temporary location 13 their so-called low level waste.
14                   And the same would be true of Levy after 15 two years of storage that's in the AP-IOOO design,                                       if 16 it's the average level of production of waste,                                   which 17 it mayor may not be in the first year -- second year.
14 And the same would be true of Levy after 15 two years of storage that's in the AP-IOOO design, if 16 it's the average level of production of waste, which 17 it mayor may not be in the first year -- second year.
18                   So, the whole issue of waste is very rife 19 for       our   consideration,             for       discussion,     for       local 20 action,       because this is a community that has a right 21 to say whether it is going to be the next so-called 22 low level waste dump               for       Progress Energy,         if it is 23 going to be the next so-called high level waste dump 24 for       Progress   Energy.               Those         need to   be     really 25 considered at the local level.
18 So, the whole issue of waste is very rife 19 for our consideration, for discussion, for local 20 action, because this is a community that has a right 21 to say whether it is going to be the next so-called 22 low level waste dump for Progress Energy, if it is 23 going to be the next so-called high level waste dump 24 for Progress Energy.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Those need to be really 25 considered at the local level.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


91 1                     Okay.       I'm about done with what I'm going 2 to say.         As   I   said,       we will,             of course,   be giving 3 written comments pertaining to the Draft Environmental 4 Impact statement.
91 1
5                     One last -- two quick comments that I want 6 to     tag on.       One has           to     do     with     jobs. I've been 7 spending a lot of time on the phone with people all 8 over the country for the last 20 years,                               because I've 9 had my job for 2C years.                     We work with a lot of people 10 in reactor communities.                       Our membership is in all 50 11 states,       but a disproportionate number of members                                   in 12 reactor communities.
Okay.
13                   And one thing I hear over and over again 14 was     that   the   job thing           just didn't work out.                       And 15 there's a woman in Texas who's actually figured out 16 why.         The reason is, is because most of the long term 17 jobs that would come with these new reactors won't be 18 hired locally, maybe a few.                         But most of those workers 19 for       the   long     term     positions,               not   the construction 20 jobs,       but the other ones,                 will be hired from out of 21 the area.
I'm about done with what I'm going 2
22                   But they're not monks.                       They're not single 23 individuals.             They       will         come       with   a spouse.           And 24 because they're technically skilled positions, they --
to say.
25 many of them will be mature individuals with teenage NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701           WWN. nealrgross,com
As I said, we will, of course, be giving 3
written comments pertaining to the Draft Environmental 4
Impact statement.
5 One last -- two quick comments that I want 6
to tag on.
One has to do with jobs.
I've been 7
spending a lot of time on the phone with people all 8
over the country for the last 20 years, because I've 9
had my job for 2C years.
We work with a lot of people 10 in reactor communities.
Our membership is in all 50 11 states, but a disproportionate number of members in 12 reactor communities.
13 And one thing I hear over and over again 14 was that the job thing just didn't work out.
And 15 there's a woman in Texas who's actually figured out 16 why.
The reason is, is because most of the long term 17 jobs that would come with these new reactors won't be 18 hired locally, maybe a few.
But most of those workers 19 for the long term positions, not the construction 20 jobs, but the other ones, will be hired from out of 21 the area.
22 But they're not monks.
They're not single 23 individuals.
They will come with a
spouse.
And 24 because they're technically skilled positions, they --
25 many of them will be mature individuals with teenage (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


92 1 and older children.                 And so you get one worker,                           but 2 you get two to three potentially -- at least one, two, 3 or       three     work   seekers.               And       so,   incredibly,           the 4 unemployment rate goes up in new reactor communities, 5 not down.
92 1
6                     So,   I   wanted           to     bring     that out.             And 7 finally,       I'm not allowed to attack                     NRC regulations in 8 the       process     of   intervening               on     a license.         And         I 9 understand that because,                   you know,           we're there to be 10 sure the process is done right.                           And since the process 11 is based on the regulations,                       okay, we're not going to 12 attack them in that process.
and older children.
13                     But I'm here to tell you that page 17 of 14 the handout is entirely misleading.                               This little pie 15 chart about radiation.                 Just imagine for a moment that 16 there's         104   operating         nuclear             reactors,   and         then 17 there's about a dozen nuclear weapon sites,                               and then 18 there's all their support industries,                               the laundries, 19 and         the     waste     processors,                   and     there's           some 20 incinerators.           But probably there's on the order of, 21 you know,         a few hundred nuclear facilities.                       And yet, 22 they're showing up at a tenth of a percent.                                   That is 23 one one-thousandth of all the radiation.
And so you get one worker, but 2
24                     That means         that       the     averaging   is pretty 25 amazing when they give these numbers,                               because people NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
you get two to three potentially -- at least one, two, 3
or three work seekers.
And so, incredibly, the 4
unemployment rate goes up in new reactor communities, 5
not down.
6 So, I
wanted to bring that out.
And 7
finally, I'm not allowed to attack NRC regulations in 8
the process of intervening on a
license.
And I
9 understand that because, you know, we're there to be 10 sure the process is done right.
And since the process 11 is based on the regulations, okay, we're not going to 12 attack them in that process.
13 But I'm here to tell you that page 17 of 14 the handout is entirely misleading.
This little pie 15 chart about radiation.
Just imagine for a moment that 16 there's 104 operating nuclear
: reactors, and then 17 there's about a dozen nuclear weapon sites, and then 18 there's all their support industries, the laundries, 19 and the waste processors, and there's some 20 incinerators.
But probably there's on the order of, 21 you know, a few hundred nuclear facilities.
And yet, 22 they're showing up at a tenth of a percent.
That is 23 one one-thousandth of all the radiation.
24 That means that the averaging is pretty 25 amazing when they give these numbers, because people (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


93 1 who       live   in   these         areas           are       getting     a     lot         of 2 radiation,       okay?     Because the radiation standards are 3 so permissive.
93 1
4                   When I was a child, we argued about 1 in a 5 million people, was that acceptable for an industrial 6 operation to kill one in a million?                                 Then we got to 7 Superfunding.           It was         1     in     100,000,       and   in     really 8 complex       clean-up     situations,                 it     goes   up   to       1     in 9 10,000.
who live in these areas are getting a
10                   NRC     admitted             in     1990     that   their           own 11 standards           and     I'm     taking           the     nicest,   prettiest, 12 little, tightest number,                   100 millirem a year,                 results 13 in 3.5 fatal cancers per 1,000 people exposed.                                         What 14 does that mean?           It means, if we're talking about men, 15 that there's there 1 in every 286 people.                                 Not 1 in a 16 million,       not 1     in     10,000.               But     one   in   every         286 17 allowable       deaths     from       the       radiation       standards           that 18 this industry is regulated under.                             I can't attack that 19 in intervention, but I can disclose it to you.
lot of 2
20                   And   then,       finally,             I   can   tell   you         that 21 women are more vulnerable.                       Why?       Because we have more 22 vulnerable tissue, because our reproductive organs are 23 larger.       We get one and a half times the rate.                                     That 24 goes       down   to   1   in     191.           You       start   talking       about 25 children and unborn children and the numbers are like NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
radiation, okay?
Because the radiation standards are 3
so permissive.
4 When I was a child, we argued about 1 in a 5
million people, was that acceptable for an industrial 6
operation to kill one in a million?
Then we got to 7
Superfunding.
It was 1 in 100,000, and in really 8
complex clean-up situations, it goes up to 1
in 9
10,000.
10 NRC admitted in 1990 that their own 11 standards and I'm taking the nicest, prettiest, 12 little, tightest number, 100 millirem a year, results 13 in 3.5 fatal cancers per 1,000 people exposed.
What 14 does that mean?
It means, if we're talking about men, 15 that there's there 1 in every 286 people.
Not 1 in a 16
: million, not 1 in 10,000.
But one in every 286 17 allowable deaths from the radiation standards that 18 this industry is regulated under.
I can't attack that 19 in intervention, but I can disclose it to you.
20 And then,
: finally, I
can tell you that 21 women are more vulnerable.
Why?
Because we have more 22 vulnerable tissue, because our reproductive organs are 23 larger.
We get one and a half times the rate.
That 24 goes down to 1 in 191.
You start talking about 25 children and unborn children and the numbers are like (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


94 1 1 in 10.
94 1
2                   And this       is     perfect performance with no 3 accidents.         This is what our federal regulator allows.
1 in 10.
4                   So, for those who are concerned about the 5 local impacts,         you have a right to know this.                           And I 6 traveled down here to say this,                           and I   thank you for 7 listening.
2 And this is perfect performance with no 3
8                   MR. CAMERON:             Thank you.
accidents.
9                   MS. OLSON:         I invite you again to get my 10 contact       information if         you want             to know more         about 11 intervention.
This is what our federal regulator allows.
12                   MR. CAMERON:                 Thank     you,   Mary.             And 13 Barbara?         And then Mike Seymour and Emily Casey.                               And 14 then Mr. Hopkins.           This is Barbara Seiling.
4 So, for those who are concerned about the 5
15                   MS. SIELING:             Well, my t-shirt says what I 16 feel about most corporations.                           Not -- the government 17 isn't real high above that.
local impacts, you have a right to know this.
18                   After all       these         questions       I asked about 19 this,       not understanding and they give me this book.
And I 6
20 And the only difference between the Levy County and 21 the Crystal River -- and I did have questions about 22 that I'll ask later -- is that transportation to Levy 23 County would be small to moderate, whereas it would be 24 small to Crystal River.                   So,     I still don't think I've 25 gotten my answer.           That was something added on.
traveled down here to say this, and I thank you for 7
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
listening.
8 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you.
9 MS.
OLSON:
I invite you again to get my 10 contact information if you want to know more about 11 intervention.
12 MR.
CAMERON:
Thank
: you, Mary.
And 13 Barbara?
And then Mike Seymour and Emily Casey.
And 14 then Mr. Hopkins.
This is Barbara Seiling.
15 MS. SIELING:
Well, my t-shirt says what I 16 feel about most corporations.
Not -- the government 17 isn't real high above that.
18 After all these questions I asked about 19 this, not understanding and they give me this book.
20 And the only difference between the Levy County and 21 the Crystal River --
and I did have questions about 22 that I'll ask later -- is that transportation to Levy 23 County would be small to moderate, whereas it would be 24 small to Crystal River.
So, I still don't think I've 25 gotten my answer.
That was something added on.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


95 1                   And I was also curious about how they will 2 be     transporting     the     uranium and how many houses                             it 3 will go by to get there.
95 1
4                   with water being                   the most     important           yet 5 limi ted resource,           I   am appalled at the lackadaisical 6 atti tude     I   see towards           these wetlands.               Florida has 7 suffered from water shortages for years, even decades.
And I was also curious about how they will 2
8 And now the destruction of our needed wetlands and the 9 effect on our aquifers is unacceptable.
be transporting the uranium and how many houses it 3
10                   I   also understand -- and I                       understand a 11 little bit more now since the last couple of people 12 talked,     that part of Goethe state Park is going to be 13 involved       in   the   construction or                   at   least   the water 14 flow.
will go by to get there.
15                   I live in Alachua County, barely, and part 16 of Goethe state Park is up there,                               too. And,       so,       I 17 went online when I first moved up there and found that 18 Goethe state Park and most of Goethe state Park has 19 foxtail         squirrels,           gopher             turtles,     and         other 20 endangered or protected animals in the park.                                 And I'm 21 wondering         if             not       that         I   wouldn't     trust             a 22 corporation and that I would ever think they would do 23 something       like   make         sure         they     are   all   eliminated 24 before the actual other people go out and check it.
4 with water being the most important yet 5
25 But with gopher turtles,                     I     didn't think there was a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
limi ted resource, I am appalled at the lackadaisical 6
atti tude I see towards these wetlands.
Florida has 7
suffered from water shortages for years, even decades.
8 And now the destruction of our needed wetlands and the 9
effect on our aquifers is unacceptable.
10 I also understand --
and I understand a 11 little bit more now since the last couple of people 12 talked, that part of Goethe state Park is going to be 13 involved in the construction or at least the water 14 flow.
15 I live in Alachua County, barely, and part 16 of Goethe state Park is up there, too.
: And, so, I
17 went online when I first moved up there and found that 18 Goethe state Park and most of Goethe state Park has 19 foxtail squirrels, gopher
: turtles, and other 20 endangered or protected animals in the park.
And I'm 21 wondering if not that I
wouldn't trust a
22 corporation and that I would ever think they would do 23 something like make sure they are all eliminated 24 before the actual other people go out and check it.
25 But with gopher turtles, I didn't think there was a (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


96 1 way       around them,     so     they         would       have to   have         been 2 removed.
96 1
3                   I   talked to a gentleman from Progressive 4 Energy earlier and I                     and a woman,           and instead of 5 spending           they   tal k     about         al ternati ve   energy           and 6 instead       of spending       all       their         money on   building             a 7 nuclear power plant, why don't they build it in their 8 backyard?       Number one.           But if they spent that money 9 towards helping everybody get alternative energy like 10 solar or wind power that they are now supplying energy 11 to,       maybe there     wouldn't             be     a   need for   a     second 12 nuclear site.
way around them, so they would have to have been 2
13                   I'm originally from st. Petersburg.                             We've 14 always had water problems.                         And it really scares me 15 that at times -- at the end of the -- at the lower end 16 of the beaches,         south end of the beaches,                       you could 17 turn on a water spigot,                     there would be hopefully a 18 drop or two coming out.                   And now you're talking about 19 covering up a way to redo our                               refill our aquifers.
removed.
20                   I live in an area called Watermelon Pond.
3 I talked to a gentleman from Progressive 4
21 When I went to put in an ag well -- for anyone who 22 doesn't know what that is, it's a well so you can feed 23         have   water   for     your       animals             cows,   horses,           et 24 cetera.       EPA calls me because,                     guess what?       Part of 25 the property goes into -- actually has contact with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Energy earlier and I and a woman, and instead of 5
spending they tal k about al ternati ve energy and 6
instead of spending all their money on building a 7
nuclear power plant, why don't they build it in their 8
backyard?
Number one.
But if they spent that money 9
towards helping everybody get alternative energy like 10 solar or wind power that they are now supplying energy 11 to, maybe there wouldn't be a
need for a
second 12 nuclear site.
13 I'm originally from st. Petersburg.
We've 14 always had water problems.
And it really scares me 15 that at times -- at the end of the -- at the lower end 16 of the beaches, south end of the beaches, you could 17 turn on a water spigot, there would be hopefully a 18 drop or two coming out.
And now you're talking about 19 covering up a way to redo our refill our aquifers.
20 I live in an area called Watermelon Pond.
21 When I went to put in an ag well --
for anyone who 22 doesn't know what that is, it's a well so you can feed 23 have water for your animals
: cows, horses, et 24 cetera.
EPA calls me because, guess what?
Part of 25 the property goes into --
actually has contact with (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


97 1 watermelon Pond.
97 1
2                   So, the     EPA's         calling me because,                 being 3 part of SWFWMD and it's all State property,                             they want 4 to come out and examine to see where I'm going to put 5 my well         not my septic, my well -- to make sure it's 6 not       going   to   impact       the       property.         Of   course,             I 7 already had a         well,       so     I     didn't           they said,             oh, 8 never mind then.
watermelon Pond.
9                   But   here       we     are       trying     to       and           I'm 10 talking about a well.                 And EPA's in my -- coming to 11 me.         I had to make         sure my septic tank wasn't                           too 12 close.       I had to make sure my property wasn't too --
2 So, the EPA's calling me because, being 3
part of SWFWMD and it's all State property, they want 4
to come out and examine to see where I'm going to put 5
my well not my septic, my well -- to make sure it's 6
not going to impact the property.
Of
: course, I
7 already had a well, so I didn't they said, oh, 8
never mind then.
9 But here we are trying to and I'm 10 talking about a well.
And EPA's in my --
coming to 11 me.
I had to make sure my septic tank wasn't too 12 close.
I had to make sure my property wasn't too --
13 my house wasn't too close.
13 my house wasn't too close.
14                   And here we are talking about putting a 15 potential catastrophe waiting to happen on our -- on 16 our       water       our     whole           water       flow   and   the         most 17 important       resource that we have.                         And I   just don't 18 understand.
14 And here we are talking about putting a 15 potential catastrophe waiting to happen on our --
19                   And then,       of course,             I figured I'd better 20 say this, otherwise,             you would have cut me off in the 21 beginning.       And as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, 22 I'm just wondering,           is this the same group of people 23 who designed the levies in New Orleans,                               Rodman Dam, 24 and       rerouted   the   rivers           going       into   the Everglades 25 that's caused a lot of the problems down there?                                       Just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
on 16 our water our whole water flow and the most 17 important resource that we have.
And I just don't 18 understand.
19 And then, of course, I figured I'd better 20 say this, otherwise, you would have cut me off in the 21 beginning.
And as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, 22 I'm just wondering, is this the same group of people 23 who designed the levies in New Orleans, Rodman Dam, 24 and rerouted the rivers going into the Everglades 25 that's caused a lot of the problems down there?
Just (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


98 1 a thought.
98 1
2                 I think that pretty well covers everything 3 I have to say.
a thought.
4                 MR. CAMERON:               Okay.       Thank   you.         Mike 5 Seymour and then Emily Casey and Norman Hopkins.
2 I think that pretty well covers everything 3
6                 MR. SEYMOUR:             My name's Mike Seymour and 7 I'm a general contractor.                 I live in the Crystal River 8 area.       I've   been     working             with     Mr. Smith     on       his 9 property for probably about two, two and a half years.
I have to say.
10 At one point in time,               we were going to develop the 11 property ourselves into higher-end residential homes 12 and try to do a pretty unique type community there.
4 MR.
13                 What   I'd like to start out with telling 14 you guys about, if I can, is our first introduction to 15 Progress Energy.         At     first,         we fought     them because, 16 like the young lady there,                     we wanted to develop our 17 land, Mr. Smith's land.                 I had put a lot of time and 18 my       own money   into       the       plans       for   that   piece           of 19 property.
CAMERON:
20                 And we came here to the Plantation and we 21 heard Progress Energy giving their                           speech.       And we 22 brought in our environmentalist; Ellen spoke at that 23 particular meeting.             And we were -- we were upset.
Okay.
Thank you.
Mike 5
Seymour and then Emily Casey and Norman Hopkins.
6 MR.
SEYMOUR:
My name's Mike Seymour and 7
I'm a general contractor.
I live in the Crystal River 8
area.
I've been working with Mr.
Smith on his 9
property for probably about two, two and a half years.
10 At one point in time, we were going to develop the 11 property ourselves into higher-end residential homes 12 and try to do a pretty unique type community there.
13 What I'd like to start out with telling 14 you guys about, if I can, is our first introduction to 15 Progress Energy.
At first, we fought them because, 16 like the young lady there, we wanted to develop our 17 land, Mr. Smith's land.
I had put a lot of time and 18 my own money into the plans for that piece of 19 property.
20 And we came here to the Plantation and we 21 heard Progress Energy giving their speech.
And we 22 brought in our environmentalist; Ellen spoke at that 23 particular meeting.
And we were --
we were upset.
24 You know, we had plans for the property ourselves.
24 You know, we had plans for the property ourselves.
25                 Later   on,       we       were       contacted   by       Danny NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433              WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
25 (202) 23H433 Later on, we were contacted by Danny NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


99 1 Roderick,       who we came to know very well.                             We've had 2 several       meetings         here           with         Danny     Roderick             and 3 discussing the plans of Progress Energy.                                 And one of 4 the things that I got to know about Danny, in talking 5 to him,       his goals here seem to be so much different 6 than       what   I   have     seen         here         lately     from     Progress 7 Energy.
99 1
8                     Danny's       goals           seemed       to be   creating             a 9 project       that     the     community               would     be   proud           of.
Roderick, who we came to know very well.
10 Something that he did not want to -- of course, he was 11 expense cautious about what he was doing,                                 but he was 12 also           and this       is     just my opinion of Danny.                               He 13 might have had a different view.                             But I'm just talking 14 as a businessman and our relationship with Danny.
We've had 2
15                   He seemed to be more in tune to what the 16 community as           a whole       would be               proud of out           there.
several meetings here with Danny Roderick and 3
17 Something       that     would       create           jobs     for   Levy     County, 18 Citrus County,           and benefit the surrounding properties 19 by,     you know,     what his outlook was for the piece of 20 property.
discussing the plans of Progress Energy.
21                     That all changed when Danny left.                             He's no 22 longer with Progress Energy.                             But one of the things 23 that he was always very concerned about was,                                       in the 24 development         of   the     property             to     make   sure     from         the 25 feeling       that we had with him,                         that the   surrounding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
And one of 4
the things that I got to know about Danny, in talking 5
to him, his goals here seem to be so much different 6
than what I
have seen here lately from Progress 7
Energy.
8 Danny's goals seemed to be creating a 9
project that the community would be proud of.
10 Something that he did not want to -- of course, he was 11 expense cautious about what he was doing, but he was 12 also and this is just my opinion of Danny.
He 13 might have had a different view.
But I'm just talking 14 as a businessman and our relationship with Danny.
15 He seemed to be more in tune to what the 16 community as a whole would be proud of out there.
17 Something that would create jobs for Levy County, 18 Citrus County, and benefit the surrounding properties 19 by, you know, what his outlook was for the piece of 20 property.
21 That all changed when Danny left.
He's no 22 longer with Progress Energy.
But one of the things 23 that he was always very concerned about was, in the 24 development of the property to make sure from the 25 feeling that we had with him, that the surrounding (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


100 1 lands were as protected as they possibly could be.                                       He 2 knew that they were going to have an impact.                                   He was 3 willing to talk to us about how it would impact our 4 property; how it would impact the Goethe state Forest; 5 how       it   would   impact         the         surrounding       neighbors' 6 properties.         We're not finding any of that from the 7 contacts we've had with Progress Energy.
100 1
8                   I   was       involved               in   these     bi-weekly 9 conference calls with Progress Energy,                           and I   can tell 10 you right now,         had we thought at                   any point       in time 11 that they weren't going to use our property for their 12 mitigation plans, we would have been raising red flags 13 along       the whole path of the                   process   of permitting.
lands were as protected as they possibly could be.
He 2
knew that they were going to have an impact.
He was 3
willing to talk to us about how it would impact our 4
property; how it would impact the Goethe state Forest; 5
how it would impact the surrounding neighbors' 6
properties.
We're not finding any of that from the 7
contacts we've had with Progress Energy.
8 I
was involved in these bi-weekly 9
conference calls with Progress Energy, and I can tell 10 you right now, had we thought at any point in time 11 that they weren't going to use our property for their 12 mitigation plans, we would have been raising red flags 13 along the whole path of the process of permitting.
14 Because we had the team in place to do it and we could 15 have raised a lot of red flags at that point in time.
14 Because we had the team in place to do it and we could 15 have raised a lot of red flags at that point in time.
16                   We took     them at             their word,     insofar             as 17 they were going to be buying the property, or at least 18 a       sizeable     portion         of         it,       and   it     was           our 19 understanding,         based       on     what         Danny was     telling us, 20 that their goal was to preserve as much of that land 21 because       of the   land     that         they     would be   impacting.
16 We took them at their word, insofar as 17 they were going to be buying the property, or at least 18 a
sizeable portion of it, and it was our 19 understanding, based on what Danny was telling us, 20 that their goal was to preserve as much of that land 21 because of the land that they would be impacting.
22 They would be creating an access to wildlife from the 23 Goethe state Forest to the withlacoochee.
22 They would be creating an access to wildlife from the 23 Goethe state Forest to the withlacoochee.
24                   Even   some       of       the     state   plans     were           to 25 purchase that property to be able to put it back into NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
24 Even some of the state plans were to 25 purchase that property to be able to put it back into (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


101 1 the public domain, to where they could create benefits 2 for       the   water   sheds       of both             the   withlacoochee           and 3 sorry,       I can't pronounce the other water shed that's 4 in     that     area,   the     Warkusi             (ph)   water   shed.             But 5 anyway,       they both joined up in that particular area 6 and       if   I'm   not   mistaken,               the     boundary   is     almost 7 through that Robinson tract and goes up through the 8 Goethe state Forest.
101 1
9                     And so,     I do know that that was high on 10 the state's list,           to try to preserve that particular 11 corridor in that area.                   And by purchasing that 5,700 12 acres, they would have been able to maintain that, and 13 they would have been able to spread the impact of what 14 they're doing on their property over a wider piece of 15 property,         and it would not have had the same effects 16 as it's going to have now in that particular area.
the public domain, to where they could create benefits 2
17                     And the       only couple               of things   that           I'd 18 point out.           In the first January 15th or 13th,                               2009 19 Mi tiga tion Plan             and I don't know how many of you 20 had the time -- the chance to read that or look at it, 21 but I would suggest that you get a copy of it and look 22 at it,       because it's drastic in the way that they've 23 changed from the 2009                   to the April             2010 Mitigation 24 Plan.
for the water sheds of both the withlacoochee and 3
25                     And I have personally spoken to the DEP NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
sorry, I can't pronounce the other water shed that's 4
in that area, the Warkusi (ph) water shed.
But 5
anyway, they both joined up in that particular area 6
and if I'm not mistaken, the boundary is almost 7
through that Robinson tract and goes up through the 8
Goethe state Forest.
9 And so, I do know that that was high on 10 the state's list, to try to preserve that particular 11 corridor in that area.
And by purchasing that 5,700 12 acres, they would have been able to maintain that, and 13 they would have been able to spread the impact of what 14 they're doing on their property over a wider piece of 15 property, and it would not have had the same effects 16 as it's going to have now in that particular area.
17 And the only couple of things that I'd 18 point out.
In the first January 15th or 13th, 2009 19 Mi tiga tion Plan and I don't know how many of you 20 had the time -- the chance to read that or look at it, 21 but I would suggest that you get a copy of it and look 22 at it, because it's drastic in the way that they've 23 changed from the 2009 to the April 2010 Mitigation 24 Plan.
25 And I have personally spoken to the DEP (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


