ML110030988

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Entergy'S Initial Statement of Position on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3
ML110030988
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 01/03/2011
From: Gaukler P, Doris Lewis
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP, Entergy Nuclear Generation Co, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML110030986 List:
References
RAS 19383, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR
Download: ML110030988 (13)
v • d • e


Text

January 3, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel In the Matter of )

)

Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and ) Docket No. 50-293-LR Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ) ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) )

ENTERGYS INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION ON PILGRIM WATCH CONTENTION 3 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("Board")

September 23, 2010 Order1 setting the schedule for submissions, Entergy Nuclear Generation Company and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy") hereby submit their Initial Statement of Position ("Statement") on Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 ("PW Contention 3"). This Statement is supported by the "Testimony of Dr. Kevin R. OKula and Dr. Steven R. Hanna on Meteorological Matters Pertaining to Pilgrim Watch Contention 3" ("Entergy. Dir.") and Entergy's exhibits thereto that are being filed simultaneously with this Statement.2 1

Order (Confirming Matters Addressed at September 15, 2010, Telephone Conference) (Sept. 23, 2010) 2 As requested by the Boards September 23 Order, Entergy is also submitting the "Testimony of Dr. Kevin R. OKula on Source Term Used in the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis (ENT000012) to respond to Board Question No. 2 in the Appendix of that Order concerning the source term used in the SAMA analysis. Entergys position, however, is that this testimony is not relevant to Contention 3, because Contention 3 does not challenge the source term.

I. INTRODUCTION As remanded by the Commission in CLI-10-11,3 and clarified by the Board, the primary and threshold issue in Contention 3 is

[W]hether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA, and whether accounting for the meteorological patterns/issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could, on its own, credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

September 23 Board Order, slip op. at 1.

Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 has no merit. The population dose risk (PDR) and the off-site economic cost risk (OECR) would need to increase by more than a factor of two before the next severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) would become potentially cost-beneficial. Entergy Dir. at A14 and A47. Entergy performed an analysis using CALMET, a meteorological model that develops three-dimensional time and spatially variable wind fields using data from multiple weather stations (a model suggested by Pilgrim Watch), which confirms that consideration of time and spatially variable wind fields would have no significant impact on the SAMA analysis results. Entergy Dir. Exhibit ENT000004. In fact, detailed analyses show that a CALMET based methodology that takes into account time and spatially variable wind fields would have negligible results (less than 4%) on the overall SAMA analysis - far less than the factor of more than two increase in benefits necessary to cause additional SAMAs to become potentially cost beneficial. Entergy Dir. at A104 and A105.

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS Pilgrim Watch Contention 3 challenges the sufficiency of the environmental analysis in Entergys Environmental Report, which is a matter that must be judged under the National 3

Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC

__, slip op. at 26 (March 26, 2010).

2

Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). There are two tenets of NEPA law that are germane. First, NEPA does not require analysis of worst-case scenarios. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Counsel, 490 U.S. 332, 333 (1989). There, in rejecting a claim that NEPA required worst-case analyses, the Supreme Court stated:

[Council on Environmental Quality] explained that by requiring that an EIS focus on reasonably foreseeable impacts, the new regulation "will generate information and discussion on those consequences of greatest concern to the public and of greatest relevance to the agency's decision," rather than distorting the decisionmaking process by overemphasizing highly speculative harms. [The] regulation is entitled to substantial deference.

Id. at 356 (citations omitted).4 Therefore, a NEPA analysis should estimate realistic consequences, not the worst-case scenario, for otherwise, the cost-benefit analysis would be skewed. Consequently, Pilgrim Watch cannot meet its burden in this proceeding by alleging that worse meteorological conditions are possible in the event of a severe accident. In this respect, many of Pilgrim Watchs claims or premises are based on either worst case or emergency planning assumptions that are not relevant for SAMA analyses concerned with integrated consequences over a large domain for purposes of performing a cost-benefit evaluation. Entergy Dir. At A12, A17, and A53.

Second, it is well established that NEPA does not require federal agencies to resolve all uncertainties. Indeed, as one court has stated, "[i]f we were to impose a requirement that an impact statement can never be prepared until all relevant environmental effects were known, it is doubtful that 4

[W]orst-case scenarios need not be considered because their consideration involves "the arduous and unproductive task of analyzing conceivable, but very speculative, catastrophes" and diverts "NRC's limited resources" from other more productive efforts. Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-25, 56 N.R.C. 340, 354 (2002).

3

any project could ever be initiated." Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 471 F.2d. 1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1973).

Thus, in Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 88,98-100, 101-02 (1983), the Supreme Court held that NRC complied with NEPA's requirements of consideration and disclosure where it summarized major uncertainties and found the evidence tentative but favorable. In Baltimore Gas, the Supreme Court upheld the NRC's analysis of uncertainties where the NRC had estimate[d]

its impacts conservatively, based on the best available information and analysis. 462 U.S. at 102.5 Further, the Courts have held that NEPA does not require time consuming and expensive studies to resolve uncertainties when impacts are small. In Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346,377 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1092 (1981), the Court held that an agency was not required to conduct a major study to better quantify biological impacts when it had concluded that the, physical impacts were minor. As the Court explained:

Detailed analysis is required only where impacts are likely....

Where adverse impacts are not likely, expensive, and time-consuming studies are unnecessary. So long as the environmental impact statement identifies areas of uncertainty, the agency has fulfilled its mission under NEPA.

Id.6 5

In holding that the NRC's promulgation of Table S-3 did not violate NEPA, the Supreme Court noted:

[T]he Commission's staff did not attempt to evaluate the environmental effects of all possible methods of disposing of waste. Rather, it chose to analyze intensively the most probable long-term waste disposal method -

burial in a bedded-salt repository several hundred meters under ground - and then "estimate its impact conservatively, based on the best available information and analysis."

462 U.S. at 102 (citation omitted).

6 See also Carolina Env. Study Group v. U.S., 510 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 777, Crownpoint, New Mexico 87313), LBP-04-23, 60 N.R.C. 441,447 (2004) (The environmental assessment need not include every environmental effect that could potentially result from the federal action, but rather may be limited to effects which are shown to have some likelihood of occurring.) (footnote omitted).

4

For nuclear power plant license renewal reviews, the NRC has concluded that the likelihood of radiological offsite consequences is small for all nuclear power plants. Final Rule, Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 24,481 (June 5, 1996). Thus, under Walton NEPA does not require either the NRC or Entergy to conduct extensive new studies to eliminate all uncertainties regarding tenuous impacts, such as the impacts from an individual sea-breeze occurring during a postulated radiological offsite accident.7 Indeed, as stated by the Commission in