102 1 and the representatives of the DEP, and I can tell you 2 right now that the comment that they made to me was 3 they were surprised that that tract of land was pulled 4 out, because they didn't even know it.
102 1
5                     And I   do know this sitting board -- I'm 6 sorry -- the siting board,                         when they were reviewing 7 all of these documents                 also,         they were basing their 8 opinion on         that particular 2009 Wetlands Mitigation 9 Plan.         And, so, any discussions that would have been 10 taking place between the public,                             or anybody else at 11 that         time,   would     have         been         based   on   the         2009 12 Mitigation Plan.
and the representatives of the DEP, and I can tell you 2
13                     And in that             Plan,       where   they're     talking 14 about their own piece of property,                             it says,       because 15 much       of   the LNP   site       is       proposed       for   development, 16 infrastructure,             transmission                   corridors,       security 17 buffers,         and potential future development,                       there are 18 few areas available for mitigation.
right now that the comment that they made to me was 3
19                     And now you look at it and pretty much the 20 whole site is being cut up with -- with,                               you know,             a 21 little bit of mitigation up on the northern boundary.
they were surprised that that tract of land was pulled 4
22 The bulk of the mitigation is going to cut off all of 23 the flow of wildlife from the Goethe state Forest to 24 the Robinson tract,             down to the wi thlacoochee River.
out, because they didn't even know it.
25 It is situated over on the southeastern corridor and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
5 And I do know this sitting board --
I'm 6
sorry --
the siting board, when they were reviewing 7
all of these documents also, they were basing their 8
opinion on that particular 2009 Wetlands Mitigation 9
Plan.
And, so, any discussions that would have been 10 taking place between the public, or anybody else at 11 that
: time, would have been based on the 2009 12 Mitigation Plan.
13 And in that Plan, where they're talking 14 about their own piece of property, it says, because 15 much of the LNP site is proposed for development, 16 infrastructure, transmission corridors, security 17 buffers, and potential future development, there are 18 few areas available for mitigation.
19 And now you look at it and pretty much the 20 whole site is being cut up with -- with, you know, a 21 little bit of mitigation up on the northern boundary.
22 The bulk of the mitigation is going to cut off all of 23 the flow of wildlife from the Goethe state Forest to 24 the Robinson tract, down to the wi thlacoochee River.
25 It is situated over on the southeastern corridor and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


103 1 it's going to be completely blocked off by the heavy-2 haul road.
103 1
3                   So,   there's         a           if you     really want             to 4 look at what I think Danny would have been proud of, 5 or the community would have been proud of,                             is to look 6 at       the alternative       sites         that       they   had,   and         the 7 alternative plans that they had in the 2009 Mitigation 8 Plan       versus   the   2010       Mitigation             Plan that     they're 9 planning on using now.               Thank you.
it's going to be completely blocked off by the heavy-2 haul road.
10                   MR. CAMERON:             Okay.         Thank you, Mike,             for 11 those comments.         Emily?         Emily Casey still here?                       Oh, 12 I'm sorry.       Is that Emily?               And then we're going to go 13 to Norman Hopkins.
3 So, there's a if you really want to 4
14                   MS. CASEY:           Good       evening.       My name             is 15 Emily Casey.         I live in Citrus County,                   but I grew up 16 in Levy County and it's just some place that I want to 17 protect.       And what I'm going to do right now is just 18 make a short address to water concerns,                           for the most 19 part.
look at what I think Danny would have been proud of, 5
20                   I   want       to       submit         the   Chronicle             on 21 September 19th, is what we've all been talking about -
or the community would have been proud of, is to look 6
22 - Water Matters.         It really sums up the importance of 23 water in this area,           so I         just want to put this into 24 the record.
at the alternative sites that they had, and the 7
25                   And I want to talk about the uniqueness of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
alternative plans that they had in the 2009 Mitigation 8
Plan versus the 2010 Mitigation Plan that they're 9
planning on using now.
Thank you.
10 MR.
CAMERON:
Okay.
Thank you, Mike, for 11 those comments.
Emily?
Emily Casey still here?
Oh, 12 I'm sorry.
Is that Emily?
And then we're going to go 13 to Norman Hopkins.
14 MS.
CASEY:
Good evening.
My name is 15 Emily Casey.
I live in Citrus County, but I grew up 16 in Levy County and it's just some place that I want to 17 protect.
And what I'm going to do right now is just 18 make a short address to water concerns, for the most 19 part.
20 I
want to submit the Chronicle on 21 September 19th, is what we've all been talking about -
22 Water Matters.
It really sums up the importance of 23 water in this area, so I just want to put this into 24 the record.
25 And I want to talk about the uniqueness of (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


104 1 this       area. The proposed site in Levy County,                               as     I 2 have said,         is extremely unique greenfield and really 3 cannot be compared to other wetland areas throughout 4 the northern Tampa Bay.
104 1
5                     In the groundwater modeling portion of the 6 section written in support of Progress Energy's water 7 use program application,                     it     stated that             and         I'm 8 quoting here:           SWFWMD presumes an adverse impact to a 9 wetland         if the   long     term median water                 level       falls 10 below the minimum wetland level.                               The   District has 11 assigned         the elevations           to     sentinel     wetlands.             The 12 District states, -- and the district is SWFWMD                                       that 13 it can't extrapolate levels from wetlands that haven't 14 had official levels set by similar wetlands in close 15 proximity."
this area.
16                     Okay. It means they can make an average.
The proposed site in Levy County, as I 2
17                     And then you go ahead down a little ways 18 and you read that:             A minimum wetland level is at 1.8 19 feet         below   normal       pool           and     with   a   one-to-one 20 relationship.           And it states that:                     The methodology 21 works at areas -- in other areas,                             that there are no 22 sentinel wetlands or published minimum wetland levels 23 in Levy County.
have said, is extremely unique greenfield and really 3
24                     So, the data -- my statement is that the 25 data that was used is based on estimations from other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
cannot be compared to other wetland areas throughout 4
the northern Tampa Bay.
5 In the groundwater modeling portion of the 6
section written in support of Progress Energy's water 7
use program application, it stated that and I'm 8
quoting here:
SWFWMD presumes an adverse impact to a 9
wetland if the long term median water level falls 10 below the minimum wetland level.
The District has 11 assigned the elevations to sentinel wetlands.
The 12 District states, -- and the district is SWFWMD that 13 it can't extrapolate levels from wetlands that haven't 14 had official levels set by similar wetlands in close 15 proximity."
16 Okay.
It means they can make an average.
17 And then you go ahead down a little ways 18 and you read that:
A minimum wetland level is at 1.8 19 feet below normal pool and with a
one-to-one 20 relationship.
And it states that:
The methodology 21 works at areas --
in other areas, that there are no 22 sentinel wetlands or published minimum wetland levels 23 in Levy County.
24 So, the data --
my statement is that the 25 data that was used is based on estimations from other (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


105 1 areas.
105 1
2                     And as     I   said before,               this is a     unique 3 area.         As   you   have     heard         all     night,   people         have 4 addressed concerns about the wetland impact.                                   And it 5 is     really unique because two                             surface water           that 6 flows between two water management districts and into 7 two       separate     rivers,       both         the     Waccasassa   and         the 8 withlacoochee.
areas.
9                     The site is located south and west of two 10 separate       potential       high         levels         (sic). This       would 11 result       in   both   the     Floridan               aquifer water         being 12 consumed from both the west and the east of this site.
2 And as I said before, this is a unique 3
13                     And what that ultimately would mean,                             that 14 water that would flow,               and should flow from the south 15       to the south and/or to the west and/or to the north 16         and the reason why I state it that way is because 17 it's at kind of a confluence of the waters.                               And then 18 it       flows   in   many   different             directions;     some       flows 19 north,       some flows toward the Gulf,                       some flows towards 20 the withlacoochee River.                     You really can't predict at 21 what point it's going to flow in which direction.
area.
22                     Anyway, so I've said that they will not be 23 available         to   other     users         or     the   environment,         since 24 there is a 1.85 million gallons per day projected to 25 be withdrawn.
As you have heard all night, people have 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
addressed concerns about the wetland impact.
And it 5
is really unique because two surface water that 6
flows between two water management districts and into 7
two separate rivers, both the Waccasassa and the 8
withlacoochee.
9 The site is located south and west of two 10 separate potential high levels (sic).
This would 11 result in both the Floridan aquifer water being 12 consumed from both the west and the east of this site.
13 And what that ultimately would mean, that 14 water that would flow, and should flow from the south 15 to the south and/or to the west and/or to the north 16 and the reason why I state it that way is because 17 it's at kind of a confluence of the waters.
And then 18 it flows in many different directions; some flows 19 north, some flows toward the Gulf, some flows towards 20 the withlacoochee River.
You really can't predict at 21 what point it's going to flow in which direction.
22 Anyway, so I've said that they will not be 23 available to other users or the environment, since 24 there is a 1.85 million gallons per day projected to 25 be withdrawn.
(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


106 1                   And surface waters flow either, as I said, 2 into the two rivers or sheet floods flow to the Gulf, 3 and, the Gulf is also a very pristine estuary area and 4 the Big Bend seagrass beds.
106 1
5                   Personally,         I have observed water flowing 6 from a high water lake that exists at the northeast 7 corner of Progress Energy's property,                           flows under 19, 8 and in a very short distance,                         it's flowing northwest 9 and it goes into many swallets straight down into the 10 aquifer.
And surface waters flow either, as I said, 2
11                   So, my question from there is,                         what will 12 the quality of this water be in 10,                             20 years?               And 13 also,       what will the       quantity of this water be?                               Or 14 will there be any water?
into the two rivers or sheet floods flow to the Gulf, 3
15                   Then,   the       water         that     flows   into         these 16 swallets are most likely the water that feeds into the 17 springs that are there.                     These two springs happen to 18 be two out of the five known springs -- and I'd like 19 to     stress   "known"   because             it     is what   we   know,           but 20 there's       kind of   assumed that                 there's much more                 out 21 there that is not known.
and, the Gulf is also a very pristine estuary area and 4
22                   Anyway,       two         out       of   the   five       springs 23 provide the fresh water into the Waccasassa Bay/River 24 area.           The   Waccasassa               Bay       River     has       already 25 experienced a dramatic decline in the amount of water NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
the Big Bend seagrass beds.
5 Personally, I have observed water flowing 6
from a high water lake that exists at the northeast 7
corner of Progress Energy's property, flows under 19, 8
and in a very short distance, it's flowing northwest 9
and it goes into many swallets straight down into the 10 aquifer.
11 So, my question from there is, what will 12 the quality of this water be in 10, 20 years?
And 13 also, what will the quantity of this water be?
Or 14 will there be any water?
15
: Then, the water that flows into these 16 swallets are most likely the water that feeds into the 17 springs that are there.
These two springs happen to 18 be two out of the five known springs --
and I'd like 19 to stress "known" because it is what we
: know, but 20 there's kind of assumed that there's much more out 21 there that is not known.
22
: Anyway, two out of the five springs 23 provide the fresh water into the Waccasassa Bay/River 24 area.
The Waccasassa Bay River has already 25 experienced a dramatic decline in the amount of water (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


107 1 that flows from there.               So, what will happen in 10, 20 2 years?       These are just questions.
107 1
3                 What     I'm proposing is,                 that due to many 4 features           and these are only a few that this area 5 has,       is not a   place that can be compared to other 6 places.
that flows from there.
7                 And   I   ask       you       to     understand   that           the 8 environmental impacts are not going to be small.                                   They 9 are going to large to the water and to the people that 10 live around there and to the environment, in general.
So, what will happen in 10, 20 2
11 And not only would be large,                     it would be devastating.
years?
These are just questions.
3 What I'm proposing is, that due to many 4
features and these are only a few that this area 5
has, is not a place that can be compared to other 6
places.
7 And I
ask you to understand that the 8
environmental impacts are not going to be small.
They 9
are going to large to the water and to the people that 10 live around there and to the environment, in general.
11 And not only would be large, it would be devastating.
12 Thank you.
12 Thank you.
13                 MR. CAMERON:               Okay.       Thank you,       Emily.
13 MR.
14 And Mr. Hopkins?         Norman Hopkins.
CAMERON:
15                 MR. HOPKINS:               Good     evening,   ladies           and 16 gentlemen.       My name is Norman Hopkins and I live in 17 Ci trus     County,   and I       run a           foundation dedicated to 18 teaching environmental science.
Okay.
19                   I have a confession to make.                     And that is 20 that I can, after the years of research that I've done 21 into sources of energy for the purpose of constructing 22 a     comprehensive   of     the     energy           situation   in America 23 today and putting it on the website that we maintain 24 for teaching,       leaves me without any confidence at all 25 that a case could be made for nuclear energy anywhere NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701             WWN. nealrgross,com
Thank you, Emily.
14 And Mr. Hopkins?
Norman Hopkins.
15 MR.
HOPKINS:
Good evening, ladies and 16 gentlemen.
My name is Norman Hopkins and I live in 17 Ci trus County, and I run a foundation dedicated to 18 teaching environmental science.
19 I have a confession to make.
And that is 20 that I can, after the years of research that I've done 21 into sources of energy for the purpose of constructing 22 a comprehensive of the energy situation in America 23 today and putting it on the website that we maintain 24 for teaching, leaves me without any confidence at all 25 that a case could be made for nuclear energy anywhere (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


108 1 in the world.         It just cannot be made.
108 1
2                   The   most       important               factor   is   the       sheer 3 overwhelming cost of the capital expenditure and the 4 burden that it places on the capital resources,                                         even 5 of this nation.           Plus,       the cost of kilowatt hour from 6 nuclear         energy     under             any         circumstances             is         a 7 significant       multiple         of     any       other     form   and     a     very 8 significant       multiple         of       the       cost     that   we   pay           for 9 kilowatt hour today.
in the world.
10                   However,       this meeting is to consider the 11 environmental input -- Environmental Impact statement 12 and       having   said   that,         just         remember       it,   I       can't 13 justify having a           nuclear             energy source,           a   new one, 14 anywhere in the world today.
It just cannot be made.
15                   Why I'm standing up here is to talk about 16 water.         And   it   is     a   scarce           resource.         We   need         to 17 husband that scarce resource.                           We need to look after 18 our wetlands for the job that they do to preserve the 19 water which is in the aquifers of this country.
2 The most important factor is the sheer 3
20                   And, furthermore,                 I've already referred to 21 the fact that the Environmental Impact statement that 22 has       been   published,         and       which         we've   reviewed,             was 23 based upon         scoping data             collected up           till     December 24 2008.
overwhelming cost of the capital expenditure and the 4
25                   Since     then,         a     research       study   has         been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                  WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
burden that it places on the capital resources, even 5
of this nation.
Plus, the cost of kilowatt hour from 6
nuclear energy under any circumstances is a
7 significant multiple of any other form and a very 8
significant multiple of the cost that we pay for 9
kilowatt hour today.
10 However, this meeting is to consider the 11 environmental input -- Environmental Impact statement 12 and having said that, just remember it, I
can't 13 justify having a nuclear energy source, a new one, 14 anywhere in the world today.
15 Why I'm standing up here is to talk about 16 water.
And it is a scarce resource.
We need to 17 husband that scarce resource.
We need to look after 18 our wetlands for the job that they do to preserve the 19 water which is in the aquifers of this country.
20 And, furthermore, I've already referred to 21 the fact that the Environmental Impact statement that 22 has been published, and which we've reviewed, was 23 based upon scoping data collected up till December 24 2008.
25 (202) 23H433 Since then, a
research study has been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


109 1 completed         to   find     out       how       the     water   and   where           it 2 travels to in the aquifer.                           There are artesian flows 3 which are natural to balance the pressure wi thin the 4 aquifer,       a   confined aquifer,                   that is -- an artesian 5 aquifer.         But when those flows -- and it's quite true 6 that they flow from west to east across the -- sorry -
109 1
7 -    from east to west across the LNP site,                             immediately 8 to the west of that site is what is a fracture which 9 will divert the water to the south.
completed to find out how the water and where it 2
10                     And the reason that I am concerned about 11 that -- and it is not mentioned in the Environmental 12 Impact statement draft                         is that the consequence of 13 that,       ignoring     the     fact         that       it   flows   towards             the 14 south, means that the whole of the Crystal River Kings 15 Bay complex,           as   an   impacted environment,                 is omitted 16 from the Environmental Impact statement.
travels to in the aquifer.
17                     I have submitted a paper on this to the 18 NRC and I've already given a copy of that paper to a 19 representative           of   the       NRC       here     today.     I   will           be 20 sUbmitting a written report to the NRC.
There are artesian flows 3
21                     And,     we cannot afford to lose the waters 22 of     Crystal     River     Kings       Bay,       which     today   contribute 23 something         like     $20       million           a   year   to   the         local 24 economy.
which are natural to balance the pressure wi thin the 4
25                     So,   they're important to those of us who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                    WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
aquifer, a confined aquifer, that is --
an artesian 5
aquifer.
But when those flows -- and it's quite true 6
that they flow from west to east across the -- sorry -
7 from east to west across the LNP site, immediately 8
to the west of that site is what is a fracture which 9
will divert the water to the south.
10 And the reason that I am concerned about 11 that --
and it is not mentioned in the Environmental 12 Impact statement draft is that the consequence of 13
: that, ignoring the fact that it flows towards the 14 south, means that the whole of the Crystal River Kings 15 Bay complex, as an impacted environment, is omitted 16 from the Environmental Impact statement.
17 I have submitted a paper on this to the 18 NRC and I've already given a copy of that paper to a 19 representative of the NRC here today.
I will be 20 sUbmitting a written report to the NRC.
21 And, we cannot afford to lose the waters 22 of Crystal River Kings Bay, which today contribute 23 something like  
$20 million a
year to the local 24 economy.
25 (202) 23H433 So, they're important to those of us who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


110 1 live and dwell in Crystal River or in Citrus County, 2 and we can't afford to lose that water resource.
110 1
3                   Furthermore,           just one sentence.               And that 4 is, that the flows underground are complex.                               And there 5 is every likelihood that,                     as I       spoke this afternoon 6 about the accumulation of radionuclides in groundwater 7 from       a plant   in   Levy       County,             as   described       in       the 8 Environmental         Impact         statement,               will   most       likely 9 influence       the   wells       from         which       the   domestic         water 10 supply       is taken     for       135,000           households     in     Citrus 11 County.
live and dwell in Crystal River or in Citrus County, 2
12                   Thank you very much.
and we can't afford to lose that water resource.
13                   MR. CAMERON:             Thank you, Mr. Hopkins.                     Mr.
3 Furthermore, just one sentence.
14 Hopkins was our final speaker.                             And I'm going to ask 15 Scott Flanders,         as our senior official,                       to close the 16 meeting out for us.             Scott?
And that 4
17                   MR. FLANDERS:               First,       I   want   to       thank 18 everyone for coming and attending the meeting tonight 19 and       providing   excellent               comments.           We   find           the 20 comments very useful.                 We intend to take all of the 21 information back and consider                           it   as we work toward 22 finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement.
is, that the flows underground are complex.
23                   Again,     as   Doug mentioned earlier in his 24 presentation, the comment period does not close until 25 October       27th,   so     certainly               all     the   comments           you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
And there 5
is every likelihood that, as I spoke this afternoon 6
about the accumulation of radionuclides in groundwater 7
from a plant in Levy County, as described in the 8
Environmental Impact statement, will most likely 9
influence the wells from which the domestic water 10 supply is taken for 135,000 households in Citrus 11 County.
12 Thank you very much.
13 MR. CAMERON:
Thank you, Mr. Hopkins.
Mr.
14 Hopkins was our final speaker.
And I'm going to ask 15 Scott Flanders, as our senior official, to close the 16 meeting out for us.
Scott?
17 MR.
FLANDERS:
: First, I
want to thank 18 everyone for coming and attending the meeting tonight 19 and providing excellent comments.
We find the 20 comments very useful.
We intend to take all of the 21 information back and consider it as we work toward 22 finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement.
23
: Again, as Doug mentioned earlier in his 24 presentation, the comment period does not close until 25 October
: 27th, (202) 23H433 so certainly all the comments you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


111 1 provided here, we will certainly take into account.
111 1
2                   If   there's           other           information,         as       you 3 continue to         review the document,                     digest   some of the 4 comments       that   you     heard           from       some   of     the       other 5 indi viduals       and want       to provide additional comments, 6 the       comment   period,       again,           does     not   close         until 7 october       27th.     So,     there's           an     opportunity       to       also 8 provide additional comments, as well.
provided here, we will certainly take into account.
9                   And   as     we       said         earlier     today,         as       an 10 independent       regulatory agency,                   our   job   is   to     ensure 11 that       we fully   consider         the       environmental         impacts           of 12 what's being proposed and make                           sure that we clearly 13 and       accurately   provide         that         information       for       public 14 review and for         decision makers.                     And that's what we 15 intend to do.
2 If there's other information, as you 3
16                   So,   we're       going         to     take   those     comments 17 that we       received today,           analyze them closely,                   factor 18 them in.         It's always a benefit to us to come to the 19 community       and   hear     information               and   the   perspective 20 from the communi ty.               Oftentimes,             we find information 21 that we weren't aware of and we need to take that into 22 account,       as well.       We certainly will do that in this 23 case.
continue to review the document, digest some of the 4
24                   So, in concl us ion,               I would,     on behal f             of 25 the Army Corps of Engineers and the Nuclear Regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433                WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701               WWN. nealrgross,com
comments that you heard from some of the other 5
indi viduals and want to provide additional comments, 6
the comment
: period, again, does not close until 7
october 27th.
So, there's an opportunity to also 8
provide additional comments, as well.
9 And as we said earlier
: today, as an 10 independent regulatory agency, our job is to ensure 11 that we fully consider the environmental impacts of 12 what's being proposed and make sure that we clearly 13 and accurately provide that information for public 14 review and for decision makers.
And that's what we 15 intend to do.
16 So, we're going to take those comments 17 that we received today, analyze them closely, factor 18 them in.
It's always a benefit to us to come to the 19 community and hear information and the perspective 20 from the communi ty.
Oftentimes, we find information 21 that we weren't aware of and we need to take that into 22 account, as well.
We certainly will do that in this 23 case.
24 So, in concl us ion, I would, on behal f of 25 the Army Corps of Engineers and the Nuclear Regulatory (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


112 1 Commission,   I want   to     thank         you   for attending         this 2 evening. And that concludes our meeting.                   Thank you.
112 1
3                (At 9:34 p.m., meeting concluded.)
Commission, I
4 5
want to thank you for attending this 2
6 7
evening.
8 9
3 4
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W (202) 23H433            WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701         WWN. nealrgross,com
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (202) 23H433 And that concludes our meeting.
Thank you.
(At 9:34 p.m., meeting concluded.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com  


             

         
   
     !!"  "

    
      ! ""#   #


Board Meeting Package November 17,2010 4:30 p.m.
Board Meeting Package November 17,2010 4:30 p.m.
Meeting Location:
Meeting Location:
SWFWMD Headquarters Governing Board Meeting Room 2379 Broad Street (US 41 South)
SWFWMD Headquarters Governing Board Meeting Room 2379 Broad Street (US 41 South)
Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899  


WlTHLACOOCHEE REGIO~AL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING :vTI~UTES October 20, 2010 TIME:        4:30 p.m.
TIME:
PLACE:        Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council th 1241 SW 10 Street (SR 200)
PLACE:
WlTHLACOOCHEE REGIO~AL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING :vTI~UTES October 20, 2010 4:30 p.m.
W ithlacoochee Regional Planning Council 1241 SW 10th Street (SR 200)
Ocala, Florida 34471-0323 The numbers preceding the items listed below correspond with the published agenda.
Ocala, Florida 34471-0323 The numbers preceding the items listed below correspond with the published agenda.
: 1. Call to Order Chairnlan Richard HolTman called the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. and asked Cor a roll call.
: 1.
: 2. Roll Call Mr. Jack Sullivan, Executive Director, called the roll and a quorum was declared present.
Call to Order Chairnlan Richard HolTman called the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. and asked Cor a roll call.
: 2.
Roll Call Mr. Jack Sullivan, Executive Director, called the roll and a quorum was declared present.
:vTEMBERS PRESE~T Richard Horlillan, Chainnan, Sumter County Commissioner Barbara Fitos, Vice-Chainnan, Marion County Commissioner Rose Rocco, Treasurer, Hernando County Commissioner Mike Amsden, Marion County Commissioner Dennis Damato, Citrus County Commissioner Christine Dobkowski, Belleview City Commissioner Stan McClain, Marion County Commissioner Mary S. Rich, Ocala City Councilwoman Y1EMBERS ABSENT Jim Adkins, Hernando County Commissioner Gary Bartell, Citrus County Commissioner Joe Bernardini, Brooksville City Councilman John Druzbick, Hernando County Commissioner Ken Hinkle, Inverness City Councilman Randy Mask, Sumter County Commissioner John Priester, Ocala City Councilman David Russell, Hernando County Commissioner Dale Swain, Bushnell City Councilman Winn Webb, Citrus County Commissioner
:vTEMBERS PRESE~T Richard Horlillan, Chainnan, Sumter County Commissioner Barbara Fitos, Vice-Chainnan, Marion County Commissioner Rose Rocco, Treasurer, Hernando County Commissioner Mike Amsden, Marion County Commissioner Dennis Damato, Citrus County Commissioner Christine Dobkowski, Belleview City Commissioner Stan McClain, Marion County Commissioner Mary S. Rich, Ocala City Councilwoman Y1EMBERS ABSENT Jim Adkins, Hernando County Commissioner Gary Bartell, Citrus County Commissioner Joe Bernardini, Brooksville City Councilman John Druzbick, Hernando County Commissioner Ken Hinkle, Inverness City Councilman Randy Mask, Sumter County Commissioner John Priester, Ocala City Councilman David Russell, Hernando County Commissioner Dale Swain, Bushnell City Councilman Winn Webb, Citrus County Commissioner
: 3. Introductions and Announcements Mr. Sullivan introduced others in the audience.
: 3.
Introductions and Announcements Mr. Sullivan introduced others in the audience.  


Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority                                     October 20, 20 I 0 Minutes of the Meeting                                                                 Page 2 01'5 OTHERS PRE SEl'i T Jack Sullivan, WRWSA Executive Director Larry Haag, WRWSA Attorney Diane Salz, WRWSA Legislative Liaison Alys Brockway, Hernando County Utilities Kim Dinkins, Marion County Al Grubman, TOO FAR Dan Hilliard, Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc, Peter Hubbell, Water Resource Associates Cara Martin, SWFWMD James Morgan, Citrus County Darrell Muse, City of Ocala Joseph Quinn, SWFWMD Richard Radacky, City of Brooksville Peter Rocco, Hernando County Citizen Tahla Paige, Recording Secretary
Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting OTHERS PRE SEl'i T Jack Sullivan, WRWSA Executive Director Larry Haag, WRWSA Attorney Diane Salz, WRWSA Legislative Liaison Alys Brockway, Hernando County Utilities Kim Dinkins, Marion County Al Grubman, TOO FAR Dan Hilliard, Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc, Peter Hubbell, Water Resource Associates Cara Martin, SWFWMD James Morgan, Citrus County Darrell Muse, City of Ocala Joseph Quinn, SWFWMD Richard Radacky, City of Brooksville Peter Rocco, Hernando County Citizen Tahla Paige, Recording Secretary
: 4. Presentation of Plaqne of Appreciation to Commissioner Gary Bartell Chairman Hoffman announced that Mr. Bartell could not attcnd today's meeting, By consensus of the board, it was agreed to prescnt Mr. Bartcll with his plaque at the November meeting,
: 4.
: 5. Approval of :win utes of September 15,2010 Meeting A copy of the minutes was provided in the board packet for review, Following consideration, a motion was made by Ms. Rocco to approve the minutes for the September 15, 2010 meeting. The motion was seconded by :vir. :vIcClain and carried unanimously.
Presentation of Plaqne of Appreciation to Commissioner Gary Bartell October 20, 20 I 0 Page 2 01'5 Chairman Hoffman announced that Mr. Bartell could not attcnd today's meeting, By consensus of the board, it was agreed to prescnt Mr. Bartcll with his plaque at the November meeting,
: 6. Report on Use ofCFBC as a Water Snpply Mr. Sullivan stated the board packet included a memorandum outlining a proposal by Mr. Dan Hilliard, Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc', to use the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as an alternative water supply, Mr. Hubbell reviewed the idea, which included installation of a structure to help prevent saltwater intrusion and create a Cresh water reservoir six miles downstream of the Inglis Lock. He stated competition for the use of the Lower Withlacoochee River included planned withdrawals from the CFBC by Progress Energy for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, potential restoration projects developed by Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and development of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) lor the Lower With lacoochee River by SWFWMD. Tn conclusion, Mr. Hubbell stated the project was an interesting proposal; however, it would require an in-depth level of analysis to determine the viability of the project. He said one concern was the low level of water quality. Mr. Hubbell recommended to the Board to accept this project as a long-term (20 to 25 years) alternative water supply project to be studied for consideration and development in the future when other alternative water supply projects are further analyzed. Mr. Damato agreed there were various issues with the project
: 5.
Approval of :win utes of September 15,2010 Meeting A copy of the minutes was provided in the board packet for review, Following consideration, a motion was made by Ms. Rocco to approve the minutes for the September 15, 2010 meeting. The motion was seconded by :vir. :vIcClain and carried unanimously.
: 6.
Report on Use ofCFBC as a Water Snpply Mr. Sullivan stated the board packet included a memorandum outlining a proposal by Mr. Dan Hilliard, Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc', to use the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as an alternative water supply, Mr. Hubbell reviewed the idea, which included installation of a structure to help prevent saltwater intrusion and create a Cresh water reservoir six miles downstream of the Inglis Lock. He stated competition for the use of the Lower Withlacoochee River included planned withdrawals from the CFBC by Progress Energy for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, potential restoration projects developed by Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and development of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) lor the Lower With lacoochee River by SWFWMD.
Tn conclusion, Mr. Hubbell stated the project was an interesting proposal; however, it would require an in-depth level of analysis to determine the viability of the project.
He said one concern was the low level of water quality. Mr. Hubbell recommended to the Board to accept this project as a long-term (20 to 25 years) alternative water supply project to be studied for consideration and development in the future when other alternative water supply projects are further analyzed. Mr. Damato agreed there were various issues with the project  


Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority                                       October 20, 20 I 0 Minutes of the Meeting                                                                  Page 3 01'5 Mr. Hilliard felt the assessment by Mr. Hubbell was correct However, he noted the water was not wasted (fresh water going into saltwater) as the Lower Withlacoochee River feeds a vibrant estuary, Mr. Hilliard also noted current studies showed a new bridge on US Highway 19 over the river as part or the expense ror the project, which he relt was an unnecessary expense. Discussion continued on the water quality of the river, location of the project, the intensive study needed for the project, and future grow1h's affect on water demand.
Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting October 20, 20 I 0 Page 3 01'5 Mr. Hilliard felt the assessment by Mr. Hubbell was correct However, he noted the water was not wasted (fresh water going into saltwater) as the Lower Withlacoochee River feeds a vibrant estuary, Mr. Hilliard also noted current studies showed a new bridge on US Highway 19 over the river as part or the expense ror the project, which he relt was an unnecessary expense. Discussion continued on the water quality of the river, location of the project, the intensive study needed for the project, and future grow1h's affect on water demand.
Mr. Sullivan's recommendation was to accept the Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc.
Mr. Sullivan's recommendation was to accept the Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc.
proposal as a potential alternative water supply (AWS) project ror consideration as a long-term water supply project along with the other A WS projects approved in the WRWSA's Water Supply Master Plan. It is also recOillinended that further analysis of the project not take place until the time in which these long-term A WS projects are further analyzed for consideration and development in the future.
proposal as a potential alternative water supply (AWS) project ror consideration as a long-term water supply project along with the other A WS projects approved in the WRWSA's Water Supply Master Plan. It is also recOillinended that further analysis of the project not take place until the time in which these long-term A WS projects are further analyzed for consideration and development in the future.
Following consideration, a motion was made by Mr. :vIcClain to approve the recommendation of the Executive Director on this project. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rocco and carried unanimously.
Following consideration, a motion was made by Mr. :vIcClain to approve the recommendation of the Executive Director on this project. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rocco and carried unanimously.
: 7. Executive Director's Report
: 7.
Executive Director's Report
: a. Bills to be Paid Mr. Sullivan provided a handout to the Board detailing October 2010 bills, which totaled $70,112.93. Mr. Sullivan requested the Board approve the payment of those bills.
: a. Bills to be Paid Mr. Sullivan provided a handout to the Board detailing October 2010 bills, which totaled $70,112.93. Mr. Sullivan requested the Board approve the payment of those bills.
Following consideration, a motion was made by :vis. Fitos to approve payment of the October 2010 bills totaling $70,112.93. The motion was seconded by
Following consideration, a motion was made by :vis. Fitos to approve payment of the October 2010 bills totaling $70,112.93.
The motion was seconded by
:vir. McClain and carried unanimously.
:vir. McClain and carried unanimously.
: b. 2010-11 Board Meeting Schedule Mr. Sullivan presented the upcoming year's meeting schedule for approval.
: b. 2010-11 Board Meeting Schedule Mr. Sullivan presented the upcoming year's meeting schedule for approval.
Following consideration, a motion was made by :vis. Rocco to approve tbe 2010-11 meeting schedule as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClain and carried unanimonsly.
Following consideration, a motion was made by :vis. Rocco to approve tbe 2010-11 meeting schedule as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClain and carried unanimonsly.
: c. Report on Progress re: FERC Inglis Hydropower Application Mr. Sullivan stated he had contacted Paul Williams, SWFWMD to discuss the issues or concern to both the Authority and SWFWMD. Pete Hubbell had also called Inglis Hydropower, LLC to schedule a meeting to discuss the project, and he hoped to conclude the meetings and have staff recommendations to present at the November WRWSA Board meeting.
: c. Report on Progress re: FERC Inglis Hydropower Application Mr. Sullivan stated he had contacted Paul Williams, SWFWMD to discuss the issues or concern to both the Authority and SWFWMD. Pete Hubbell had also called Inglis Hydropower, LLC to schedule a meeting to discuss the project, and he hoped to conclude the meetings and have staff recommendations to present at the November WRWSA Board meeting.
: d. Follow-up on Recommendations ofFEMA re: Oil Damage from Hurricanes Mr. Sullivan included in the board packet the website address to review FEMA's Public Assistance Debris Management Guide and a copy of the letter he wrote to EPA requesting information on how a major stonn or hurricane may affect the spread of oil
: d. Follow-up on Recommendations ofFEMA re: Oil Damage from Hurricanes Mr. Sullivan included in the board packet the website address to review FEMA's Public Assistance Debris Management Guide and a copy of the letter he wrote to EPA requesting information on how a major stonn or hurricane may affect the spread of oil  


Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority                                     October 20, 20 I 0 Minutes of the Meeting                                                                  Page 4 01'5 inland. Mr. Sullivan stated he would report back to the WRWSA Board as soon as he received a response.
Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting October 20, 20 I 0 Page 4 01'5 inland. Mr. Sullivan stated he would report back to the WRWSA Board as soon as he received a response.
: e. Correspondence Mr. Sullivan reviewed a memorandmn from Dr. Martin Kelly, Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director, Resource Projects Department, SWFWMD, on the establishment of MFLs. Mr. Sullivan plans to request that Dr. Kelly give a presentation at the next WR WSA meeting.
: e. Correspondence Mr. Sullivan reviewed a memorandmn from Dr. Martin Kelly, Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director, Resource Projects Department, SWFWMD, on the establishment of MFLs. Mr. Sullivan plans to request that Dr. Kelly give a presentation at the next WR WSA meeting.
This item was presented for the Board's infomlation; no action was required.
This item was presented for the Board's infomlation; no action was required.
: f. ~ ews Articles Mr. Sullivan provided news articles on water supply Issues relating to areas both regional and statewide.
: f.  
~ ews Articles Mr. Sullivan provided news articles on water supply Issues relating to areas both regional and statewide.
This item was presented for the Board's infomlation; no action was required.
This item was presented for the Board's infomlation; no action was required.
: 8. Legislative Update Ms. Diane Salz stated there are currently various legislative members making campaign promises to repeal portions of the current SB 550. After the General Election, there will be new committee members and committee chairs. She stated there is a movement to change water law again. Ms. Salz expects to see a lot of activity in the upcoming month and plans to have a more extensive report next month. She gave a brief review of tile proposed changes to the SWFWMD's Water Shortage Plan. Ms. Salz asked the Board if she should ask Lois Sorensen, SWFWMD, to speak at the next meeting on the changes. The WRWSA board agreed they would like the presentation. Ms. Salz stated the EPA announced a short extension for the Florida Nutrients Tnland Water Rule until November.
: 8.
Legislative Update Ms. Diane Salz stated there are currently various legislative members making campaign promises to repeal portions of the current SB 550. After the General Election, there will be new committee members and committee chairs. She stated there is a movement to change water law again. Ms. Salz expects to see a lot of activity in the upcoming month and plans to have a more extensive report next month. She gave a brief review of tile proposed changes to the SWFWMD's Water Shortage Plan. Ms. Salz asked the Board if she should ask Lois Sorensen, SWFWMD, to speak at the next meeting on the changes. The WRWSA board agreed they would like the presentation. Ms. Salz stated the EPA announced a short extension for the Florida Nutrients Tnland Water Rule until November.
Mr. Damato expressed his concem for the provision in SB 550 requiring septic tanks inspections and cost incurred by property owners. Mr. Damato asked Ms. Salz to find out how many Counties currently have a septic tank inspection program upon sale of a residential structure.
Mr. Damato expressed his concem for the provision in SB 550 requiring septic tanks inspections and cost incurred by property owners. Mr. Damato asked Ms. Salz to find out how many Counties currently have a septic tank inspection program upon sale of a residential structure.
: 9. Attorney's Report Mr. Haag stated he did not have any additional items to report to the WRWSA.
: 9.
: 10. Other Business None.
Attorney's Report Mr. Haag stated he did not have any additional items to report to the WRWSA.
: n. Public Comment Mr. Richard Radacky, City of Brooksville, asked if the WRWSA Board knew what the use is for the 24" or 36" pipes being installed in the Progress Energy right-of-way in Citrus County. Mr. Damato stated it was a massive project to import natural gas from Alabama to Miami, Florida. Mr. Radacky expressed his concerns on the pipe work crossing thc Withlaeooehee River and possible efTects to the ecosystem.
: 10.
Other Business None.
: n. Public Comment Mr. Richard Radacky, City of Brooksville, asked if the WRWSA Board knew what the use is for the 24" or 36" pipes being installed in the Progress Energy right-of-way in Citrus County. Mr. Damato stated it was a massive project to import natural gas from Alabama to Miami, Florida.
Mr. Radacky expressed his concerns on the pipe work crossing thc Withlaeooehee River and possible efTects to the ecosystem.  


Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority                                 October 20, 20 I 0 Minutes of the Meeting                                                             Page 5 01'5
Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting
: 12. I\ext Meeting Time and Location Next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2010 at 4:30 p,m" at the Southwest Florida Water Management District Headquarters, Governing Board Room, 2379 Broad Street (US 41 South), Brooksville, FL 34604,
: 12.
: 13. Adjonrnment Chairman Hoffman announced there was no further business or discussion to come before the Board and adjourned the meeting at 5 :20 p,ll1, Richard Hoffman, Chairman Jackson E, Sullivan, Executive Director
I\\ext Meeting Time and Location October 20, 20 I 0 Page 5 01'5 Next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2010 at 4:30 p,m" at the Southwest Florida Water Management District Headquarters, Governing Board Room, 2379 Broad Street (US 41 South), Brooksville, FL 34604,
: 13.
Adjonrnment Chairman Hoffman announced there was no further business or discussion to come before the Board and adjourned the meeting at 5 :20 p,ll1, Richard Hoffman, Chairman Jackson E, Sullivan, Executive Director  


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William M. Murphy In the Matter of                                       Docket No. 52-029-COL, 52-030-COL PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.                          ASLBP No. 09-879-04-COL-BD01 (Combined License Application for Levy County          December 28, 2010 Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William M. Murphy In the Matter of PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of the Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer to Amended Contention 4 have been served on the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange on this 28th Day of December, 2010:
(Combined License Application for Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Administrative Judge                                 Office of Commission Appellate Alex S. Karlin, Chair                                 Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel               Mail Stop O-16C1 Mail Stop: T-3F23                                     U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                   Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                             E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov E-mail: Alex.Karlin@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                                 Office of the Secretary Anthony J. Baratta                                   ATTN: Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel               Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: T-3F23                                     U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                   Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                            E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov E-mail: Anthony.Baratta@nrc.gov Administrative Judge                                 Megan Wright William M. Murphy                                     Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel               Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23                                     U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                   Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                            E-mail: megan.wright@nrc.gov E-mail: William.Murphy@nrc.gov 1
Docket No. 52-029-COL, 52-030-COL ASLBP No. 09-879-04-COL-BD01 December 28, 2010 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of the Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer to Amended Contention 4 have been served on the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange on this 28th Day of December, 2010:
Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Alex.Karlin@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Anthony.Baratta@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary ATTN: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Administrative Judge William M. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: William.Murphy@nrc.gov Megan Wright Law Clerk Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: megan.wright@nrc.gov


Mary Olson                                 Michael Mariotte NIRS Southeast                             Nuclear Information and Resource Service PO Box 7586                                 6930 Carroll Ave Suite 340 Asheville, NC 28802                         Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: maryo@nirs.org                     E-mail: nirsnet@nirs.org Michael Canney                             Cara Campbell The Green Party of Florida                 The Ecology Party of Florida Alachua County Office                      641 SW 6th Ave PO Box 12416                                Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 Gainesville, FL 32604                      E-Mail: levynuke@ecologyparty.org E-mail: alachuagreen@windstream.net John H. ONeill, Esq.                       U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael G. Lepre, Esq.                     Office of the General Counsel Blake J. Nelson, Esq.                      Kathryn L. Winsberg, Esq.
2 Mary Olson NIRS Southeast PO Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 E-mail: maryo@nirs.org Michael Mariotte Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: nirsnet@nirs.org Michael Canney The Green Party of Florida Alachua County Office PO Box 12416 Gainesville, FL 32604 E-mail: alachuagreen@windstream.net Cara Campbell The Ecology Party of Florida 641 SW 6th Ave Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 E-Mail: levynuke@ecologyparty.org John H. ONeill, Esq.
Robert B. Haemer, Esq.                      Sara Brock Kirkland, Esq.
Michael G. Lepre, Esq.
Jason P. Parker, Esq.                      Jody Martin, Esq.
Blake J. Nelson, Esq.
Counsel for Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Kevin Roach Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP     Laura Goldin 2300 N. Street, NW                           Joseph Gilman, Paralegal Washington, DC Washington, DC 20037-1122                     20555-0001 E-mail: john.ONeill@pillsburylaw.com         E-mail: Kathryn.winsberg@nrc.gov; michael.lepre@pillsburylaw.com                seb2@nrc.gov; jcm5@nrc.gov; blake.nelson@pillsburylaw.com                jsg1@nrc.gov ;
Robert B. Haemer, Esq.
robert.haemer@pillsburylaw.com              Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com              Laura.goldin@nrc.gov
Jason P. Parker, Esq.
Counsel for Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 E-mail: john.ONeill@pillsburylaw.com michael.lepre@pillsburylaw.com blake.nelson@pillsburylaw.com robert.haemer@pillsburylaw.com jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Kathryn L. Winsberg, Esq.
Sara Brock Kirkland, Esq.
Jody Martin, Esq.
Kevin Roach Laura Goldin Joseph Gilman, Paralegal Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Kathryn.winsberg@nrc.gov; seb2@nrc.gov; jcm5@nrc.gov; jsg1@nrc.gov ;
Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov Laura.goldin@nrc.gov
/Signed (electronically) by/
/Signed (electronically) by/
Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office maryo@nirs.org 2}}
Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office maryo@nirs.org}}

Latest revision as of 00:50, 14 January 2025

Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer: New Contention 12
ML103620789
Person / Time
Site: Levy County
Issue date: 12/28/2010
From: Olson M
Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Ecology Party of Florida, Green Party of Florida
To: Anthony Baratta, Karlin A, Murphy W
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 19336, 52-029-COL, 52-030-COL, ASLBP 09-879-04-COL-BD01, +reviewedbca1
Download: ML103620789 (128)
v • d • e


Text

1 United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Before Administrative Judges:

Alex S. Karlin, Chair Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William M. Murphy In the Matter of:

PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.

Combined License Application for Levy County Units 1 & 2 Dockets Numbers 52-029-COL and 52-030-COL December 28, 2010 Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer: New Contention 12 In the above captioned proceeding, we review:

On November 15, 2010 the Ecology Party of Florida, the Green Party of Florida and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Interveners) jointly filed a new contention (12) to which the NRC Staff has Answered (December 21, 2010); Interveners now reply. The November 15 date was established by a combination of negotiation (60 days from the publication of the Levy County Units 1 & 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for new contentions based on that document was part of the initial scheduling) and further extension was approved due to medical causes. This second extension applied only to matters pertaining to hydroecology. Contention 12 was filed timely in terms of this hybrid deadline insofar as Contention 12 is based on the DEIS and concerns hydroecological matters; in addition it is based on NEW information and was filed within 30 days of the event that created new information. Several of these points require additional clarification since apparently NRC staff do not understand the plain language of Contention 12. Interveners will also clarify that we did not understand certain terms of art that NRC Staff assert to have special meanings.

2 First it is necessary to paint the issues of Contention 12 since NRC Staff has clearly not understood the issues we are bringing. We shall do so briefly - and wish to emphasize that while the language of Contention 12 may assume a certain level of comprehension, all of information was contained in the original filing if the reader had any basic knowledge of the physical elements that are referred to.

At present time, the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) flows from East to West - except for the tidal action, when it obviously fluctuates in direction. Since the flow is from East to West, there is a considerable amount of water that does not originate from the Gulf of Mexico. The assertion that all the water that the Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) would consume would come from the Gulf of Mexico is wrong. The CWIS will obviously pull water from the Gulf, and will thereby reverse the predominant direction of flow in the CFBC, but it will also continue to consume the fresh water that is in the canal now. Currently that fresh water reaches the coastal waters including the estuary of the lower Withlacoochee River - and in fact is a surrogate for part of the flow that part of the river does not receive due to the construction of the CFBC. The restoration of a direct flow pathway of waters from the Upper Withlacoochee to the Lower Withlacoochee, while prospective, and not part of this proposed Federal action - is a plan (not a proposal) that predates the proposed nuclear reactors, and would have enormous hydroecological impacts on both the lower river, and the biologically diverse estuary and coastal waters. The construction of the CWIS is in direct conflict with the implementation of the Withlacoochee River restoration plan. This is clearly a hydroecological issue for an Outstanding Water of Florida. It is true that the matter of the CWIS is not new. What is new, and could not have been anticipated prior to the publication of the DEIS is Staffs approach to the assessment of alternate sites, which is greatly expanded over the ER, but nonetheless does not address these issues in terms of the incompatibility of the CWIS with the restoration plan. Interveners not only find that the matter of river restoration was not weighed in the assessment of the Levy site

3 as compared to other sites, but also note that NONE of the other sites would incur the very long-term delay of any prospect of implementing River restoration and that this LARGE impact should have been factored into the DEIS. The delay in river restoration would be for the term of the license, any license renewal and then whatever time through the decommissioning of the CWIS.

The admission of this contention for a hearing would certainly allow the development of the specific details of the river and estuary impacts and expert judgment in the matter.

Interveners have perhaps erred in providing some of the relevant documents that we think could form a basis for that development; perhaps in future we should simply provide references.

The second element of Contention 12 turns on a new proposal that has recently been acted on - that could not have been reviewed in the DEIS because it happened on October 20, 2010, after the publication of the DEIS. We note again that Contention 12 is filed within 30 days of the NEW information. This proposal would rededicate the CFB canal (while not impinging on navigation) by creating an in-land head of 2 feet that would reduce the inflow of tidal salt water, for purposes of impounding the fresh water that flows into the canal for municipal supply. Even with the restoration of flow from the Upper Withlacoochee, directly to the Lower Withlacoochee, the springs along the CFBC will continue to supply fresh water to the canal basin. While NRC Staff may not view this as a hydroecological issue - we remind Staff that Homo sapiens and its environment is in fact the primary purpose for the National Environmental Policy Act process that it has implemented, and that a species drinking water is a primary ecological issue.

In plain language: if the proposal is moved to the Crystal River Energy Center, both of these socially important, hydroecologically vital projects could proceed unhindered. The AP1000s would in fact be cooled with Gulf Water - rather than partially with Gulf Water; the

4 Withlacoochee River could be revived and the barge canal could serve an additional beneficial function.

Let it be noted that Interveners do not venture to endorse any site for the proposed reactors. Interveners hold a clear wish that this project will be withdrawn by the applicant altogether and not put on any site. Nonetheless, the transcript from the NRCs September 23, 2010 public meeting on the DEIS held during the evening in Crystal River (Attachment 1) clearly reflects a strong wish on the part of some of our Members, and their neighbors, that if the reactor project will be built, that it be an addition to the existing Crystal River Energy Center, rather than located on the proposed site in Levy County. See the comments of: Mr Hopkins (page 52, also invoking comments of Bette Burger at the afternoon meeting); Ms Foley (pages 65-67); Mr Jones (pages 75-77); Ms Sieling (page 94). Other speakers register concerns about the ground water impacts if the reactor is sited in Levy County and broad hydrological and hydroecological concerns.

It was NRC Staffs attack on the good reasons which form the basis for Interveners to bring matters late to the table, that caused sufficient reflection to remember hearing these voices at the public meeting in Crystal River, urging the reconsideration of the site selection.

The NRC Staffs answer have caused Interveners to note that an additional good reason to venture into these large matters at this juncture: the local people are asking for this outcome.

Whether the applicant or the Commission is willing to serve these voices (who are, by the way, more supportive of the project than the Interveners) remains to be seen; we, however, cannot turn away.

Whether one talks about preferable or superior the point of Contention 12 is that with respect impact to the human environment, the designated site is inferior - and the ways in which it is inferior should be weighed in the determination that is made under NEPA with respect

5 to viable alternatives: billions of gallons of drinking water and the restoration of a degraded river are priorities that NRC has an obligation not simply to note but rather to factor in to the outcome of its NEPA analysis - with whatever terms of trade it so chooses.

As for the newness of our action: as noted in the contention filing, the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) met on October 20, 2010 and heard the proposal to create a freshwater impoundment in the CFBC. The minutes of that meeting are now available and attached here (Attachement 2) and state in part:

Mr. Hubbell recommended to the Board to accept this project as a long-term (20 to 25 years) alternative water supply project to be studied for consideration and development in the future when other alternative water supply projects are further analyzed. (WRWSA Minutes from Oct 20, 2010 page 2)

As stated on page 3, the Board unanimously passed a motion to accept Mr. Hubbells (Executive Director of the governor-appointed WRWSA) recommendation.

It is true that this action is prospective; so is Progress Energys. The function of the National Environmental Policy Act is to ensure that major federal actions are fully informed. This action on October 20 is material: the approval of 52-029-COL and 52-030-COL on the proposed Levy site would preclude the implementation of this alternate water supply for 1/2 century; likely longer. We do not think that this action was reasonably foreseeable by NRC Staff; it is NEW.

We find it to be a good reason to re-open the matter of where Progress Energy Florida would construct its proposed reactors. The existing Crystal River Energy Center (CREC) would remove the need to use water from the CFBC and would allow the restoration of the upper and lower Withlacoochee.

If the process of identifying alternative sites results only in a paper trail to support a fete a compli decision of the applicant, then Interveners have made a bad calculation as to the value of the time invested in this project. We do not judge the new generation of regulators be

6 so futile. We stand by our submission of Contention 12. We find that although it is a bit of a patchwork quilt, all of the relevant admissibility requirements have been met, an Contention 12 should be admitted for a full hearing.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________/s/__________________

Mary Olson Nuclear Information and Resource Service Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802 828-252-8409 on behalf of the Co-Interveners December 28, 2010



         !"# !$

%  &

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Docket Number:

Location:

Date:

Work Order No.:

1 Levy Nuclear Plant Draft EIS Public Meeting: Evening Session 52-029,52-030 Crystal River, Florida Thursday, September 23, 2010 NRC-443 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Pages 1-112

2 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

+ + + + +

3 PUBLIC MEETING 4

+ + + + +

5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 6

LEVY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 7

COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 8

EVENING SESSION 9

+ + + + +

10 Thursday 11 September 23, 2010 12

+ + + + +

13 The meeting convened at the Plantation Inn, 9301 14 West Fort Island Trail, Crystal River, Florida, at 15 7:00 p.m.

16 BEFORE:

17 FRANCIS "CHIP" CAMERON, Facilitator 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ROBERT SCHAAF, Presenter GORDON "DON" HAMBRICK, Presenter DOUGLAS BRUNER, Presenter (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 I N D E X AGENDA Welcome and Introductory statements u.s. Army Corps of Engineers statements Overview of NRC Environmental Review Process Public Questions Public Comments Closing statements (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 3

PAGE 4

14 20 33 59 110 WWN. nealrgross,com

4 1

PRO C E E DIN G S 2

7:03 P.M.

3 MR.

CAMERON:

Good evening, everyone, and 4

welcome to the public meeting.

My name is Chip 5

Cameron, and I'm going to serve as your facilitator 6

for the meeting tonight.

And in that role, I'm going 7

to try to help you all to have a productive meeting.

8 Our topic tonight is the NRC, the Nuclear 9

Regulatory Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers 10 environmental review of the license application that 11 the NRC received from Progress Energy Florida to build 12 two new nuclear power plants here in Levy County.

And 13 the environmental review that the NRC and the Corps of 14 Engineers conducted is documented in a

draft 15 Environmental Impact statement.

16 And I just wanted to talk a little about 17 meeting process, so that you'll understand what to 18 expect during the meeting tonight.

And I'd like to 19 tell you about the format for the meeting.

I'll talk 20 a little bit about some simple ground rules and then 21 introduce the speakers from the NRC and the Corps of 22 Engineers, who will be talking to you tonight.

23 In terms of the meeting format, it's a 24 two-part format, or at least there's two segments to 25 it.

And the first segment is to give you information (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

5 1

on the environmental review process and also on what 2

the findings are in the Draft Environmental Impact 3

statement.

And we're going to have a

couple of 4

speakers from the NRC and one speaker from the Army 5

Corps of Engineers to give you that background.

6 We'll have some time for questions after 7

those presentations to make sure that we were clear 8

about everything.

And then we're going to go to the 9

second segment of the meeting.

And that's an 10 opportuni ty for the NRC staff and the Army Corps of 11 Engineers staff to listen to

you, to what your 12
concerns, your recommendations, your advice are 13 advice is on these environmental review issues.

14 And if you want to talk to us about that 15 tonight, if you could fill out a yellow card that's 16 back at the desk, if you haven't already done so, and 17 then we'll ask you to come up to this podium to speak 18 to us.

19 The NRC staff is going to tell you about 20 their written comment process.

We're also taking 21 written comments on these issues.

But I

want to 22 assure you that anything that you say tonight will 23 carry the same weight as a written comment, and you 24 can feel free to amplify what you say tonight by 25 sending in a written comment.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

6 1

In terms of ground rules for the meeting, 2

the first one is please wait until all the 3

presentations are done before you ask questions.

And 4

that way we'll give you a complete picture of what's 5

going on.

And if you do have a question, to signal me 6

and I'll bring you this.

It used to be well, it 7

was never a

cordless microphone, but usually it's 8

cordless.

But I'll try to get this out to you.

If 9

not, I'll have to ask you to come closer to me and 10 just introduce yoursel f and we'll try to answer your 11 question for you.

12 If we can't get to all the questions 13 before we have to go onto the comment period, the NRC 14 staff and our expert consultant staff, they have the 15 white name tags on, they will be glad to try to answer 16 any questions that you have.

17 And the second ground rule, I would ask 18 that only one person speak at a time.

First of all, 19 so that we can give our full attention to whomever has 20 the floor at the moment.

And secondly, so that 21 Gretchen, our court reporter, our stenographer, will 22 be able to get a clean transcript.

She will know who 23 is talking at the moment.

24 Third ground rule is, I would ask you to 25 be concise in your comments so that we can make sure (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

7 1

that we can hear from everyone.

Usually, we have a 2

three to five minute guideline for speaking, because 3

we might have 4C or 50 people that we need to hear 4

from.

We don't have anywhere near that tonight, so we 5

can be a little bit flexible on the time.

6 So, I'll just start watching at the five 7

minute point, and I may have to ask you to sum up, if 8

you get into the, you know, the seven or eight minute 9

range.

Not that you have to take that much time.

But 10 if I do ask you to sum up, I apologize in advance 11 because I know that you spent a lot of time preparing 12 for these meetings.

13 And during the comment period, when you're 14 talking to us from up there, the NRC and the Army 15 Corps of Engineers staff, they're not going to be 16 responding to things that you say.

They're going to 17 be listening to what you're saying.

But they will 18 document their response to your comments and any 19 questions that you ask from up there when they prepare 20 the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

21 And, finally, just please extend courtesy 22 to everybody.

You may hear opinions that are 23 different from yours.

But please respect the person 24 who's giving those comments.

25 (202) 23H433 And let me go to introductions.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 And I'm WWN. nealrgross,com

8 1

going to tell you a little bit about the background of 2

each of these people, so you'll get a clear picture of 3

what their areas of expertise are.

4 And we're going to start with Bob Schaaf.

5 And Bob is the Chief of the Environmental Review 6

Branch that's managing the review on this application 7

from Progress Energy Florida, and that branch is in 8

the Division of Site and Environmental Review in the 9

Office of New Reactors at the NRC.

10 And Bob's been with the NRC for about 20 11 years and doing a lot of environmental reviews, not 12 only for these new reactor applications, but also for 13 the license applications that the NRC gets to renew 14 the license for existing operating plants.

15 He's also been a

project manager for 16 operating reactors, and before he came to the NRC he 17 was at the Charleston Nuclear or the Charleston 18 Naval Shipyard, working on nuclear submarine overhaul.

19 He has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering 20 from Georgia Tech.

Bob is going to give you an 21 overview of the NRC responsibilities.

22 And then we're going to go to the Corps, 23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and we have Don Hambrick 24 with us.

And he's the Project Manager for the Corps 25 of Engineers on their review aspects on this license (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

9 1

application.

And he's been with Corps for a number of 2

years and I always forget the number, but 3

MR. HAMBRICK:

Twenty-four.

4 MR.

CAMERON:

Twenty-four.

Twenty-four 5

years.

And he's the Senior Project Manager with them 6

and he's in the Northern Permits Section of the 7

Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers.

He's 8

a biologist.

His Bachelor's Degree is in Chemistry 9

and Biology, and he has a Master of Science Degree 10 from Louisiana State University.

He's going to tell 11 you about the Corps review so that you can understand 12 that.

13 And then we're going to go to the real 14 substantive part of the presentation and go to Doug 15 Bruner, who's right here, who is with the NRC and he's 16 the Proj ect Manager on the Environmental Review of 17 this license application.

He is in Bob Schaaf's 18 branch.

And Doug has been with the NRC for three 19 years.

He's been working on environmental reviews for 20 new reactors.

21 And before that, he was with the Army 22 Corps of Engineers, working as an Environmental 23 Specialist and a Geologist.

And in his work with the 24 Army Corps of Engineers, he spent some time in Iraq 25 working on the Iraqi electricity program.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 And he was WWN. nealrgross,com

10 1

also in Afghanistan on construction proj ects for the 2

Afghanistan National Police Force.

He has a

3 Bachelor's in Geology from the University of Southern 4

Maine and he has a Master's Degree in Engineering 5

Geology from Purdue University.

6 And just let me introduce a couple of 7

people briefly so that you know who they are.

We have 8

Scott Flanders here.

And Scott is the --

he's the 9

Division Director of the Division of Site and 10 Environmental Reviews in the Office of New Reactors, 11 and that's where Bob's environmental review branch is.

12 We have our Safety Project Manager.

13 You'll hear about the two parts to the NRC review and 14 that's Brian Anderson, the Safety Project Manager.

15 I don't know if is Roger here, our 16 resident?

Okay, Roger's not here now.

But we have a 17 number of NRC staff in various disciplines; radiation, 18 safety, emergency planning here tonight so that we can 19 try to answer all of your questions.

20 And I just want to make one little note on 21 the Army Corps of Engineers and the NRC to make sure 22 that you know what that relationship is like.

There's 23 two federal agencies involved here, two decisions.

24 The NRC's decision on whether to grant the license to 25 Progress Energy Florida and the Army Corps decision on (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

11 1

whether to grant the permit for the work that Progress 2

needs to do.

3 There's one Environmental Impact statement 4

that's going to provide support for each agency's 5

decision under the National Environmental Policy Act.

6 NRC is the lead agency because that's the 7

broader decision, whether to license the plant.

And 8

the Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency.

They 9

have the very important job of deciding whether to 10 issue a permit for the work that's going to be done in 11 wetlands and navigable waters.

And Don' s going to 12 tell you more about that.

13 Each of these agencies has a

public 14 participation process.

This public meeting on the 15 Draft Environmental Impact statement is the 16 traditional part of the traditional NRC public 17 participation process.

18 The Corps of Engineers public 19 participation process involves what's called a public 20 hearing.

NOW, that public hearing is being satisfied 21 by this NRC public meeting tonight.

22 And with that, I' 11 let everybody get to 23 the substance of tonight's discussion and turn it over 24 to Bob.

25 (202) 23H433 MR.

SCHAAF:

And thanks, Chip.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 As Chip WWN. nealrgross,com

12 1

said, my name's Bob Schaaf.

I'm Chief of one of the 2

branches responsible for Environmental Reviews for 3

proposed new nuclear power plants.

I would like to 4

welcome everyone to this meeting about our 5

environmental of Progress Energy's application to 6

construct and operate two new nuclear power units at 7

the Levy County site.

8 I'd also like to take a moment to thank 9

you all for coming out.

Public participation is an 10 important part of our environmental review process and 11 so we appreciate your attendance.

We do find that 12 local communities are often aware of issues that can 13 help us in completing our review.

14 First, I'll take just a few moments to go 15 over the purposes of tonight's meeting.

I'll begin 16 with a few words about the mission of the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.

Then, as Chip mentioned, Don 18 will discuss the Corps role in the environmental 19 review and in -- and their permit decision.

20 You'll hear Don

describe, as Chip 21 mentioned, you'll hear Don describe tonight's meeting 22 as a public hearing for the Corps' purposes.

The 23 Corps hearing is distinct from the NRC's formal 24 licensing hearing process.

25 Today's meeting is not part of that formal (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

13 1

hearing process for the NRC.

Rather, we are here to 2

gather comments for consideration in completing our 3

environmental review.

4 Following these introductory

remarks, 5

Doug, the Project Manager for the environmental review 6

of the Levy County application, will describe the 7

review process, preliminary findings, and ways that 8

public comments may be provided on the Environmental 9

Impact statement.

10 And most importantly, as Chip mentioned, 11 we're here tonight to receive your comments on the 12 Draft Environmental Impact statement.

After our 13 presentations, you'll have the opportunity to provide 14 comments.

And as was mentioned, the meeting is being 15 transcribed so that we can accurately capture your 16 comments and reflect on them.

17 So, now I'd like to provide a

brief 18 background on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The 19 NRC was created by Congress in 1974 and began 20 operations at the beginning of 1975 to provide 21 independent oversight of civilian uses of nuclear 22 materials, including the generation of electricity in 23 nuclear power plants.

Our mission is to protect 24 public health and safety, promote common defense and 25 security, and protect the environment.

The NRC is not (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

14 1

a proponent of any project.

We do not propose, build, 2

or operate any nuclear facilities.

3 In this case, Progress Energy Florida has 4

proposed to construct and operate two new nuclear 5

power units on the Levy county site.

Our 6

responsibility is to ensure that this facility can be 7

constructed and operated safely and securely and in a 8

manner that protects the environment from radioactive 9

materials.

We must make those determinations before 10 we decide whether to issue the requested licenses.

11 That concludes my introductory remarks.

12

Again, I would like to express my thanks to everyone 13 for coming out and joining us tonight.

14 MR.

HAMBRICK:

Good evening, everybody.

15 As Chip said, my name is Don Hambrick.

I am a Senior 16 Project Manager with the Army Corps of Engineers 17 Jacksonville District in the Regulatory Division.

I 18 work for our North Permits Branch, which covers the 19 northern two-thirds of Florida and includes four 20 sections with offices in Pensacola, Panama

City, 21 Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Cocoa.

I personally am 22 stationed out of Panama City.

23 The Corps of Engineers Jacksonville 24 District, as co-sponsor with the NRC of this public 25

hearing, (202) 23H433 welcomes you and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 encourages your WWN. nealrgross,com

15 1

participation by the submittal of your written or 2

spoken comments during this public

hearing, or 3

submittal of written comments that you may send 4

directly to the NRC.

5 Review of your comments are an important 6

part of the Corps' evaluation of the proposed 7

construction of Progress Energy Florida's Levy Nuclear 8

Power Plant units 1 and 2.

And it includes the 9

upgrade or construction of approximately 180 miles of 10 transmission lines.

Next slide.

11 Now, a lot of people say, why is the Corps 12 of Engineers involved in projects like this?

And, of 13 course, it's because of various Federal statutes and 14 Regulations.

15 The Corps of Engineers, we also refer to 16 ourselves at USACE, is the Federal agency responsible 17 for administrating section 404 of the Clean Water Act 18 and section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899.

19 The Corps regulates the discharge of dredge and fill 20 material into all jurisdictional waters of the united 21 states, including wetlands.

22 And we also regulate dredging and the 23 construction of structures in,

over, or under all 24 navigable waters, including wetlands located wi thin 25 those navigable waters.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

16 1

Corps permit decisions are federal actions 2

and must comply with the National Environmental Policy 3

Act, commonly called NEPA.

4 We are also charged to review projects 5

through when they involve the discharge of dredged 6

or fill material into waters of the United states, 7

that they comply with the requirements of the section 8

404 Ib) (1) Guidelines.

We also are charged for all the 9

proj ects for review to determine whether or not that 10 project is contrary to the public interest.

That's 11 called our public interest review.

12 But be aware, the standard is not that we 13 have to find that the project is in the public 14 interest.

The standard is that the proj ect is not 15 contrary to the public interest.

And the next slide.

16 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the 17 lead agency in the preparation of the Environmental 18 Impact statement under

NEPA, and as already been 19 mentioned, the Corps is the cooperating agency in the 20 preparation of the Environmental Impact statement.

21 The Corps evaluation decision whether to 22 issue a Department of Army permit, will be documented 23 in a separate Record of Decision, which we will refer 24 to as ROD, and also is combined with our statement of 25 findings, no earlier than 30 days after issuance of (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

17 1

the Final EIS. The ROD will reference information in 2

the FEIS and present any additional information 3

required by the Corps to support the permit decision.

4 Under our regulations, the Corps is 5

neither a

proponent nor opponent of any project 6

undergoing our regulatory review.

The Corps has not 7

made a decision as to whether or not a permit will be 8

issued.

The solicitation and review of the comments 9

provided in response to the DEIS are part of our 10 evaluation of this project.

Okay.

The next slide.

11 This is just a general overview of what 12 the Corps is regulating, what we are being asked to 13 permit.

As far as on the actual project site itself, 14 at the reactor

site, including the associated 15 structure, such as administration building, parking 16 lots, roads, switch yards, et cetera, about 312 -- no 17 excuse me, 372 acres of fill material --

372 acres of 18 wetlands would be impacted.

19 Associated with the transmission lines, an 20 additional approximately 319 acres of wetlands would 21 be impacted.

22 For the blowdown pipelines that would 23 carry the cooling water and discharge it from Levy 24 down to the Crystal River Energy Complex a distance of 25 about 13 miles, approximately 30 acres of wetlands (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

18 1

would be impacted.

2

Then, at the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, 3

PEF proposes to construct the boats --

excuse me, a

4 barge slip and boat ramp in order to transport large 5

components of the facility up to the site.

And 6

approximately 1.1 acres of wetlands and open waters 7

would be impacted by that.

8 We will also be evaluating for whether or 9

not to issue a permit for structures in navigable 10 waters, which would include the cooling water intake 11 structure at the Cross-Florida Barge Canal and the 12 cooling water discharge structure at the Crystal River 13 Energy Complex.

Okay.

Next slide.

14 Under our regulations, the Corps will not 15 provide responses during this hearing to your 16 comments.

All oral testimony will be recorded and a 17 transcript prepared by the NRC.

Comments, as I said 18 before, may also be submitted in writing through the 19 end of the DEIS comment period to the NRC, which is 20 October 27th.

21 All received comments will become part of 22 the official record for the project and will be 23 addressed by the Corps with the NRC in the Final EIS 24 or separately by the Corps in its combined Record of 25 Decision and statement of Findings.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

19 1

At the bottom, the last two bullets, the 2

third one provides there our permit application 3

number.

Tha t' s how we reference this proj ect, SAJ-4 2008-00490 (IP).

That stands for Individual Permit and 5

that's the type of permit that we're evaluating for, 6

and my initials.

And then my name, e-mail, and phone 7

number.

8 And you're free to contact me if you have 9

any questions in regard to the actual process that 10 we're going through in the evaluation.

Your 11 opportunity,

again, to comment on the merits and 12 concerns of the proj ect are afforded through this 13 public hearing, plus the comments you can submit up 14 through October 27th.

15 If you do have any comments in regard to 16 the Corps permitting process this evening, I'll be 17 happy to answer them after the public hearing or after 18 this meeting.

19 I do want to offer my thanks to the NRC 20 and to their consultants with the Paci fic Northwest 21 National Labs and Information Systems Laboratories for 22 all of the hard work, and it really has been a lot of 23 work that went into the preparation of the DEIS, the 24 work that will be continuing on through the 25 development of the Final EIS, and for putting on this (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

20 1

workshop and meeting.

Thank you.

2 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Don.

We're going 3

to hear from Doug Bruner right now.

4 MR.

BRUNER:

Thank you, Chip.

Again, my 5

name is Doug Bruner.

And I

would like to thank 6

everybody for coming out here and giving us your 7

feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact statement.

8 It's interesting how quickly time passes.

9 It's been almost two years ago since we were last here 10 seeking your input for the Draft Environmental Impact 11 statement.

This evening, I would like to provide a 12 brief overview of the environmental review process, as 13 well as the environmental review.

14 In July 2008, Progress Energy submitted an 15 application to the NRC for combined licenses for the 16 Levy proj ect.

The combined licenses, if granted, 17 would be authorization to construct and operate two 18 new nuclear units on the Levy site.

19 For the Levy combined license application, 20 the NRC is conducting two reviews at the same time, a 21 safety review and an environmental review.

And this 22 evening I will be discussing the environmental review.

23 Oh, we're on the wrong slide.

There you 24 go.

The product of our environmental review is the 25 Environmental Impact statement and it's called an EIS.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

21 1

The staff began its review of Progress Energy's 2

application for combined licenses for the Levy site in 3

October of 2008, which included the review of the 4

applicant's environmental report that was included as 5

part of the application.

6 The staff conducted site audits, visits to 7

alternative

sites, and interacted with local 8

officials, and state and other federal agencies, as 9

well as Native American tribes.

10 The staff gathered information through 11 scoping to help us determine which issues should be 12 considered in the review.

We also requested 13 additional information from Progress Energy.

14 All of this information was used to 15 prepare the Draft Environmental Impact statement, 16 which was published this past August, last month.

17 As a member of the team, the Corps has 18 been on site visits and has actively participated in 19 agency interactions and technical reviews in 20 developing the EIS. Next slide, please.

21 This slide is an overview of NRC's 22 environmental review process.

This step-wise approach 23 is how we meet our responsibilities under the National 24 Environmental Policy Act.

We are currently in the 25 comment period stage for the Draft Environmental (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

22 1

Impact statement, which is the fourth bullet down.

2 Previously, the NRC and Corps were seeking 3

your input for the EIS during the scoping period.

And 4

your comments were presented in a Scoping Summary 5

Report which was published in May of 2009.

It is also 6

inc I uded as Appendix D to the Environmental Impact 7

Statement for those comments that were within scope of 8

the environmental review.

9 To assist us in our review, the NRC and 10 Corps are currently seeking public comments on the 11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

The 75-day 12 comment period on the Draft EIS began on August 13 and 13 will remain open until October 27th.

14 Once the comment period is over, the staff 15 will start processing all of comments that were 16 received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

17 That includes anything that you would like to share 18 with us this evening.

19 Based on the comments that we receive, we 20 will adjust our analysis as needed and finalize the 21 Environmental Impact Statement.

22 The target date for issuing the draft --

23 for issuing the Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 is July of 2011.

The comments and responses on the 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be included (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

23 1

as an Appendix in the Final Environmental Impact 2

statement.

Next slide.

3 To prepare the EIS, we have assembled a 4

team with backgrounds in the necessary scientific and 5

technical disciplines.

The NRC has contracted with 6

Pacific Northwest National

Labs, as well as 7

Information Systems Laboratories to assist us in 8

preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.

9 The NRC team, which includes the PNNL and 10 ISL contractors, is comprised of a

wide range of 11 experts knowledgeable in environmental issues and in 12 nuclear power plants.

13 As mentioned before, the Corps has also 14 provided technical expertise in developing the EIS.

15 This slide shows most of the resource areas that were 16 considered in the EIS, and many of these staff experts 17 are here this evening to receive your comments.

18 The NRC would like to provide time for you 19 to present comments this evening; therefore, I will be 20 discussing the results of the analysis of some of 21 these resource areas depicted here.

But before I do 22 that -- next slide, please.

23 This slide depicts how the impacts to the 24 environment are categorized in the Environmental 25 Impact Statement.

The NRC has established three (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

24 1

impact category levels; small, moderate, and large, to 2

help explain the effects of the project in consistent 3

terms for each of the resource areas.

4 As the team was developing its analysis, 5

the team members would ask, is the effect minor, which 6

would be a small effect.

Does the effect noticeably 7

alter important attributes of the

resource, which 8

would be a moderate effect.

Or, does the effect 9

destabilize important attributes of the

resource, 10 which would be a large effect.

11 So, throughout the Environmental Impact 12 Statement for each of the technical areas, like the 13 ones we saw in the previous slide, the team would 14 develop its analysis and then assign a

level of 15 significance of small,

moderate, or large.

Next 16 slide, please.

17 Now we'll get into a little more detail 18 about some of the technical areas.

First, is water 19 resources.

Our evaluation considered groundwater and 20 surface water, both the use and quality of these two 21 resources.

22 Groundwater will be used during the 23 building of units 1

and 2, for controlling dust, 24 25 mixing

concrete, for soil compaction, and other construction uses.

Later, during operation of the (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

25 1

plant, groundwater will be used for
drinking, 2

sanitation, fire protection, and cooling of smaller 3

plant components.

4 The primary source of water to be used 5

during operation is surface water, which will be used 6

to cool units 1 and 2.

The source for surface water 7

is the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, which is directly 8

connected to the Gulf of Mexico.

9 Water being discharged from the plant will 10 be directed to the existing Crystal River Energy 11 Complex and discharged.

Progress Energy would be 12 required to comply with all state and federal permits 13 for groundwater withdrawals and discharges to the Gulf 14 of Mexico.

15 Therefore, the review team determined that 16 the impacts of building and operation of units 1 and 2 17 on the use and quality of groundwater and surface 18 water would be small.

Next slide, please.

19 Next, is ecological resources.

Our team 20 evaluated the terrestrial impacts on local wildlife 21 that either live on the Levy site and the surrounding 22 area or in nearby water bodies.

The evaluation 23 covered many species.

Some examples are the 24 Loggerhead Turtle, the Gulf Sturgeon, and Wood Stork.

25 (202) 23H433 The NRC staff, along with the Corps, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

26 1

consul ting with other agencies, such as the Florida 2

Department of Environmental Protection, the u. S. Fish 3

and wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fishery 4

Service, on impacts to ecological resources.

5 The review team concluded that the 6

terrestrial impacts from building units 1 and 2 would 7

be moderate, primarily due to the loss of wetlands 8

habitat, and small to moderate during operation 9

because of the range of possible impacts to wetlands 10 from groundwater withdrawal.

Impacts on the aquatic 11 ecosystems are considered small for both building and 12 operation.

Next slide, please.

13 As part of the NRC staff's analysis, we 14 evaluated potential doses to workers during 15 construction, doses to members of the public and plant 16 workers during operation, and doses received by 17 wildlife.

18 The NRC's regulation limit the whole body 19 dose to a member of the public to around 5 to 10 20 millirem per year from a nuclear power plant.

The EPA 21 standard is 25 millirem per year for the entire fuel 22 cycle.

23 Radiation exposure is a very well-studied 24 health risk.

To put the above radiation exposures 25 into perspective, the average dose to an individual in (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

27 1

the united states from natural background, such as 2

cosmic radiation, naturally occurring radioactive 3

material in the soil, and building materials, is 4

around 300 millirem per year.

5 The NRC's regulated limit is less than ten 6

percent of the total of natural background.

The 7

impacts on all three groups: doses to members of the 8

public, plant workers and wildlife would be small, 9

since Progress Energy must continue to comply with 10 stringent NRC and EPA regulations.

Next

slide, 11 please.

12 Socioeconomics and environmental justice.

13 It's about people.

The socioeconomics review 14 encompasses many different

things, such as local 15
economy, taxes,
housing, education, traffic and 16 transportation, populations, infrastructure, and 17 community services.

18 The adverse socioeconomic impacts range 19 from small to moderate for the building phase of units 20 1 and 2.

The moderate adverse impacts are primarily 21 in Levy and Marion Counties due to the impacts on 22 public services and schools.

There would be a

23 moderate impact associated with traffic in Levy 24 County.

Additionally, a moderate aesthetic impact is 25 expected from transmission lines and corridors.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

28 1

On the other hand, there is a beneficial 2

impact from taxes that range from small to moderate 3

during construction, and small to large during 4

operation, particularly in Levy County.

5 The environmental justice review focuses 6

on low income and minority populations to understand 7

if they would be unevenly and adversely affected by 8

the proposed action.

During our

review, we did 9

identify several minority and low-income census 10 blocks, but did not find any evidence that minority or 11 low income populations would be affected 12 disproportionately by construction and operation of 13 the new plant.

Next slide, please.

14 An important part of the environmental 15 review under the National Environmental Policy Act is 16 the evaluation of cumulative impacts.

In Chapter 7, 17 the team evaluated the impacts of units 1 and 2, in 18 addition to other proposed and existing activities in 19 the review area, such as the existing Crystal River 20 Energy

Complex, the proposed Tarmac King Road 21 Limestone Mine, and the expansion of the Suncoast 22 Parkway.

23 So, as an example, surface water quality.

24 In Chapters 4 and 5, the team determined that the 25 impacts on surface water quality from the building and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

29 1

operation of units 1 and 2 would be small.

2

However, in Chapter 7,

when those 3

construction and operation impacts are added to the 4

impacts from other past,

present, and reasonably 5

foreseeable future development acti vi ties, the impact 6

on surface water quality would be categorized as 7

moderate.

8

Overall, the cumulative adverse impacts 9

ranged from small to moderate, with the exception of 10 the generally beneficial impact from taxes, which 11 would range from small adverse to large beneficial.

12 Next slide, please.

13 As part of our review, the team needs to 14 make a determination of whether or not there is a need 15 for additional power from the licensee.

For proposed 16 units 1

and 2,

the area evaluated was Progress 17 Energy's service territory.

18 The Commission has acknowledged the 19 state's primary role in assessing their need for 20 power-generating facilities.

For this reason, the NRC 21 staff's review was targeted at determining whether the 22 Florida Public Service Commission's order was 23 adequate.

Based on this review, and that it meets the 24 four criteria listed in the second bullet here on the 25

slide, (202) 23H433 the staff gives deference to the FPSC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

30 1

conclusion that the power produced by the proposed new 2

units would be needed.

You can read more about the 3

power analysis in Chapter 8 of the Environmental 4

Impact statement.

Next slide, please.

5 Alternatives is often referred to as the 6

heart of NEPA.

In Chapter 9, the staff evaluated 7

alternative energy sources, alternative sites, and 8

alternative system designs, as well as the no-action 9

alternative.

10 In our al ternati ve energy analysis, the 11 review team evaluated generation of baseload power, 12 which is continuously produced 24/7.

For baseload, we 13 examined sources such as coal and natural gas, and a 14 combination of energy sources, such as natural gas, 15 solar, wind, biomass, and additional conservation and 16 demand side management programs.

The review team 17 determined that none of the feasible base load 18 energies would be environmentally preferable.

19 The review team compared the proposed Levy 20 site to four other alternative sites in Florida, 21 including the site adjacent to the Crystal River 22 Energy Complex.

The NRC staff determined that none of 23 the alternative sites would be environmentally 24 preferable to the Levy site.

25 And lastly, the review team determined no (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

31 1

alternative cooling system would be environmentally 2

preferable to the proposed design.

Next slide.

3 In Chapter 10 of the EIS, the NRC staff 4

makes a preliminary recommendation to the Commission.

5 This recommendation is based on the mostly small 6

environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and the 7

NRC staff's conclusion that no alternative site or 8

base load or alternative baseload energy source 9

would be environmentally preferable.

10 Based on the results of the environmental 11

review, the preliminary recommendation to the NRC 12 Commission is that the combined licenses for Levy 13 units 1

and 2

be issued.

The recommendation is 14 considered preliminary until we evaluate your comments 15 on the Draft Environmental Impact statement.

16 This preliminary recommendation is for the 17 environmental review only.

As mentioned earlier in 18 this presentation, there are two concurrent reviews.

19 One is the environmental review and one is the safety 20 review.

21 The safety review is ongoing and is 22 anticipated to be completed in July

2011, with 23 issuance of the Final Safety Evaluation Report.

The 24 Final Safety Evaluation Report will present the 25 results of the staff's safety review.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

32 1

If you don't already have a copy of the 2

Draft Environmental Impact statement, there are hard 3

copies in the lobby, as well as CDs, or you can call 4

me, using the number on this screen, to request a 5

copy.

My contact information is provided on this 6

slide.

7 There is also a toll free number that you 8

can call and that's and if you can approach me 9

later after this meeting and I'll give you that 10 number, as well.

But it's 1-800-368-5642.

That's 1-11 800-368-5642.

And it would be the same extension on 12 my number, 2730.

You could also find it online at the 13 website presented on this slide, or you can find them 14 in the Reference section of the four libraries -- the 15 four local libraries listed here on this slide.

Next 16 slide, please.

17 As Bob stated earlier this evening, the 18 main purpose of this meeting is to listen to and 19 gather your comments on the environmental review.

20 Many of you have already signed up to speak during 21 this meeting;

however, if you are not comfortable 22 speaking in front of large crowds or if you need to 23 leave early, there are forms on the table at the back 24 of the room.

And you can write comments and mail it 25 into us or hand it to an NRC staffer, or you can type (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

33 1

it and submit it electronically.

2 We also know that some of you have come 3

here to collect information at this time; however, if 4

you think of something later and would like to submit 5

comments to us, there are other ways to do that, as 6

you can see on the slide, as well.

You can e-mail 7

them to the NRC, you can submit them online, you can 8

mail them or you can fax them.

9 And please note, as we had mentioned 10

earlier, this is a 75-day review.

It began on 11 September 13 and it ends on October -- it remains open 12 until October 27th.

13 And with that, I conclude my presentation.

14 I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing 15 your comments.

Thank you.

16 MR.

CAMERON:

Thank you, Doug.

We've 17 gotten a pretty good overview of the process and some 18 of the findings and preliminary recommendation in the 19 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

20 Can we clear up anything about the review 21 process for you or anything that you heard in the 22 presentation?

Is there any questions?

23 24 25 (202) 23H433 Yes, Barbara, right?

MS. SIELING:

Yep.

MR. CAMERON:

Barbara, could you -- would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

34 1

you --

2 MS. SIELING:

I've got a big mouth.

I may 3

not need that.

4 MR.

CAMERON:

Well, I'm not going to 5

comment on that, but --

6 MS.

SIELING:

That's good.

It's better 7

for you.

8 I'm still confused, and I've talked to 9

quite a few people and the one question that I still 10 haven't gotten cleared up is like everyone's 11 contradicting themselves, and it has to do with why 12 it's not going on the old site.

13 I talked to people before the meeting and 14 they say that, well, we can't tell you why Florida 15 or Progress Energy chose to have it here instead of 16 over on the current site, the nuclear plant.

But then 17 here I hear them saying that it was because you guys 18 determined that that the site wasn't better than this 19 site.

And so I'm still confused on that.

20 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

And let's see if we 21 can help you with that.

And I think that partially 22 it's a question of timing also, in terms of the 23 license applicant's business decision versus the NRC's 24 evaluation of alternatives.

And Bob, are you going to 25 do this one?

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

35 1

MR.

SCHAAF:

Yeah.

Let me see if I can 2

take a stab at this.

3 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

4 MR.

SCHAAF:

Basically, it is Progress 5

Energy's business decision to propose where they want 6

to site the facility.

7 Applicants provide an application, a

8 request to the NRC, and we basically have two options.

9 We can tell them, yes, here's your permit, or, no, 10 that's not an appropriate location.

11 As part of the environmental review, we 12 look at the potential alternatives, including the 13 alternative site analysis.

And we look for, are there 14 any other sites that are, what we call, potentially 15 environmentally preferable to the proposed site.

16 And if we were to find one, which we 17 determined might be environmentally preferable, we 18 would go the additional step of then evaluating, is 19 that other site obviously superior.

In other words, 20 it's so much better that we really shouldn't grant the 21 applicant's request.

22 In this

case, in evaluating the 23 alternative sites, the decision of the review team was 24 that none of those sites met the environmentally 25 preferable threshold.

And--

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

36 1

MS. SIELING:

(Inaudible.)

2 MR.

CAMERON:

Barbara, Barbara.

We need 3

to -- Barbara, we need to get you on the transcript.

4 I'm going to ask you to do one follow-up question, if 5

this still isn't clear to you.

And then I'm going to 6

ask the staff to talk to Barbara after the meeting to 7

see if they can explain it.

8

But, do you have a

follow-up question 9

based on what Bob said?

10 MS.

SIELING:

Yes.

It's basically the 11 same thing.

I'm being told that it was -- you're now, 12 in the conversation we had, was that it was Progress 13 Energy's choice to go here.

But when the other 14 gentleman, whichever one it was, was speaking, he said 15 that you all had already determined that there wasn't 16 one that was better.

17 MR. CAMERON:

Well, let's -- let's --

18 MS. SIELING:

How is that?

19 MR. CAMERON:

Let's focus not on what the 20 other gentleman was saying, but on what Bob -- on what 21

-- on what 22 MS. SIELING:

Well, like what he said is 23 just as important.

24 MR.

CAMERON:

Bob -- well, Bob is trying 25 to clear this up for you.

The first decision that was (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

37 1

made, as I understand what Bob's saying, the first 2

decision that's made in any of these new reactor 3

applications, is that the

company, the license 4

applicant, is going to come in with an application 5

that has a

site specified on it.

That's their 6

decision.

And there could be many reasons why they 7

chose that site.

8 NRC has nothing to do with what is in that 9

license application, as far as the site is concerned.

10 But, once the NRC gets the application with that site 11 in it, then they have to do their environmental review 12 of that site.

13 As part of that environmental review, the 14 NRC looks to see whether there is any site that is 15 obviously superior from an environmental point of 16 view.

NRC did that analysis and said they could not 17 find that none of those sites were environmentally 18 preferable.

19 MS. SIELING:

Why?

20 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

NOW, that's a fair 21 question and if you want to just address that, Bob.

22 MR. SCHAAF:

Well, I guess, you know, I'm 23 not prepared to go into all of the details of the 24 evaluation.

I mean, that's all spelled out in the 25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

And if there is (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

38 1

some logic there that -- that you have a question or 2

concern about, we would certainly welcome comments 3

regarding that, for us to take and consider, you know, 4

did -- did we miss something in our evaluation of --

5 of that alternative site analysis.

6 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes?

7 MS.

FOLEY:

I have a question regarding 8

the way this hurts --

9 MR.

CAMERON:

Could you I'm sorry.

10 Could you use this, please?

And introduce yourself, 11 please.

12 MS FOLEY:

My name is Beth Foley.

And I'm 13 just curious about so, the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission is a government agency, right?

And we, the 15 taxpayers, pay for your and you did the study, not 16 Progress Energy.

So, we paid for this study, not 17 Progress Energy.

I guess that I was just confused.

I 18 thought it was Progress Energy that --

19 MR. SCHAAF:

Two studies.

20 MR.

CAMERON:

Right.

Actually the 21 analysis is initially provided by the applicant.

22 MS. FOLEY:

Okay.

Then I'm back on track.

23 MR.

CAMERON:

They do as part of their 24 decision on where to request.

25 (202) 23H433 MS. FOLEY:

You look at then carefully and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

39 1

say, is this okay or not.

2 MR.

SCHAAF:

Right.

We evaluate their 3

analysis, do independent analysis, and come to our 4

conclusion regarding whether there is an obviously 5

superior site.

6 MR.

CAMERON:

So, the applicant submits 7

what they call an environmental report.

And then the 8

NRC uses that, plus its own independent analysis to 9

prepare the Environmental Impact Statement.

And 10 that's the government document that we're talking 11 about tonight, the Environmental Impact Statement.

12 MS.

FOLEY:

But you're using those that 13 Progress Energy's information?

Or you --

14 MR.

CAMERON:

We have to again, I'm 15 sorry.

This is awkward, I know, but we have to get 16 you on the transcript, so 17 MS.

FOLEY:

So, are you using scientists 18 that are your scientists or Progress Energy selects 19 the scientists or I

guess I'm just a little 20 confused, because I really thought it was Progress 21 Energy's study that you were evaluating and reviewing, 22 really reviewing.

But that's not really the case.

23 It's --

24 25 (202) 23H433 MR. CAMERON:

Well, no.

It is the case.

MS. FOLEY:

That is the case?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

40 1

MR. CAMERON:

Then does someone want to 2

I shouldn't be explaining this as the facilitator, 3

because I might get it wrong, too.

4 MR.

MASNIK:

I'm Mike Masnik.

The 5

licensee, in their environmental report -- part of it 6

has to do with alternatives.

And they do an analysis 7

in which they use a series of criteria to identify 8

some alternative sites.

Okay.

They use their own 9

scientists, their own consultants to produce this 10 document, which looks at the area -- the service area 11 and comes up with some alternatives.

12 We then take that as part of our review 13 and look to see if the the way in which they 14 identified the site was a reasonable and thorough and 15 comprehensive manner.

And then we also independently 16 review each of the sites, looking at what we call 17 reconnaissance level data.

So it's a review of what's 18 submitted to us, plus additional work on the part of 19 our contractors and our scientific personnel to look 20 at various components related to those particular 21 sites.

22 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

23 MR. MASNIK:

Maybe we can talk afterwards 24 and I can give you a little bit more information on 25 that.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

41 1

MS.

FOLEY:

Well, we the taxpayer aren't 2

paying from the ground up.

You did get a lot of 3

information 4

MR. MASNIK:

Oh yes.

5 MS.

FOLEY:

from the Progress Energy.

6 MR.

CAMERON:

Beth, Beth, I'm going to 7

repeat this again.

We need to get you on the 8

transcript.

So, that means you need to speak in to 9

this thing.

10 MS.

FOLEY:

I guess unless I understand 11 where the money is, I don't understand things.

And if 12 Progress Energy paid for most of this, or did they?

13 MR. CAMERON:

You keep -- you keep saying 14 "this."

Progress Energy 15 MS. FOLEY:

The Draft Environmental Impact 16 Statement is what I meant.

17 MR.

CAMERON:

The Draft Environmental 18 Impact Statement --

does anybody dare we go in to 19 the fee business?

But I can explain that, but Scott, 20 why don't you -- why don't you just try to give Beth 21 an idea of how this works.

22 MR. FLANDERS:

Let me just take a minute.

23 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

24 MR.

FLANDERS:

I don't want to get into 25 the fee aspect of it.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

42 1

But simply

put, if you look at our 2

regulation in 10 CFR Part 51, the applicant is 3

required to submit an environmental report.

An 4

environmental report is a technical analysis product 5

that they generate that examines what they believe the 6

environmental impacts would be from their proposed 7

action.

And their proposed action is to build, 8

construct, and operate a nuclear power plant at a 9

particular location.

10 When they come in with their application, 11 they have done, through their own business process and 12 other evaluations, have picked a particular location.

13 They submit the application to us.

So, that's their 14 scientific work and analysis that's done.

15 We get that scientific work and analysis 16 and that's a starting point for us.

We take that 17 information in and we have scientists and experts.

We 18 reference some of our contractors that we have and we 19 analyze that information in their particular areas of 20 expertise.

21 Also collect other information by going to 22 the site and examining the site and the environment, 23 and also through their own knowledge and understanding 24 25 of the various technical subj ect matter.

information (202) 23H433 from other journals NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 and They have research WWN. nealrgross,com

43 1

documents, et cetera.

And those references are 2

identified in the Environmental Impact statement.

All 3

that information that they use.

4 And they take all that information in and 5

they analyze it.

And they make a judgment as to what 6

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes would be 7

the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 8

action.

9 So, that's how the entire process works.

10 And that process is the same process that's done when 11 you go through the alternate site review.

The 12 applicant has a process that they use, which we ask 13 them to describe, how they come to and arrive at the 14 site that they selected.

And then we analyze that.

15 And as part of that analysis, we look at 16 other sites that filter through our process that to 17 compare whether or not there is a site that is 18 would be what one would consider environmentally 19 preferable.

And what we mean by "environmentally 20 preferable" is, if you look at all the environmental 21

impacts, whether it be water or ecology or 22 radiological impacts in terms of impacts to the 23 public, all those things, historic properties, all 24 those activities.

25 And, you look at them all and you compare (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

44 1

them from one site to the next, as Mike said, using 2

reconnaissance level information, which includes our 3

scientists go into these alternate sites and looking 4

through and making sure that we have a

good 5

understanding of the site, as well as not just solely 6

relying on the information that's submitted.

7 And take that all in, and then we make 8

some evaluations; is there a

site that is really 9

environmentally preferable, where all the impacts were 10 much less than what was proposed.

11 If we see something like that, then the 12 next question is, is it so much better, such that if 13 the license or the request shouldn't be granted for 14 the proposed site.

15 So, that's the process that we use.

So, 16 we do our own scientific work.

It's not solely relied 17 on by the applicants.

18 And I think --

I guess in the interests, 19 maybe we can have further discussions.

20 MS. FOLEY:

One quick question.

Have you 21 ever changed a site?

22 MR.

FLANDERS:

Have we ever changed a 23 site?

24 MS. FOLEY:

Have you ever made a change to 25 a site and said, no, no, no, this is not good?

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

45 1

MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

I hear someone 2

speaking.

3 And it's Beth.

Beth.

And this is going 4

to be the last one.

5 MS. FOLEY:

Real quick question.

Have you 6

ever changed the site?

7 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

The question, I think 8

you understand it, is when we did do the 9

environmental alternate site review, have we ever 10 found one that's been environmentally superior?

11 Michael?

Mike Masnik.

12 MR.

MASNIK:

When we had a flurry of 13 applications back in

'70s, there were several 14 instances in which the site was actually changed from 15 the preferred site, from the applicant's preferred 16 site.

So, the answer to your question is, yes.

17 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

And Beth are you 18 going to be can you stay till the end of the 19 meeting?

20 MS. FOLEY:

Yes.

21 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Well, I think we'll 22 talk to you -- staff will talk to you more about this 23 if you have any questions.

And of course, that goes 24 for Barbara too.

25 And let's --

we have four questions here (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

46 1

and then I think we're going to have to -- we're going 2

to go to comment and let's see how much rope I have.

3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

That's it.

4 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Why don't you go 5

first and then we'll go there, and then we'll go to 6

you and then we'll go to Mr. Hopkins.

7 MR.

JONES:

I'm hopefully a quick --

my 8

name is Art Jones.

I live here in Crystal River.

And 9

I hopefully have a quick, easy question for somebody.

10 As I was learning from the slides we have 11 over a total of over 720 acres of fresh water 12 wetlands that will be destroyed and lost at the Levy 13 County site.

And I was wondering, how many acres of 14 fresh water wetlands would be lost at the in Crystal 15 River site if the new power plant was built there?

16 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Peyton, can you 17 can you do this for us?

This is Peyton Doub with the 18 NRC.

19 MR.

DOUB:

I'm Peyton Doub.

I am the 20 terrestrial ecologist and wetland scientist on the NRC 21 staff and the one responsible for reviewing the 22 analyses in those fields, you know, in the Draft EIS.

23 To answer your question, we do provide 24 wetland impact acreage data for the alternative sites 25 in Chapter 9 of the DEIS.

The level of detail that we (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

47 1

collect for the alternative sites is based on public 2

information and brief reconnaissance, whereas for the 3

Levy site, it was more detailed of site specific data 4

collection.

But we did use published wetland maps and 5

other sources of published data to quantify wetland 6

impacts at the alternative sites, enough to a degree 7

that we could determine whether or not any of those 8

sites is could potentially be environmentally 9

superior and obviously were environmentally 10 preferable and obviously superior to the Levy site.

11 One thing to bear in mind about the 12 Crystal River site is that even though there is the 13 existing nuclear power plant there, the land that 14 would be used at that site for developing the new 15 uni ts, is, at the present time, supporting natural 16 vegetation over -- over most of that land.

17 So, that even though the Levy site is 18 greenfield and Crystal River is not.

Most of the land 19 that would be impacted at Crystal River does, at the 20 present

time, support natural
habitats, including 21 wetlands.

22 So, it's not like the Crystal River site, 23 were it used, everything would be builtin an area 24 that had previously been disturbed.

25 Once again, I'll refer you to Chapter 9 of (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

48 1

the Draft EIS for more detailed quantitative data.

2 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thanks, Peyton.

3 Could you come up here, please?

And just introduce 4

yourself to us, please.

5 MS.

CASEY:

Emily Casey, and I just have 6

two questions.

I believe it was you.

You said 7

something I couldn't really understand what you had --

8 the complete sentence.

9 You said something about the -- if it was 10

reliable, based on cognitive blank data or 11 cognizance blank data?

I couldn't understand the 12 content.

13 MR. DOUB:

Reconnaissance.

14 MS.

CASEY:

Could you explain

that, 15 please?

Because I didn't understand at all what you 16 said.

17 MR.

DOUB:

Reconnaissance level data.

18 It's a term of mine that we use.

And basically, it 19 means data that's readily available.

We don't 20 necessarily require a lO-year study to collect data on 21 alternative sites.

But data that's readily available 22 in the literature other published reports.

23 MS.

CASEY:

Okay.

24 understand it.

25 MR. DOUB:

Sorry.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 I

just couldn't WWN. nealrgross,com

49 1

MR. CAMERON:

And another one?

2 MS.

CASEY:

The other question was 3

partially answered by the gentleman there.

4 What I was wanting to ask you is, if there 5

was there more scientific data on the alternative 6

si tes, and even more than what was explained in the 7

Draft Review that we could get a hold of and look at.

8 MR.

CAMERON:

So, is there, for example, 9

references that were given in the Draft Review?

10 MS. CASEY:

Right.

11 MR. CAMERON:

Peyton?

12 MR.

DOUB:

The analysis of potential 13 impacts to terrestrial ecology and wetlands in Chapter 14 9 was based on the best available data that we had at 15 our hands, both provided by the appl ican t in the ER 16 and that we could obtain from published sources and 17 general reconnaissance, just like Mike Masnik 18 previously explained.

19 However, we did not actually require the 20 applicant to go out and do detailed, long-term field 21 studies for the alternative sites.

That, we believe, 22 would not be necessary for the purposes of determining 23 whether or not we have an environmentally preferable 24 site or an obviously superior site.

25 (202) 23H433 MS. CASEY:

All that's in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

50 1

MR.

CAMERON:

And yeah.

Are the 2

references listed?

3 MR.

DOUB:

Yes.

There are references 4

listed in the reference section for Chapter 9.

5 MS. CASEY:

Thank you.

6 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you.

Yes?

7 MR. HOPKINS:

Good afternoon.

My name is 8

Norman Hopkins.

9 My understanding is that the scoping 10 period which --

upon which the Environmental Impact 11 Statements are based, was concluded in December of 12 2008.

I believe that to be true.

13 More information is being developed 14 continually by these sort of meetings and other 15

meetings, which qualify information which was 16 considered to determine whether there was an 17 alternative site which we which would be as good as 18 or better as -- or better than.

19 Is there a

mechanism which continually 20 updates the comparison between the chosen site by PEF 21 and any of the alternative sites?

22 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Norman.

Doug, do 23 you want to try that?

24 MR.

BRUNER:

I think Andy would be the 25 best one to answer that one.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

51 1

MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

2 MR.

BRUNER:

It falls under new and 3

significant information.

4 MR. CAMERON:

Oh, good.

All right.

Well, 5

thank you, Doug.

Andy?

This is Andy Kugler.

6 MR.

KUGLER:

In terms of a continuous 7

process, I'd have to say, no.

The environmental 8

review process is not completed yet.

So, information 9

that we're provided in these meetings or that come to 10 us in any other comments we receive in writing on the 11

draft, we will consider before we issue the Final 12 Environmental Impact Statement.

13 So, up until that point, if there's new 14 information that we're provided with, we can consider 15 that information.

But I don't know of anybody who has 16 any process in place where there's some sort of a 17 continuous search and update for environmental 18 impacts.

Because, really, if you look at National 19 Environmental Policy Act it's not set up that way.

20 It's to reach a certain point and reach a decision on 21 an action.

22 So, I think -- does that -- hopefully that 23 answers your question.

24 25 (202) 23H433 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

MR. HOPKINS:

If I could just follow that.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

52 1

If a decision is taken based upon the more 2

detailed and thorough case which is put forward by the 3

applicant, then the odds are that any other competing 4

site would always fall short and it will be an 5

automatic decision process that would result in going 6

wi th the applicant, if there was no mechanism for 7

assessing alternative sites.

8 Now, we've had today, this afternoon and 9

this evening, a considerable opinion expressed that it 10 would be better -- and I'm thinking particularly about 11 the testimony from Betty Berger that it would be 12 better placed, for all sorts of reasons, at the 13 Crystal River site.

14

Now, the odds are stacked in favor of 15
Levy, but it may be quite wrong, because of what 16 happens in the interim and also, as Betty explained, 17 there were many other factors arguing in favor of 18 Crystal River.

19 20 comment.

21 22 23 24 question.

25 (202) 23H433 MR.

CAMERON:

And we'll count that as a MR. HOPKINS:

Oh, sorry.

MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

That's all right.

MR.

HOPKINS:

Well, I could have another MR.

CAMERON:

Let me get to this young NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

53 1

lady behind you.

And if you could just please 2

introduce yourself.

3 MS.

RICE:

Yes.

Thank you.

My name is 4

Darden Rice.

Mr. Schaaf, just a quick clarification.

5 The rejection of the alternative sites was 6

based on environmental standards or on business 7

standards?

Because I've heard you use the phrase 8

business considerations went into the rejection of the 9

practicable alternative sites as well.

10 MR.

SCHAAF:

Well, in the applicant's 11 decision on their request, it is a business decision 12 on their part.

But our evaluation is strictly on --

13 of the environmental criteria and assessment of the 14 environmental impacts at the proposed site against the 15

-- our assessment of the environmental impacts at the 16 alternative sites.

17 MS.

RICE:

So, you took the applicant's 18 considerations about business factors into 19 consideration in you recommendation?

20 MR.

SCHAAF:

No.

It's strictly 21 environmental environmental factors in reaching a 22 decision 23 preference.

24 25 (202) 23H433 on environmental on environmental MS. RICE:

Okay.

Thank you.

MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Norman, please make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

54 1

this quick.

We're going to have to get to comments.

2 So, you have one more question.

Let's go.

3 MR. HOPKINS:

This concerns used fuel rods 4

and how frequently and how many are changed.

And 5

they're frequent termed "spent fuel."

6 Is it true that the rods, once they've 7

been used in a reactor, are in fact more radioactive 8

after they've been used than when they were put in?

9 MR. CAMERON:

Brian or Richard?

Who's 10 Richard?

Richard Emch.

11 MR. EMCH:

I'll take a stab at it and then 12 if Brian needs to follow-up.

13 My name is Richard Emch.

I'm the Senior 14 Health Physicist for the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission.

16 Okay.

Just a few bits of information.

17 They go through about three cycles in the reactor from 18 where they're new.

Three cycles later is usually 19 where they're replaced.

At that point, the amount of 20 usable Uranium 235 has diminished.

It's been used up.

21 It's to the point where it's not economically viable 22 for them to use it anymore.

23 Okay.

Now then, of course, as you know, 24 you could actually put your hand on fresh fuel.

You 25 could put your hand right up on the cladding.

It's (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

55 1

not hot.

There's no big dose rate coming off of it.

2 All right.

3 Once you put it inside the reactor and it 4

starts going -- and it makes electric -- it makes heat 5

by fission, okay.

Now, the fission causes with 6

each fission you get about two fission products.

In 7

other

words, two atoms are created that are 8

radioactive.

Okay.

And so, yes, at the end of life 9

it is much more, to use your terminology, radioactive.

10 I would simply say it has a much higher dose rate at 11 the end of active -- at the end of its life, yes.

12 MR.

CAMERON:

Thank you, Richard.

And 13 thank you for those questions.

We are going to go to 14 the comment part of the meeting at this point and --

15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

One more question.

16 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Please introduce 17 yourself.

18 MS.

LOTT:

My name is Phyllis Lott.

I'm 19 at 31 Magnolia Avenue in Yankeetown.

I understand 20 that when we're up there to make our comment, they 21 won't respond, so just make our comments.

22 My question is, is there a place to store 23 all this -- this tons of toxic nuclear waste that this 24 plant will produce?

I mean, I

know that President 25 Obama has ordered Yucca Mountain to be closed at the (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

56 1

end of this month.

There are other places in Maine 2

and other storage sites throughout the country, and 3

right now everybody's in a battle royale of not taking 4

any more nuclear waste products, not storing anymore.

5 So, my question is, is this site set up 6

for the storage of all this tons of nuclear waste, 7

because it will be quite expensive, I understand, to 8

do that.

You just can't build a shed and put stuff in 9

there.

So, what are they prepared to do this?

10 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank 11 you, Phyllis.

A good question.

And does someone want 12 to explain to Phyllis what the on-site storage is and 13 put the whole thing in context?

Thank you, Richard.

14 MR.

EMCH:

Hi.

This is Richard Emch 15 again, Senior Health Physicist with Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission.

17 I'm going to break your question into two 18 parts:

One that I am going to call high level waste 19 and spent fuel, and then the other part I'm going to 20 talk about is what we generally refer to as low level 21 waste.

22 Okay.

And let me start with the high 23 level waste.

Yucca Mountain had been the 24 Administration and DOE's path forward.

Their plan for 25 what we were going to do with high level waste and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

57 1

spent fuel.

Okay.

You've already heard all the news, 2

just like we have, about what the Administration has 3

decided, what the Congress has decided to do, what DOE 4

has decided.

I would also add in, and probably not 5

everybody reads about it, but there's all kinds of 6

legal machinations going on.

So, this was the plan.

7 Okay.

That plan appears to no longer be viable.

8 Okay.

9 And so, right now, and for the foreseeable 10

future, nuclear power plants will be storing spent 11 fuel either in their spent fuel pool or in what we 12 call "dry cask storage."

It's large concrete 13 canisters that they maintain control of.

After about 14 five years, the fuel can't melt itself anymore and 15 they put it in these canisters.

Okay.

16 Now let's switch to the because the 17 only game in town, if you will, was Yucca Mountain.

18 And that game doesn't seem to be viable right now.

19 Okay.

20 So,

DOE, the Administration is going to 21 have to come up with another plan.

I don't know what 22 that plan.

Okay.

I don't think anybody does.

23 Okay.

Let's talk about low level waste 24 for just a moment now.

Okay.

Low level waste, there 25 were some places in the united States that accepted (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

58 1

various kinds, and you'll hear people talk about Type 2

A, Type B, Type C.

All it means is the concentrations 3

of radioactive material in the waste.

Most of the 4

waste produced by nuclear power plants in the united 5

states is Type A, and a little bit of it is higher B's 6

and C's, et cetera.

Okay.

7 There are waste repositories, like 8

Barnwell, that are sort of in the act of closing down.

9 There are new ones that are being developed in other 10 places.

There's a place in Utah that takes certain 11 kind of waste.

There's a place in Texas that is, as 12 best I understand it, getting licensed to take certain 13 kinds of waste.

But it's a business.

Okay.

And 14 where there's a business need, somebody' s going to 15 come is going to come up and fill it.

They're 16 going to develop new places to put it.

17 In the meantime, until all that gets taken 18 care of, they do have the facility, the AP-1000 19 design has storage capacity built into it for these 20 lower level wastes.

And it is a relatively simple 21 matter for them to install additional storage 22 additional temporary storage capacity.

In fact, a lot 23 of the nuclear power plants in the United states have 24 already done it.

If they need to, that's probably at 25 this point what they will do.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

59 1

MR. CAMERON:

Great.

Thank you very much.

2 Thanks for that question, Phyllis.

3 We're going to go to publ ic comment now.

4 And we're going to hear from both Beth Foley and 5

Phyllis Lott.

6 And in a minute we're going to start off 7

with usually people would like to know about what 8

the rationale division of the company is and why 9

they're going forward with this.

10 And our first speaker is going to be John 11 Elnitsky, who is right here, who is the Vice President 12 of New Generation Projects and Programs for Progress 13 Energy Florida.

14 And then we'll go to Beth Foley and then 15 we'll go to Phyllis Lott as our next speakers after 16 that.

And then we'll continue on.

17 MR. ELNITSKY:

Well, thank you, Chip.

And 18 good evening.

As Chip mentioned, my name is John 19 Elnitsky and I'm Progress Energy's Vice President for 20 New Generation Programs and Projects.

And I

21 appreciate the chance to speak with all of you and 22 thanks for being here this evening.

23 This is a very complex subj ect, but I'd 24 like to talk just about three simple points regarding 25 our plans to operate two new state-of-the-art plants (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

60 1

at Levy County.

2 First, I want to talk about our continued 3

focus on safety.

Secondly, our continued commitment 4

to engage with the citizens of Florida.

And third, 5

our dedication to the long term energy and economic 6

security of Florida.

7 So, let's start with what's most important 8

first and that's focus on safety.

Progress Energy 9

Florida is committed to providing safe and reliable 10 energy for our 1.6 million customers in Florida.

And 11 we plan to do that every hour of every day.

12 Planning for the region's future 13 electricity needs is a

responsibility the company 14 takes very seriously.

Our most important commitment, 15 though, is to safety.

The safety of our customers and 16 our employees.

17 We have worked hard to achieve an 18 outstanding safety and environmental stewardship 19 record at our nearby Crystal River Nuclear Plant, and 20 that performance will continue with our operations of 21 the nuclear facility in Levy County.

22

Second, I'd like to talk about our 23 continued involvement with the local community and the 24 25 citizens of Florida.

This new nuclear project isn't only about energy, it's really about people.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 The 1. 6 WWN. nealrgross,com

61 1

million families and business people we serve, who 2

count on us each and every day to make sure that when 3

they flip that light switch on, the electricity is 4

there to support it.

And that needs to happen, 5

whether the wind's blowing or whether the sun's not 6

shining.

7 Progress Energy Florida has been working 8

with community leaders and property owners since late 9

2006, when we first announced our plans to build the 10 proposed Levy County nuclear power proj ect and the 11 associated 200 miles or so of transmission cables and 12 transmission lines that go with it.

13 Since we started this process four years 14 ago, we have remained committed to seeking community 15 input and encouraging public discourse like you hear 16 this evening.

17 In an effort to provide a

meaningful 18 dialogue, the company used an innovative, first-of-a-19 kind public outreach process that we called the 20 Community Partnership for Energy Planning.

This 21 process helped Progress Energy gather input and 22 recommendations from local governments and 23 communities.

24 We also helped create the Levy Neighbors 25 Group to give most up-to-date information to our (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

62 1

neighbors who live closest to the site of our proposed 2

plant.

3 About 5,000 property owners and community 4

leaders attended 22 open houses across 10 counties as 5

we narrowed our choices for locating transmission 6

lines.

7 More than 40 other community informational 8

meetings were held across our region.

And based on 9

the feedback from those meetings, more than 90 percent 10 of the preferred corridors for transmission lines are 11 located along, or adjacent to existing lines, thereby 12 minimizing the proj ect' s impact on the community and 13 the environment.

14 We are committed to being open throughout 15 and during this process, as we continue to seek public 16 input and move forward with this important project.

17 The Levy plant will play an important role 18 for our community, as well.

At the peak of 19 construction, we will employ over 3,000 on the site at 20 Levy County.

The plant itself, when it comes into 21 operation, will create 800 permanent, good-paying jobs 22 in our community.

23 Probably more significant than that is the 24 benefit to community service that these jobs will 25 create as employees forge partnerships with their (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

63 1

local communities.

For example, in Crystal River 2

alone, our employees have chartered schools, founded 3

churches, created Little League teams and contributed 4

countless hours to non-profit agencies and community 5

causes.

Our employees live and work here and we care 6

deeply about our communities.

7 Finally, let me address the importance of 8

the Levy nuclear project to the long term economic and 9

energy security of Florida.

Florida is the nation's 10 fourth most populous

state, but we rank third 11 nationally in overall energy consumption.

To properly 12 address the long term energy needs of our state, we 13 must have long term planning and long range solutions.

14 Progress Energy is able to meet the energy 15 needs today because of the careful planning that went 16 on in this state decades ago.

Just as we need to make 17 investment in other infrastructure proj ects in our 18 state, whether it's roads or schools, we need to plan 19 ahead for what we will need for energy supply in the 20 future that is reliable as it is today.

21

Now, energy efficiency and renewable 22 energy sources are a

vital part of our overall 23 strategy.

But they alone cannot supply all of the 24 expected energy demand.

That is why Progress Energy 25 Florida is planning on additional power plants and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

64 1

transmission infrastructure to provide sufficient and 2

reliable electrical service to our customers.

3 The Levy plant will also playa vital role 4

in our strategy to serve Florida's energy future.

5 This is a future that includes carbon-free generation, 6

24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a

day, 7

days a

week, the same way our 7

customers use their electricity.

8 By building fuel diversity and long term 9

fuel cost savings into our plans, Progress Energy 10 Florida is helping ensure the long term economic 11 competitiveness and viability of Florida.

In short, 12 the Levy nuclear proj ect will help ensure the right 13 balance of reliable, environmentally-responsible and 14 cost-effective power tomorrow.

15 So, I

said I

would talk about three 16 things; our focus and commitment to

safety, our 17 continued involvement with the community, and our 18 dedication to the long term energy and economic 19 security of Florida.

20 Energy for today and energy security for 21 tomorrow, that's our pledge.

And I'd like to invite 22 you all to take the opportuni ty to meet the 23 professionals from Progress Energy that are here this 24 25 evening.

I get to come up here and be the mouthpiece, but they're the ones that do all the hard work.

So, (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

65 1

talk to them afterward.

Get your questions answered.

2 That's why we're here.

3 On behalf of the over 4,000 employees of 4

Progress Energy Florida, I'd like to thank you for 5

your time here this evening, and I'd like to thank the 6

NRC and the Army Corps of Engineers for their on-going 7

support of energy security for both the state of 8

Florida and our nation.

Thank you very much.

9 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank 10

you, Don.

Beth?

This is Beth Foley.

Then we're 11 going to go to Phyllis Lott.

And we're going to go to 12 Mark Klutho next after that.

13 MS. FOLEY:

My question is what about salt 14 drift and the nuclear --

Levy Nuclear Plant site is 15 located about ten miles inland and in the middle of a 16 fresh water wetland.

Yet, the cooling tower source 17 will be salt water.

Is that not working?

18 MR. CAMERON:

Oh, it is.

I just was going 19 to put it down a little bit.

20 MS.

FOLEY:

This freshwater wetland is a 21 recharge area for the drinking water for the people 22 who are living in the surrounding area since the upper 23 Floridan aquifer is at ground level in this particular 24 area of Florida.

25 Despite this unique (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701

location, the WWN. nealrgross,com

66 1

introduction of salt, via drift from the nuclear plant 2

cooling towers to the environment, approximately 31 3

pounds of salt daily or 6.72 million pounds over the 4

60-year life of the plant, is only assigned a small 5

impact in Progress Energy's -- and I've given Progress 6

Energy credit --

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do 7

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission credit Draft 8

Environmental Impact study.

So, regardless of whose 9

study -- it's your study, I guess?

Okay.

10 When addressing the effect of salt drift 11 in the Levy Nuclear Plant Draft Environmental Impact 12

Study, vegetation comparisons with Crystal River's 13 nuclear plant, that is located on the Gulf of Mexico, 14 are made, the results of salt drift at this plant 15 should not be equated with two nuclear plants located 16 ten miles inland in the middle of an aquifer recharge 17 wetland.

18 A search for other u.s. nuclear plants 19 located inland using saltwater for their cooling 20 towers resulted in none.

21 That's my other question.

Are there any 22 that use salt water that are located ten miles inland?

23 Because of the unique circumstances of the 24 Levy Nuclear Plants 1

and 2

location, scientific 25 modeling must be arduously done to assure that (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

67 1

drinking water and personal property and nearby 2

conservation areas will not be adversely affected by 3

the unnatural spreading of approximately 3,360 tons of 4

salt by the cooling towers drift over a period of 60 5

years.

6 The necessary modeling has not been done 7

in the apples and oranges comparison used in the NRC 8

Environmental Impact

study, and is completely 9

inadequate.

10 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank 11 you, Beth.

12 And I know the NRC staff people will talk 13 to you after the meeting about that, as well as the 14 other issue.

15 Phyllis, are you ready?

This is Phyllis 16 Lott, correct?

17 MS. LOTT:

Yes.

18 MR. CAMERON:

Yes, please.

19 MS. LOTT:

My name is Phyllis Lott, and I 20 have a home at 31 Magnolia Avenue in Yankeetown.

I 21 think the bottom line here, from what I understood, is 22 there actually is no plan in place to store this 23 nuclear waste.

24 Places -- you're right.

It is a business 25 to set up facilities to store this.

Places like Utah, (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

68 1

Texas, Maine, and other places are closing down their 2

facilities, and the citizens in that area are fighting 3

-- I've looked at all these places online and there is 4

a battle royale going on amongst the elected officials 5

and ci ti zens and they do not want any more nuclear 6

waste stored in their areas.

7 We do know that Yucca Mountain is closing, 8

and that was the main place that you had mentioned 9

that you were going to store this.

So, I

don't 10 understand why we're going to spend billions of 11 dollars building a facility and we don't have any 12 permanent place to store the nuclear waste.

You 13 cannot leave it in those containers for any length of 14 time.

15 So, I'm very much concerned, because I 16 don't believe, when we were talking about building 17 this plant, that we thought this was going to be a 18 problem.

Now I

think it is a major problem, and 19 before we spend all this money building something, we 20 must have some place to store this nuclear waste.

It 21 would be 22 going to 23 there, and 24 25 also next (202) 23H433 ridiculous to build this, and what are we do with all that toxic chemicals that are rods and other things?

I to would like to say I own where Progress Energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 about 400 acres is going to be WWN. nealrgross,com

69 1

built, or the proposed site.

The land, when it was 2

bought, was kept secretly.

No one knew about it until 3

the deal was closed.

And then we found out that it 4

was bought by Progress Energy to build a nuclear power 5

plant.

6 And then they come in and say, well, we 7

want your feedback.

Well, at that point it was a 8

little too late, once they spend millions of dollars 9

buying up all this property.

10 Unfortunately, I'm afraid at this point.

11 All the meetings I've been to and all the different 12 programs I've attended listening to all of this, I'm 13 afraid once that land was purchased and it was a done 14 deal, that this will amount to nothing.

15 And that's -- that upsets me, because we 16 had a developer who had come in, the land that I own, 17 and was going to build upscale homes, a beautiful 18 neighborhood, and homes in the 250 to $500,000 price 19 range.

And once he found out Progress Energy had 20 purchased this land for this nuclear power plant, they 21 pulled the contract that we had signed with them off.

22 So, I

have a

lot of reasons for not 23 wanting this plant built.

But one of the ones that I 24 brought up tonight is, we cannot spend billions of 25 dollars on something and have absolutely no place to (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

70 1

put this toxic nuclear waste.

Thank you.

2 MR. CAMERON:

And thank you, Phyllis.

And 3

this is Mark Klutho coming up.

Then we're going to go 4

to Art Jones, Ellen Avery-Smith, and Mary Olson.

5 MR. KLUTHO:

Mark Klutho, Largo, Florida.

6 I'm here from a unique perspective.

Here's form --

7 Army Form DA-3180.

I was on a

nuclear weapons 8

assembly team back in 1970.

And here's the book, Non-9 Nuclear Futures:

The Case for an Ethical Energy 10 Strategy, copyright 1975.

11 And when you came in tonight, you saw a 12 beautiful rendering out there of what the new nuclear 13 plants were going to look like.

Well, the original 14 renderings that were in the newspaper from the 15 utility, they were --

the plants were surrounded by 16 some crown shaft palms.

Well, the rendering changed 17 after I made note of this at the Pinellas County 18 Commission meetings.

19 And my point here is, perception and 20 reality.

I spoke with a couple of people, the experts 21 I

guess they're called, from regressive energy out 22 there.

And they didn't know what a T12 light bulb 23 was, what an imaging specular reflector was.

But yet, 24 we're told we need nuclear power.

25 (202) 23H433 And it's supposedly safe?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 But if you go WWN. nealrgross,com

71 1

to Vegas and you talk to the odds makers, and you want 2

to place a bet about whether or not there's going to 3

be a nuclear catastrophe, it's 50 percent, one in two, 4

that this might happen.

5 And I put this to regressive energy.

If 6

it is so safe, then you need to demand that they take 7

that Price-Anderson Act off the books.

Why do we need 8

that after all these years?

I mean, I'm a child of 9

the '50s and I remember that it was supposed to be too 10 cheap to meter.

11 And then, what was in the New York Times 12 just months ago?

That plant over in Finland, 50 13 percent over cost, and they won't give a completion 14 date.

And this is supposed to be the blueprint for 15 what's coming here.

Oh, things are smelly in Denmark.

16 And then, right outside here, regressive 17 energy has this Looking at Power in a New Light: A 18 Balanced Solution for the Future.

Energy Efficiency 19 First.

Well, here is this National Geographic, 20 Repowering the Planet, Energy for Tomorrow.

And Amory 21 Lovins is interviewed here.

He's the author of this 22

book, Non-Nuclear Futures:

The Case for an Ethical 23 Energy Strategy.

And he says -- he's interviewed, you 24 popularized the term megawatt.

What are megawatts and 25 why should we care about them?

Megawatts are watts (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

72 1

saved by more efficient use.

It's enormously cheaper, 2

probably eight times cheaper on

average, to save 3

electricity than to make it.

And nuclear power, as he 4

states in the Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter 5

here, is the most expensive way to make electricity.

6 New nuclear reactors, same old story.

7 And it's really funny, because I hear from 8

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that conservation 9

and efficiency are the same thing.

No, they're not.

10 They're not synonymous.

11

Now, see, you people can't reasonably be 12 making a determination on something like these plants 13 when you think that conservation and efficiency mean 14 the same thing.

I mean, we're in deep doo-doo here.

15 This is this is really bad.

Look at all the 16 incandescent bulbs here.

17 When I

went to that last hearing over 18 there at the training center, where they're learning 19 to work at the nuke plants, what does regressive 20 energy have burning?

T12 bulbs.

Archaic, obsolete 21 bulbs.

22 And they say we need nuclear power.

Well, 23 guess what?

They aren't paying for that.

The 24 ratepayer pays for this.

And then they add on their 25 12 percent.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

73 1

And we hear that it's not environmentally 2

friendly or favorable with the conservation, when you 3

meant to say efficiency.

Again, using -- transposing 4

these two words?

I mean, this whole gathering here is 5

nothing but a farce.

6 See, the problem is, if you read the u.S.

7 Today a couple of days ago, there was an article, and 8

it was about the economy coming out of the recession.

9 And it said, the energy States, these couple few 10 energy States are leading the way out of the 11 recession.

No, no, it's not that at all.

That's 12 what's causing the recession.

13 The u. S.A., less than 5 percent of the 14 world's population, and it's using 25 percent of the 15 world's energy.

And the majority is feeding these few 16 and there never will be a vitality as long as there is 17 that equation.

It isn't ever going to be that those 18 few will ever be able to throw it all back to the 19 majority.

20 It is a sad situation, like today when we 21 have light bulbs that can't be right, but you say you 22 need the technology of nuclear power and you still 23 have the Price-Anderson Act on the books.

24 25 summary.

(202) 23H433 MR.

CAMERON:

Mark, that's a

great I'm going to have to ask you to finish up.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

74 1

MR. KLUTHO:

Yeah, well --

2 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you.

3 MR. KLUTHO:

Again, it's the fox guarding 4

the hen house here.

Oh yeah, here's here is one 5

more thing.

Regressi ve energy saying they're green.

6 That's like Alfred E.

painting the Hummer green.

7 That's regressive energy going green.

8 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

And Art Jones.

Now, 9

Art.

Okay, this is Art Jones.

10 MR. JONES:

Hello everybody.

Yes, I'm Art 11 Jones.

I live here in Crystal River and I've been 12 following this for a long time.

And I went up to the 13 PSC and spoke up there.

And I'm going to speak here 14 again and hopefully make a difference, because if you 15 don't speak out and if you don't at least try, then 16 you'll never know.

17 I believe that the Levy site is a bad 18 location to build a power plant for many reasons.

And 19 some of them have already been spoken here tonight, 20 because it is right in the middle of fresh water 21 wetlands.

It's right in the middle of the recharge 22 zone for our beautiful springs here in Florida.

23 24 planet.

25 Florida.

(202) 23H433 And fresh water is so precious on this It's so precious here to our people here in And it's only really 1 percent of the water NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

75 1

on the planet is fresh water and drinkable.

So, I

2 really think we need to protect it.

3 And when I asked that question, you know, 4

we're going to lose 720 acres of fresh water wetlands 5

and how many acres would we lose out at the Crystal 6

River site, I think they kind of dodged my answer.

7 I

was expecting, you know, a number of 8

acres of fresh water wetlands that would be impacted, 9

and I think the answer would have been that it would 10 have been zero.

There are no fresh water wetlands out 11 there right on the Gulf Coast.

Those are salt water 12 marshes.

13 So, it makes sense to me that the plant, 14 if it has to be built, should be built out at that 15 site.

16 So, I think that, you know, that --

how 17 can anybody possibly say that the Levy site does not 18 have environmental impacts that should stop the NRC 19 from issuing the license for that location.

Of 20 course, that site would have a very bad environmental 21 impact on many areas, you know, pumping over a million 22 gallons a day out of the aquifer there is -- that's a 23 million gallons less coming out of our springs.

24 25 And it's been shown that it feeds two spring sheds.

(202) 23H433 And then just right next to that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

76 1

location is the whole Rainbow River spring shed and 2

estuary, one of the most beautiful spring-fed rivers, 3

I think, in the world.

So, I think that really needs 4

to be protected.

5 And I was a little concerned to hear about 6

salt water drift or,

yes, salt drift in the 7

atmosphere coming from these plants.

You don't want 8

that near the Rainbow River.

You don't want that 9

inland.

Let's put it back out on the coast.

10 And God forbid there ever is an accident 11 and there's a radioactive leak.

At least we've got a 12 50 percent chance that the winds may be blowing out to 13 the open water and not inland where the people and 14 plants and fresh water is.

So, I think from a safety 15 concern, it would make more sense to put it out in 16 Crystal River.

17 I don't think you can chop down a forest 18 and not kill all the trees.

And you're going to kill 19 everything else that used to live there.

So, it just 20 makes more sense to put it out at Crystal River.

21 Sure, you're going to lose some more of 22 the salt water wetlands, but, you know, I'd rather 23 you know, the salt water is a little bit more abundant 24 than our fresh water.

25 (202) 23H433 So, I think that really, if it has to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

77 1

built, if they have to build another power plant, it 2

really needs to go out there at the Crystal River 3

site.

Thank you.

4 MR.

CAMERON:

Thank you, Art.

Thank you 5

very much.

Ellen Avery-Smith?

And then we'll go Mary 6

Olson.

This is Ellen Avery Smith.

There's a team.

7 MS. SMITH:

There is a team.

8 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

9 MS. SMITH:

We work best that way.

I am 10 Ellen Avery-Smith and I'm an attorney with a firm 11 called Rogers

Towers, and I practice environmental 12 law.

13 This is my client, Charles Smith, so I'd 14 like to let him give you some preliminary remarks.

15 Then I'm going to follow up with the legal disclaimer 16 part.

17 MR.

SMITH:

My name is Charles Smith and 18 I'm here this evening representing Robinson Estates, a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 family-owned corporation.

We own the 5,700-plus acre tract immediately to the east of the proposed LNP site.

with more than two miles of contiguous border with the LNP site on our west and some three and a half miles of contiguous border with the Goethe National Forest to our

north, we have definite (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

78 1

concerns regarding the proposed plans for this 2

facility, primarily due to the ambiguity of the plant 3

itself and the uncertain effect of the plant upon our 4

property.

5 In early July 2008, having received no 6

communication of any kind from anyone regarding the 7

proposed plant, we contacted and arranged a meeting 8

with a

Progress Energy corporate officer.

He 9

indicated some concern and confusion, since he said 10 that the company had already conducted extensive 11 negotiations with someone who claimed to be Chuck 12 Smith and had the right to negotiate for the 13 corporation.

14 At two breakfast meetings, he indicated to 15 us that the company had considerable interest in our 16 property, both as a route for a proposed rail line 17

and, more importantly, as the site for wetland 18 mitigation associated with the future nuclear plant 19 construction.

20 He arranged for the real es ta te group to 21 contact us.

This was the first notice that our 22 corporation received from anyone regarding the project 23 and their interest in our property.

24 Apparently, other previous information and 25 notices were delivered to someone other than to (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

79 1

some other source and were never forwarded to our 2

attention.

3 We continue to have bi-weekly phone 4

conversations with Progress Energy regarding their 5

interest in the property.

We were even advised that 6

their interest in the use of their own property and 7

the Goethe state Forest had been discarded as possible 8

alternatives.

9 This was not surprising, as the Goethe 10 Forest is already a protected public property, and the 11 use of their own property would hinder their 12 construction efforts.

We, therefore, had no reason to 13 comment on the plan or express any concerns regarding 14 possible negative effects to our property.

15 On May

18th, 2010, during one of our 16 telephone conversations with Progress Energy, the worm 17 turned.

We were informed that they would not have 18 they would have no need for the Robinson property, as 19 they were now planning to use their own property and 20 the Goethe state Forest for wetland mitigation 21 purposes.

22 We are not objecting to the need for the 23 nuclear plants.

We are asking for assurances from the 24 NRC and the Corps of Engineers that the new mitigation 25 plan, if accepted, will not have any adverse effect on (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

80 1

the value or on the usage of our property for future 2

development.

3 In

addition, we would be seeking 4

assurances that the Progress Energy plan would not 5

adversely affect current water flow onto or through 6

the Robinson tract, as a result of alteration and 7

changes made to the Goethe state Forest.

8 We currently have a hunting club leasing 9

our property.

Our immediate concern is that there 10 will be no adverse restrictions on the use of this 11 property for this purpose.

12 On a longer term basis, we are seeking 13 assurances that there will be no adverse affect on the 14 property for future residential and commercial 15 development.

16 Finally, it seems that it would be a shame 17 that the effect of the proposed plan would necessarily 18 create a situation which would result in the loss of a 19 large, protected habitat, which could enable wildlife 20 movement through the Goethe state Forest all the way 21 to the withlacoochee River, with the accompanying 22 ecological advantage which would result, as well.

Few 23 areas of this size and magnitude still exist in 24 Florida.

And acceptance of this plan would 25 necessarily result in the impossibility of this unique (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

81 1

benefit.

2 MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. smith.

3 Mrs. Ellen Avery-Smith.

4 MS. SMITH:

Not related, surprisingly.

5 Just to give you a

little bit of 6

background about Mr.

Smith's comments.

He and his 7

family when you look at the environmental 8

mitigation report that was produced by Progress Energy 9

in January of 2009, Mr. Smith's property is referred 10 to as the Robinson property, or the Robinson Estate.

11 And so, when he was referring to his 12 discussions with Progress Energy, he was talking to 13 them over a period of two years about purchasing that 14 5,700 acre tract which lies immediately to the east of 15 the Progress Energy site, as part of the wetland 16 mitigation for the impacts on the Progress Energy 17 site.

18 He also owns a

number of parcels 19 surrounding the property.

And so, he was during 20 the State of Florida's review process under the Siting 21

Act, he did not participate in commenting on the 22 wetland mi tiga tion plan produced by Progress Energy 23 because he was speaking to them about purchasing his 24 property.

He thought everything was fine.

25 (202) 23H433 And then Progress

Energy, in April of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

82 1

2010, changed that proposed mitigation plan that 2

eliminated the Robinson Tract from consideration as 3

wetland mitigation for the impacts on the site.

4 And so, that's why we're here

today, 5

because this is our only venue to voice his concerns 6

about potential environmental and other impacts to his 7

property.

8 So, with that in mind, I'd like to start 9

wi th talking about your Draft Environmental Impact 10 Statement, starting with the wetland mitigation.

11 As I said, the original Mitigation Plan 12 dated January 2009, Progress Energy proposed 764 acres 13 of wetland impacts, which resulted at a functional 14 loss under UMAM, or the Uniform Mitigation Assessment 15 Methodology, which is the recognized method in the 16 State of Florida under law, of 411 units.

17 The revised Plan, which is dated April 18 23rd, 2010 --

I have a copy here.

In that, Progress 19 Energy proposed 722 acres of wetland impacts, with the 20 resulting functional loss of 289 UMAM units.

So, that 21 was a

reduction of 41 acres of proposed wetland 22 impacts, which is a 5.5 percent reduction.

But the 23 proposed mitigation went down 121. 7 units, which is 24 almost 30 percent.

25 (202) 23H433 So, we're questioning the UMAM scores that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

83 1

are presented in the April 23rd, 2010 Mitigation Plan.

2 I will not bore you with the details of that.

But, I 3

think that scientific judgment is required by the 4

rule, by Florida law, and we ask that you use that.

5

Also, point you to page (ii) of the 6

Revised Mitigation Plan.

And it does say it focuses 7

on enhancing and restoring ecological functions to 8

large areas of wetland habitat and supporting uplands.

9 It provides landscape level ecosystem benefits that 10 exceed the value that would accrue if similar 11 mitigation activities were to occur on a piecemeal, 12 localized basis, without considering the values that 13 come from improving large blocks of habitat and 14 habitat corridors.

15 And we question whether this Plan actually 16 achieves that.

Because if you look at page 1-11 of 17 that Plan, it specifically calls for mitigation to be 18 provided in the Goethe state Forest.

The Goethe state 19 Forest is publicly owned land.

And, so, we question 20 why the state of Florida and why the u.s. Army Corps 21 of Engineers would allow Progress Energy to swap 22 mitigation out to provide that mitigation on lands 23 that are already publicly-owned and therefore 24 protected, instead of buying privately-owned 25 properties and protecting larger areas of watershed, (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

84 1

larger ecosystems, larger wildlife habitat.

2

Also, the proposed on-site mitigation, 3

which has been heavily increased, talks about a UMAM 4

lift of 180.6 wetland UMAM lift units and 145 upland 5

UMAM lift units.

And so, I'm curious as to why 6

uplands are being counted, because I don't see that --

7 it says rehabilitation and enhancement and 8

preservation as the action.

I don't see any wetland 9

creation that's listed.

And so, again, why are you 10 giving credit under UMAM for upland rehabilitation and 11 not wetland creation in those areas?

12 We would just, in summary, invite you to 13 take a closer look at this, this report, because it 14 does not provide adequate mitigation to offset the 15 impacts.

And it certainly is not equal to some of the 16 other wetland mi tiga tion alternatives that were 17 provided in the January of 2009 report.

18 Going onto other ecological impacts.

19 Someone mentioned earlier the effects of the salt from 20 this being dispersed from the plant.

And I'm 21 speaking, when I talk about these, specifically the 22 impacts on the Robinson tract property, which is the 23 largest, most heavily impacted property out there.

24 25 corridors.

(202) 23H433 I

also want to question the wildlife If you've got preservation on the --

or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

85 1

wetland mitigation on the Progress Energy site and 2

then in the Goethe state Forest, the Robinson Estate 3

property lies in between those two.

So, Progress 4

Energy is relying on the Robinson Estate property 5

remaining undeveloped in order to provide that 6

wildlife corridor.

The same could be said for the 7

flow of water and similar ecological attributes.

8

Also, we question whether or not the 9

drainage pattern would be the same.

Pre-development 10 runoff should be equal to post-development runoff.

11 And also the groundwater usage, will the pumping of 12 water on the Progress Energy site draw down the 13 wetlands and have other negative attributes on the 14 Robinson Estate property?

15 Going to safety concerns.

Again, as Mr.

16 Smith said, there is a hunting camp that hunts on the 17 Robinson Estate property.

We hope that that will not 18

-- that activity will not be preempted or in any way 19 minimized by the acti vi ties, especially the shooting 20 range, on the Progress Energy site that's proposed.

21 Also, the storage of the spent fuel will 22 occur close to the Robinson Estate property.

We hope 23 that you will take those kinds of issues into 24 consideration.

25 The Robinson family also owns 28 acres (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

86 1

near the heavy-haul route.

We would like you to take 2

into consideration what revisions Progress Energy is 3

making to ensure adequate legal access to Highway 40 4

from that property.

5 What safety concerns are going to be 6

impacted or how is that property going to be impacted 7

by the use of that heavy-haul route?

8 And again, when --

and the main concern 9

also is, is there a diminution in value of either the 10 5,700 acres or this 28 acres by Progress Energy's 11 location next door and its, what will amount to an 12 assumption that the Robinson Estate property will not 13 be developed, and hopefully that will not occur.

14 MR. CAMERON:

And Ellen, I'm going to have 15 to ask you to finish up.

And I hope that you can 16 memorialize this in writing, also.

17 MS. SMITH:

We will do that.

So, I just 18 ask you to wrap up --

you presented a slide about how 19 impacts are quantified during your presentation.

And 20 I would argue today that the impacts to the Robinson 21 Estate property from this project are going to be 22 large.

And we're talking about environmental and 23

safety, as I've outlined.

We will give you some 24 additional comments in writing.

And we appreciate 25 your protecting Mr. Smith and his family's value.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

87 1

MR. CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you 2

both.

Mary Olson?

And then we're going to go to 3

Barbara, Barbara Seiling.

And Mike Seymour.

This is 4

Mary Olson.

5 MS.

OLSON:

My name is Mary Olson.

I'm 6

the Director of the Southeast Office of Nuclear 7

Information and Resource Service.

I live in 8

Asheville, North Carolina.

But I'm here tonight 9

because we have members here in the Levy and Citrus 10 Counties, and we also have status as a party to this 11 licensing process.

12 Combined with the Green Party of Florida 13 and the Ecology Party of Florida, we submitted a 14 peti tion to intervene two years ago, just about, at 15 the time that the opportunity to join in the licensing 16 process was made available by the federal regulator.

17 We offered 12 key issues and of the 12 issues, 3 were 18 admitted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

19 We've heard a lot about water tonight and 20 I'm pleased to hear the level of concern in this 21 community about the water.

That is one of the large, 22 substantial issues that we have

pending, on 23 hydroecology, both surface water and groundwater.

24 I want to mention a couple of quick things 25 tonight.

(202) 23H433 The other two contentions are on waste.

And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

88 1

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will receive 2

comments in writing from us on these areas.

I'm not 3

going to say much about them tonight.

4 But I do want to indicate that --

I think 5

it's page 15, where the water resources are discussed 6

in the handout.

The regulator finds that the impacts 7

would be small.

And our contention states that we 8

believe the impacts will be large.

And so, we're 9

still in the process, and the hearing is not due for 10 another year, but in the process of building the case lIon these issues.

12 And I'd like to make myself available this 13 evening or after this evening.

I'll give anyone my 14 contact information.

I'm more than happy to speak to 15 anybody here about what it means to be an intervener 16 and what this process is about.

And I encourage you 17 to ask questions of everybody.

18 Okay.

That said, I

do want to say a 19 couple of things about waste, because I think that the 20 earlier comments were spot on.

There is no place to 21 send any of the waste that would be generated at this 22 proposed site at this time.

23 And in fact, in the last month the Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission has issued a new ruling saying 25 that their basis of confidence for approving a new (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

89 1

reactor, whether it be in Levy County or anywhere 2
else, is that the high level nuclear waste, the 3

irradiated fuel rods that were described to us this 4

evening --

and just so you know, technical analysis 5

says that on average they're 6 million times more 6

radioacti ve than the uranium that's put in, and it 7

does give a lethal exposure if unshielded and in less 8

than 30 seconds.

So, this is a very tricky material.

9 I'm not saying that Progress Energy or 10 anyone else is handling it in an unsafe manner, but 11 the fact is that the regulator has determined that the 12 basis for issuing a license to make more of this stuff 13 is that it can be stored where it is generated for up 14 to 120 years.

15 So, this community has a right to know 16 that (a)

I cannot bring this issue in the licensing 17 process as an intervener because it is considered 18 generic and so, therefore, not subject to litigation 19 at the level of the license, and (b) you haven't 20 really been given disclosure, have you, that you're 21 signing up for 120 levels of high level nuclear waste 22 storage, unless a new option becomes available.

23 So, I want to use my time tonight to talk 24 about the things I

can't bring in intervention, 25 because this is a different opportunity to comment.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

90 1

So, the so-called low level waste we are 2

litigating on.

And I'll simply that,

again, the 3

comment was spot on.

The communities in this country 4

are standing up and saying no, we don't want to be 5

dumps.

The dumps that are there have been closed, 6

except for there very few exceptions.

utah is an 7

exception.

8 There are dumps that are taking waste from 9

specific states, like South Carolina's still taking 10 from Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina only.

11 But that's what's forcing every reactor in the united 12 States to either store or ship to a temporary location 13 their so-called low level waste.

14 And the same would be true of Levy after 15 two years of storage that's in the AP-IOOO design, if 16 it's the average level of production of waste, which 17 it mayor may not be in the first year -- second year.

18 So, the whole issue of waste is very rife 19 for our consideration, for discussion, for local 20 action, because this is a community that has a right 21 to say whether it is going to be the next so-called 22 low level waste dump for Progress Energy, if it is 23 going to be the next so-called high level waste dump 24 for Progress Energy.

Those need to be really 25 considered at the local level.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

91 1

Okay.

I'm about done with what I'm going 2

to say.

As I said, we will, of course, be giving 3

written comments pertaining to the Draft Environmental 4

Impact statement.

5 One last -- two quick comments that I want 6

to tag on.

One has to do with jobs.

I've been 7

spending a lot of time on the phone with people all 8

over the country for the last 20 years, because I've 9

had my job for 2C years.

We work with a lot of people 10 in reactor communities.

Our membership is in all 50 11 states, but a disproportionate number of members in 12 reactor communities.

13 And one thing I hear over and over again 14 was that the job thing just didn't work out.

And 15 there's a woman in Texas who's actually figured out 16 why.

The reason is, is because most of the long term 17 jobs that would come with these new reactors won't be 18 hired locally, maybe a few.

But most of those workers 19 for the long term positions, not the construction 20 jobs, but the other ones, will be hired from out of 21 the area.

22 But they're not monks.

They're not single 23 individuals.

They will come with a

spouse.

And 24 because they're technically skilled positions, they --

25 many of them will be mature individuals with teenage (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

92 1

and older children.

And so you get one worker, but 2

you get two to three potentially -- at least one, two, 3

or three work seekers.

And so, incredibly, the 4

unemployment rate goes up in new reactor communities, 5

not down.

6 So, I

wanted to bring that out.

And 7

finally, I'm not allowed to attack NRC regulations in 8

the process of intervening on a

license.

And I

9 understand that because, you know, we're there to be 10 sure the process is done right.

And since the process 11 is based on the regulations, okay, we're not going to 12 attack them in that process.

13 But I'm here to tell you that page 17 of 14 the handout is entirely misleading.

This little pie 15 chart about radiation.

Just imagine for a moment that 16 there's 104 operating nuclear

reactors, and then 17 there's about a dozen nuclear weapon sites, and then 18 there's all their support industries, the laundries, 19 and the waste processors, and there's some 20 incinerators.

But probably there's on the order of, 21 you know, a few hundred nuclear facilities.

And yet, 22 they're showing up at a tenth of a percent.

That is 23 one one-thousandth of all the radiation.

24 That means that the averaging is pretty 25 amazing when they give these numbers, because people (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

93 1

who live in these areas are getting a

lot of 2

radiation, okay?

Because the radiation standards are 3

so permissive.

4 When I was a child, we argued about 1 in a 5

million people, was that acceptable for an industrial 6

operation to kill one in a million?

Then we got to 7

Superfunding.

It was 1 in 100,000, and in really 8

complex clean-up situations, it goes up to 1

in 9

10,000.

10 NRC admitted in 1990 that their own 11 standards and I'm taking the nicest, prettiest, 12 little, tightest number, 100 millirem a year, results 13 in 3.5 fatal cancers per 1,000 people exposed.

What 14 does that mean?

It means, if we're talking about men, 15 that there's there 1 in every 286 people.

Not 1 in a 16

million, not 1 in 10,000.

But one in every 286 17 allowable deaths from the radiation standards that 18 this industry is regulated under.

I can't attack that 19 in intervention, but I can disclose it to you.

20 And then,

finally, I

can tell you that 21 women are more vulnerable.

Why?

Because we have more 22 vulnerable tissue, because our reproductive organs are 23 larger.

We get one and a half times the rate.

That 24 goes down to 1 in 191.

You start talking about 25 children and unborn children and the numbers are like (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

94 1

1 in 10.

2 And this is perfect performance with no 3

accidents.

This is what our federal regulator allows.

4 So, for those who are concerned about the 5

local impacts, you have a right to know this.

And I 6

traveled down here to say this, and I thank you for 7

listening.

8 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you.

9 MS.

OLSON:

I invite you again to get my 10 contact information if you want to know more about 11 intervention.

12 MR.

CAMERON:

Thank

you, Mary.

And 13 Barbara?

And then Mike Seymour and Emily Casey.

And 14 then Mr. Hopkins.

This is Barbara Seiling.

15 MS. SIELING:

Well, my t-shirt says what I 16 feel about most corporations.

Not -- the government 17 isn't real high above that.

18 After all these questions I asked about 19 this, not understanding and they give me this book.

20 And the only difference between the Levy County and 21 the Crystal River --

and I did have questions about 22 that I'll ask later -- is that transportation to Levy 23 County would be small to moderate, whereas it would be 24 small to Crystal River.

So, I still don't think I've 25 gotten my answer.

That was something added on.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

95 1

And I was also curious about how they will 2

be transporting the uranium and how many houses it 3

will go by to get there.

4 with water being the most important yet 5

limi ted resource, I am appalled at the lackadaisical 6

atti tude I see towards these wetlands.

Florida has 7

suffered from water shortages for years, even decades.

8 And now the destruction of our needed wetlands and the 9

effect on our aquifers is unacceptable.

10 I also understand --

and I understand a 11 little bit more now since the last couple of people 12 talked, that part of Goethe state Park is going to be 13 involved in the construction or at least the water 14 flow.

15 I live in Alachua County, barely, and part 16 of Goethe state Park is up there, too.

And, so, I

17 went online when I first moved up there and found that 18 Goethe state Park and most of Goethe state Park has 19 foxtail squirrels, gopher

turtles, and other 20 endangered or protected animals in the park.

And I'm 21 wondering if not that I

wouldn't trust a

22 corporation and that I would ever think they would do 23 something like make sure they are all eliminated 24 before the actual other people go out and check it.

25 But with gopher turtles, I didn't think there was a (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

96 1

way around them, so they would have to have been 2

removed.

3 I talked to a gentleman from Progressive 4

Energy earlier and I and a woman, and instead of 5

spending they tal k about al ternati ve energy and 6

instead of spending all their money on building a 7

nuclear power plant, why don't they build it in their 8

backyard?

Number one.

But if they spent that money 9

towards helping everybody get alternative energy like 10 solar or wind power that they are now supplying energy 11 to, maybe there wouldn't be a

need for a

second 12 nuclear site.

13 I'm originally from st. Petersburg.

We've 14 always had water problems.

And it really scares me 15 that at times -- at the end of the -- at the lower end 16 of the beaches, south end of the beaches, you could 17 turn on a water spigot, there would be hopefully a 18 drop or two coming out.

And now you're talking about 19 covering up a way to redo our refill our aquifers.

20 I live in an area called Watermelon Pond.

21 When I went to put in an ag well --

for anyone who 22 doesn't know what that is, it's a well so you can feed 23 have water for your animals

cows, horses, et 24 cetera.

EPA calls me because, guess what?

Part of 25 the property goes into --

actually has contact with (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

97 1

watermelon Pond.

2 So, the EPA's calling me because, being 3

part of SWFWMD and it's all State property, they want 4

to come out and examine to see where I'm going to put 5

my well not my septic, my well -- to make sure it's 6

not going to impact the property.

Of

course, I

7 already had a well, so I didn't they said, oh, 8

never mind then.

9 But here we are trying to and I'm 10 talking about a well.

And EPA's in my --

coming to 11 me.

I had to make sure my septic tank wasn't too 12 close.

I had to make sure my property wasn't too --

13 my house wasn't too close.

14 And here we are talking about putting a 15 potential catastrophe waiting to happen on our --

on 16 our water our whole water flow and the most 17 important resource that we have.

And I just don't 18 understand.

19 And then, of course, I figured I'd better 20 say this, otherwise, you would have cut me off in the 21 beginning.

And as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, 22 I'm just wondering, is this the same group of people 23 who designed the levies in New Orleans, Rodman Dam, 24 and rerouted the rivers going into the Everglades 25 that's caused a lot of the problems down there?

Just (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

98 1

a thought.

2 I think that pretty well covers everything 3

I have to say.

4 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you.

Mike 5

Seymour and then Emily Casey and Norman Hopkins.

6 MR.

SEYMOUR:

My name's Mike Seymour and 7

I'm a general contractor.

I live in the Crystal River 8

area.

I've been working with Mr.

Smith on his 9

property for probably about two, two and a half years.

10 At one point in time, we were going to develop the 11 property ourselves into higher-end residential homes 12 and try to do a pretty unique type community there.

13 What I'd like to start out with telling 14 you guys about, if I can, is our first introduction to 15 Progress Energy.

At first, we fought them because, 16 like the young lady there, we wanted to develop our 17 land, Mr. Smith's land.

I had put a lot of time and 18 my own money into the plans for that piece of 19 property.

20 And we came here to the Plantation and we 21 heard Progress Energy giving their speech.

And we 22 brought in our environmentalist; Ellen spoke at that 23 particular meeting.

And we were --

we were upset.

24 You know, we had plans for the property ourselves.

25 (202) 23H433 Later on, we were contacted by Danny NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

99 1

Roderick, who we came to know very well.

We've had 2

several meetings here with Danny Roderick and 3

discussing the plans of Progress Energy.

And one of 4

the things that I got to know about Danny, in talking 5

to him, his goals here seem to be so much different 6

than what I

have seen here lately from Progress 7

Energy.

8 Danny's goals seemed to be creating a 9

project that the community would be proud of.

10 Something that he did not want to -- of course, he was 11 expense cautious about what he was doing, but he was 12 also and this is just my opinion of Danny.

He 13 might have had a different view.

But I'm just talking 14 as a businessman and our relationship with Danny.

15 He seemed to be more in tune to what the 16 community as a whole would be proud of out there.

17 Something that would create jobs for Levy County, 18 Citrus County, and benefit the surrounding properties 19 by, you know, what his outlook was for the piece of 20 property.

21 That all changed when Danny left.

He's no 22 longer with Progress Energy.

But one of the things 23 that he was always very concerned about was, in the 24 development of the property to make sure from the 25 feeling that we had with him, that the surrounding (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

100 1

lands were as protected as they possibly could be.

He 2

knew that they were going to have an impact.

He was 3

willing to talk to us about how it would impact our 4

property; how it would impact the Goethe state Forest; 5

how it would impact the surrounding neighbors' 6

properties.

We're not finding any of that from the 7

contacts we've had with Progress Energy.

8 I

was involved in these bi-weekly 9

conference calls with Progress Energy, and I can tell 10 you right now, had we thought at any point in time 11 that they weren't going to use our property for their 12 mitigation plans, we would have been raising red flags 13 along the whole path of the process of permitting.

14 Because we had the team in place to do it and we could 15 have raised a lot of red flags at that point in time.

16 We took them at their word, insofar as 17 they were going to be buying the property, or at least 18 a

sizeable portion of it, and it was our 19 understanding, based on what Danny was telling us, 20 that their goal was to preserve as much of that land 21 because of the land that they would be impacting.

22 They would be creating an access to wildlife from the 23 Goethe state Forest to the withlacoochee.

24 Even some of the state plans were to 25 purchase that property to be able to put it back into (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

101 1

the public domain, to where they could create benefits 2

for the water sheds of both the withlacoochee and 3

sorry, I can't pronounce the other water shed that's 4

in that area, the Warkusi (ph) water shed.

But 5

anyway, they both joined up in that particular area 6

and if I'm not mistaken, the boundary is almost 7

through that Robinson tract and goes up through the 8

Goethe state Forest.

9 And so, I do know that that was high on 10 the state's list, to try to preserve that particular 11 corridor in that area.

And by purchasing that 5,700 12 acres, they would have been able to maintain that, and 13 they would have been able to spread the impact of what 14 they're doing on their property over a wider piece of 15 property, and it would not have had the same effects 16 as it's going to have now in that particular area.

17 And the only couple of things that I'd 18 point out.

In the first January 15th or 13th, 2009 19 Mi tiga tion Plan and I don't know how many of you 20 had the time -- the chance to read that or look at it, 21 but I would suggest that you get a copy of it and look 22 at it, because it's drastic in the way that they've 23 changed from the 2009 to the April 2010 Mitigation 24 Plan.

25 And I have personally spoken to the DEP (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

102 1

and the representatives of the DEP, and I can tell you 2

right now that the comment that they made to me was 3

they were surprised that that tract of land was pulled 4

out, because they didn't even know it.

5 And I do know this sitting board --

I'm 6

sorry --

the siting board, when they were reviewing 7

all of these documents also, they were basing their 8

opinion on that particular 2009 Wetlands Mitigation 9

Plan.

And, so, any discussions that would have been 10 taking place between the public, or anybody else at 11 that

time, would have been based on the 2009 12 Mitigation Plan.

13 And in that Plan, where they're talking 14 about their own piece of property, it says, because 15 much of the LNP site is proposed for development, 16 infrastructure, transmission corridors, security 17 buffers, and potential future development, there are 18 few areas available for mitigation.

19 And now you look at it and pretty much the 20 whole site is being cut up with -- with, you know, a 21 little bit of mitigation up on the northern boundary.

22 The bulk of the mitigation is going to cut off all of 23 the flow of wildlife from the Goethe state Forest to 24 the Robinson tract, down to the wi thlacoochee River.

25 It is situated over on the southeastern corridor and (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

103 1

it's going to be completely blocked off by the heavy-2 haul road.

3 So, there's a if you really want to 4

look at what I think Danny would have been proud of, 5

or the community would have been proud of, is to look 6

at the alternative sites that they had, and the 7

alternative plans that they had in the 2009 Mitigation 8

Plan versus the 2010 Mitigation Plan that they're 9

planning on using now.

Thank you.

10 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Mike, for 11 those comments.

Emily?

Emily Casey still here?

Oh, 12 I'm sorry.

Is that Emily?

And then we're going to go 13 to Norman Hopkins.

14 MS.

CASEY:

Good evening.

My name is 15 Emily Casey.

I live in Citrus County, but I grew up 16 in Levy County and it's just some place that I want to 17 protect.

And what I'm going to do right now is just 18 make a short address to water concerns, for the most 19 part.

20 I

want to submit the Chronicle on 21 September 19th, is what we've all been talking about -

22 Water Matters.

It really sums up the importance of 23 water in this area, so I just want to put this into 24 the record.

25 And I want to talk about the uniqueness of (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

104 1

this area.

The proposed site in Levy County, as I 2

have said, is extremely unique greenfield and really 3

cannot be compared to other wetland areas throughout 4

the northern Tampa Bay.

5 In the groundwater modeling portion of the 6

section written in support of Progress Energy's water 7

use program application, it stated that and I'm 8

quoting here:

SWFWMD presumes an adverse impact to a 9

wetland if the long term median water level falls 10 below the minimum wetland level.

The District has 11 assigned the elevations to sentinel wetlands.

The 12 District states, -- and the district is SWFWMD that 13 it can't extrapolate levels from wetlands that haven't 14 had official levels set by similar wetlands in close 15 proximity."

16 Okay.

It means they can make an average.

17 And then you go ahead down a little ways 18 and you read that:

A minimum wetland level is at 1.8 19 feet below normal pool and with a

one-to-one 20 relationship.

And it states that:

The methodology 21 works at areas --

in other areas, that there are no 22 sentinel wetlands or published minimum wetland levels 23 in Levy County.

24 So, the data --

my statement is that the 25 data that was used is based on estimations from other (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

105 1

areas.

2 And as I said before, this is a unique 3

area.

As you have heard all night, people have 4

addressed concerns about the wetland impact.

And it 5

is really unique because two surface water that 6

flows between two water management districts and into 7

two separate rivers, both the Waccasassa and the 8

withlacoochee.

9 The site is located south and west of two 10 separate potential high levels (sic).

This would 11 result in both the Floridan aquifer water being 12 consumed from both the west and the east of this site.

13 And what that ultimately would mean, that 14 water that would flow, and should flow from the south 15 to the south and/or to the west and/or to the north 16 and the reason why I state it that way is because 17 it's at kind of a confluence of the waters.

And then 18 it flows in many different directions; some flows 19 north, some flows toward the Gulf, some flows towards 20 the withlacoochee River.

You really can't predict at 21 what point it's going to flow in which direction.

22 Anyway, so I've said that they will not be 23 available to other users or the environment, since 24 there is a 1.85 million gallons per day projected to 25 be withdrawn.

(202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

106 1

And surface waters flow either, as I said, 2

into the two rivers or sheet floods flow to the Gulf, 3

and, the Gulf is also a very pristine estuary area and 4

the Big Bend seagrass beds.

5 Personally, I have observed water flowing 6

from a high water lake that exists at the northeast 7

corner of Progress Energy's property, flows under 19, 8

and in a very short distance, it's flowing northwest 9

and it goes into many swallets straight down into the 10 aquifer.

11 So, my question from there is, what will 12 the quality of this water be in 10, 20 years?

And 13 also, what will the quantity of this water be?

Or 14 will there be any water?

15

Then, the water that flows into these 16 swallets are most likely the water that feeds into the 17 springs that are there.

These two springs happen to 18 be two out of the five known springs --

and I'd like 19 to stress "known" because it is what we

know, but 20 there's kind of assumed that there's much more out 21 there that is not known.

22

Anyway, two out of the five springs 23 provide the fresh water into the Waccasassa Bay/River 24 area.

The Waccasassa Bay River has already 25 experienced a dramatic decline in the amount of water (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

107 1

that flows from there.

So, what will happen in 10, 20 2

years?

These are just questions.

3 What I'm proposing is, that due to many 4

features and these are only a few that this area 5

has, is not a place that can be compared to other 6

places.

7 And I

ask you to understand that the 8

environmental impacts are not going to be small.

They 9

are going to large to the water and to the people that 10 live around there and to the environment, in general.

11 And not only would be large, it would be devastating.

12 Thank you.

13 MR.

CAMERON:

Okay.

Thank you, Emily.

14 And Mr. Hopkins?

Norman Hopkins.

15 MR.

HOPKINS:

Good evening, ladies and 16 gentlemen.

My name is Norman Hopkins and I live in 17 Ci trus County, and I run a foundation dedicated to 18 teaching environmental science.

19 I have a confession to make.

And that is 20 that I can, after the years of research that I've done 21 into sources of energy for the purpose of constructing 22 a comprehensive of the energy situation in America 23 today and putting it on the website that we maintain 24 for teaching, leaves me without any confidence at all 25 that a case could be made for nuclear energy anywhere (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

108 1

in the world.

It just cannot be made.

2 The most important factor is the sheer 3

overwhelming cost of the capital expenditure and the 4

burden that it places on the capital resources, even 5

of this nation.

Plus, the cost of kilowatt hour from 6

nuclear energy under any circumstances is a

7 significant multiple of any other form and a very 8

significant multiple of the cost that we pay for 9

kilowatt hour today.

10 However, this meeting is to consider the 11 environmental input -- Environmental Impact statement 12 and having said that, just remember it, I

can't 13 justify having a nuclear energy source, a new one, 14 anywhere in the world today.

15 Why I'm standing up here is to talk about 16 water.

And it is a scarce resource.

We need to 17 husband that scarce resource.

We need to look after 18 our wetlands for the job that they do to preserve the 19 water which is in the aquifers of this country.

20 And, furthermore, I've already referred to 21 the fact that the Environmental Impact statement that 22 has been published, and which we've reviewed, was 23 based upon scoping data collected up till December 24 2008.

25 (202) 23H433 Since then, a

research study has been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

109 1

completed to find out how the water and where it 2

travels to in the aquifer.

There are artesian flows 3

which are natural to balance the pressure wi thin the 4

aquifer, a confined aquifer, that is --

an artesian 5

aquifer.

But when those flows -- and it's quite true 6

that they flow from west to east across the -- sorry -

7 from east to west across the LNP site, immediately 8

to the west of that site is what is a fracture which 9

will divert the water to the south.

10 And the reason that I am concerned about 11 that --

and it is not mentioned in the Environmental 12 Impact statement draft is that the consequence of 13

that, ignoring the fact that it flows towards the 14 south, means that the whole of the Crystal River Kings 15 Bay complex, as an impacted environment, is omitted 16 from the Environmental Impact statement.

17 I have submitted a paper on this to the 18 NRC and I've already given a copy of that paper to a 19 representative of the NRC here today.

I will be 20 sUbmitting a written report to the NRC.

21 And, we cannot afford to lose the waters 22 of Crystal River Kings Bay, which today contribute 23 something like

$20 million a

year to the local 24 economy.

25 (202) 23H433 So, they're important to those of us who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

110 1

live and dwell in Crystal River or in Citrus County, 2

and we can't afford to lose that water resource.

3 Furthermore, just one sentence.

And that 4

is, that the flows underground are complex.

And there 5

is every likelihood that, as I spoke this afternoon 6

about the accumulation of radionuclides in groundwater 7

from a plant in Levy County, as described in the 8

Environmental Impact statement, will most likely 9

influence the wells from which the domestic water 10 supply is taken for 135,000 households in Citrus 11 County.

12 Thank you very much.

13 MR. CAMERON:

Thank you, Mr. Hopkins.

Mr.

14 Hopkins was our final speaker.

And I'm going to ask 15 Scott Flanders, as our senior official, to close the 16 meeting out for us.

Scott?

17 MR.

FLANDERS:

First, I

want to thank 18 everyone for coming and attending the meeting tonight 19 and providing excellent comments.

We find the 20 comments very useful.

We intend to take all of the 21 information back and consider it as we work toward 22 finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement.

23

Again, as Doug mentioned earlier in his 24 presentation, the comment period does not close until 25 October
27th, (202) 23H433 so certainly all the comments you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

111 1

provided here, we will certainly take into account.

2 If there's other information, as you 3

continue to review the document, digest some of the 4

comments that you heard from some of the other 5

indi viduals and want to provide additional comments, 6

the comment

period, again, does not close until 7

october 27th.

So, there's an opportunity to also 8

provide additional comments, as well.

9 And as we said earlier

today, as an 10 independent regulatory agency, our job is to ensure 11 that we fully consider the environmental impacts of 12 what's being proposed and make sure that we clearly 13 and accurately provide that information for public 14 review and for decision makers.

And that's what we 15 intend to do.

16 So, we're going to take those comments 17 that we received today, analyze them closely, factor 18 them in.

It's always a benefit to us to come to the 19 community and hear information and the perspective 20 from the communi ty.

Oftentimes, we find information 21 that we weren't aware of and we need to take that into 22 account, as well.

We certainly will do that in this 23 case.

24 So, in concl us ion, I would, on behal f of 25 the Army Corps of Engineers and the Nuclear Regulatory (202) 23H433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com

112 1

Commission, I

want to thank you for attending this 2

evening.

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (202) 23H433 And that concludes our meeting.

Thank you.

(At 9:34 p.m., meeting concluded.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AI"D TRA~ISCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE I, W WASHII':;TOII, D,C, ICC5;J701 WWN. nealrgross,com



   



    

      ! ""#   #

Board Meeting Package November 17,2010 4:30 p.m.

Meeting Location:

SWFWMD Headquarters Governing Board Meeting Room 2379 Broad Street (US 41 South)

Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899

TIME:

PLACE:

WlTHLACOOCHEE REGIO~AL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING :vTI~UTES October 20, 2010 4:30 p.m.

W ithlacoochee Regional Planning Council 1241 SW 10th Street (SR 200)

Ocala, Florida 34471-0323 The numbers preceding the items listed below correspond with the published agenda.

1.

Call to Order Chairnlan Richard HolTman called the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. and asked Cor a roll call.

2.

Roll Call Mr. Jack Sullivan, Executive Director, called the roll and a quorum was declared present.

vTEMBERS PRESE~T Richard Horlillan, Chainnan, Sumter County Commissioner Barbara Fitos, Vice-Chainnan, Marion County Commissioner Rose Rocco, Treasurer, Hernando County Commissioner Mike Amsden, Marion County Commissioner Dennis Damato, Citrus County Commissioner Christine Dobkowski, Belleview City Commissioner Stan McClain, Marion County Commissioner Mary S. Rich, Ocala City Councilwoman Y1EMBERS ABSENT Jim Adkins, Hernando County Commissioner Gary Bartell, Citrus County Commissioner Joe Bernardini, Brooksville City Councilman John Druzbick, Hernando County Commissioner Ken Hinkle, Inverness City Councilman Randy Mask, Sumter County Commissioner John Priester, Ocala City Councilman David Russell, Hernando County Commissioner Dale Swain, Bushnell City Councilman Winn Webb, Citrus County Commissioner
3.

Introductions and Announcements Mr. Sullivan introduced others in the audience.

Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting OTHERS PRE SEl'i T Jack Sullivan, WRWSA Executive Director Larry Haag, WRWSA Attorney Diane Salz, WRWSA Legislative Liaison Alys Brockway, Hernando County Utilities Kim Dinkins, Marion County Al Grubman, TOO FAR Dan Hilliard, Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc, Peter Hubbell, Water Resource Associates Cara Martin, SWFWMD James Morgan, Citrus County Darrell Muse, City of Ocala Joseph Quinn, SWFWMD Richard Radacky, City of Brooksville Peter Rocco, Hernando County Citizen Tahla Paige, Recording Secretary

4.

Presentation of Plaqne of Appreciation to Commissioner Gary Bartell October 20, 20 I 0 Page 2 01'5 Chairman Hoffman announced that Mr. Bartell could not attcnd today's meeting, By consensus of the board, it was agreed to prescnt Mr. Bartcll with his plaque at the November meeting,

5.

Approval of :win utes of September 15,2010 Meeting A copy of the minutes was provided in the board packet for review, Following consideration, a motion was made by Ms. Rocco to approve the minutes for the September 15, 2010 meeting. The motion was seconded by :vir. :vIcClain and carried unanimously.

6.

Report on Use ofCFBC as a Water Snpply Mr. Sullivan stated the board packet included a memorandum outlining a proposal by Mr. Dan Hilliard, Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc', to use the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) as an alternative water supply, Mr. Hubbell reviewed the idea, which included installation of a structure to help prevent saltwater intrusion and create a Cresh water reservoir six miles downstream of the Inglis Lock. He stated competition for the use of the Lower Withlacoochee River included planned withdrawals from the CFBC by Progress Energy for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, potential restoration projects developed by Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and development of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) lor the Lower With lacoochee River by SWFWMD.

Tn conclusion, Mr. Hubbell stated the project was an interesting proposal; however, it would require an in-depth level of analysis to determine the viability of the project.

He said one concern was the low level of water quality. Mr. Hubbell recommended to the Board to accept this project as a long-term (20 to 25 years) alternative water supply project to be studied for consideration and development in the future when other alternative water supply projects are further analyzed. Mr. Damato agreed there were various issues with the project

Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting October 20, 20 I 0 Page 3 01'5 Mr. Hilliard felt the assessment by Mr. Hubbell was correct However, he noted the water was not wasted (fresh water going into saltwater) as the Lower Withlacoochee River feeds a vibrant estuary, Mr. Hilliard also noted current studies showed a new bridge on US Highway 19 over the river as part or the expense ror the project, which he relt was an unnecessary expense. Discussion continued on the water quality of the river, location of the project, the intensive study needed for the project, and future grow1h's affect on water demand.

Mr. Sullivan's recommendation was to accept the Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc.

proposal as a potential alternative water supply (AWS) project ror consideration as a long-term water supply project along with the other A WS projects approved in the WRWSA's Water Supply Master Plan. It is also recOillinended that further analysis of the project not take place until the time in which these long-term A WS projects are further analyzed for consideration and development in the future.

Following consideration, a motion was made by Mr. :vIcClain to approve the recommendation of the Executive Director on this project. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rocco and carried unanimously.

7.

Executive Director's Report

a. Bills to be Paid Mr. Sullivan provided a handout to the Board detailing October 2010 bills, which totaled $70,112.93. Mr. Sullivan requested the Board approve the payment of those bills.

Following consideration, a motion was made by :vis. Fitos to approve payment of the October 2010 bills totaling $70,112.93.

The motion was seconded by

vir. McClain and carried unanimously.
b. 2010-11 Board Meeting Schedule Mr. Sullivan presented the upcoming year's meeting schedule for approval.

Following consideration, a motion was made by :vis. Rocco to approve tbe 2010-11 meeting schedule as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClain and carried unanimonsly.

c. Report on Progress re: FERC Inglis Hydropower Application Mr. Sullivan stated he had contacted Paul Williams, SWFWMD to discuss the issues or concern to both the Authority and SWFWMD. Pete Hubbell had also called Inglis Hydropower, LLC to schedule a meeting to discuss the project, and he hoped to conclude the meetings and have staff recommendations to present at the November WRWSA Board meeting.
d. Follow-up on Recommendations ofFEMA re: Oil Damage from Hurricanes Mr. Sullivan included in the board packet the website address to review FEMA's Public Assistance Debris Management Guide and a copy of the letter he wrote to EPA requesting information on how a major stonn or hurricane may affect the spread of oil

Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting October 20, 20 I 0 Page 4 01'5 inland. Mr. Sullivan stated he would report back to the WRWSA Board as soon as he received a response.

e. Correspondence Mr. Sullivan reviewed a memorandmn from Dr. Martin Kelly, Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director, Resource Projects Department, SWFWMD, on the establishment of MFLs. Mr. Sullivan plans to request that Dr. Kelly give a presentation at the next WR WSA meeting.

This item was presented for the Board's infomlation; no action was required.

f.

~ ews Articles Mr. Sullivan provided news articles on water supply Issues relating to areas both regional and statewide.

This item was presented for the Board's infomlation; no action was required.

8.

Legislative Update Ms. Diane Salz stated there are currently various legislative members making campaign promises to repeal portions of the current SB 550. After the General Election, there will be new committee members and committee chairs. She stated there is a movement to change water law again. Ms. Salz expects to see a lot of activity in the upcoming month and plans to have a more extensive report next month. She gave a brief review of tile proposed changes to the SWFWMD's Water Shortage Plan. Ms. Salz asked the Board if she should ask Lois Sorensen, SWFWMD, to speak at the next meeting on the changes. The WRWSA board agreed they would like the presentation. Ms. Salz stated the EPA announced a short extension for the Florida Nutrients Tnland Water Rule until November.

Mr. Damato expressed his concem for the provision in SB 550 requiring septic tanks inspections and cost incurred by property owners. Mr. Damato asked Ms. Salz to find out how many Counties currently have a septic tank inspection program upon sale of a residential structure.

9.

Attorney's Report Mr. Haag stated he did not have any additional items to report to the WRWSA.

10.

Other Business None.

n. Public Comment Mr. Richard Radacky, City of Brooksville, asked if the WRWSA Board knew what the use is for the 24" or 36" pipes being installed in the Progress Energy right-of-way in Citrus County. Mr. Damato stated it was a massive project to import natural gas from Alabama to Miami, Florida.

Mr. Radacky expressed his concerns on the pipe work crossing thc Withlaeooehee River and possible efTects to the ecosystem.

Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Minutes of the Meeting

12.

I\\ext Meeting Time and Location October 20, 20 I 0 Page 5 01'5 Next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2010 at 4:30 p,m" at the Southwest Florida Water Management District Headquarters, Governing Board Room, 2379 Broad Street (US 41 South), Brooksville, FL 34604,

13.

Adjonrnment Chairman Hoffman announced there was no further business or discussion to come before the Board and adjourned the meeting at 5 :20 p,ll1, Richard Hoffman, Chairman Jackson E, Sullivan, Executive Director

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William M. Murphy In the Matter of PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.

(Combined License Application for Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket No. 52-029-COL, 52-030-COL ASLBP No. 09-879-04-COL-BD01 December 28, 2010 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of the Interveners Reply to NRC Staff Answer to Amended Contention 4 have been served on the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange on this 28th Day of December, 2010:

Administrative Judge Alex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Alex.Karlin@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Anthony.Baratta@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary ATTN: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Administrative Judge William M. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: William.Murphy@nrc.gov Megan Wright Law Clerk Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: megan.wright@nrc.gov

2 Mary Olson NIRS Southeast PO Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 E-mail: maryo@nirs.org Michael Mariotte Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 E-mail: nirsnet@nirs.org Michael Canney The Green Party of Florida Alachua County Office PO Box 12416 Gainesville, FL 32604 E-mail: alachuagreen@windstream.net Cara Campbell The Ecology Party of Florida 641 SW 6th Ave Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 E-Mail: levynuke@ecologyparty.org John H. ONeill, Esq.

Michael G. Lepre, Esq.

Blake J. Nelson, Esq.

Robert B. Haemer, Esq.

Jason P. Parker, Esq.

Counsel for Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP 2300 N. Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 E-mail: john.ONeill@pillsburylaw.com michael.lepre@pillsburylaw.com blake.nelson@pillsburylaw.com robert.haemer@pillsburylaw.com jason.parker@pillsburylaw.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Kathryn L. Winsberg, Esq.

Sara Brock Kirkland, Esq.

Jody Martin, Esq.

Kevin Roach Laura Goldin Joseph Gilman, Paralegal Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Kathryn.winsberg@nrc.gov; seb2@nrc.gov; jcm5@nrc.gov; jsg1@nrc.gov ;

Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov Laura.goldin@nrc.gov

/Signed (electronically) by/

Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office maryo@nirs.org

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML103620789&oldid=5287236"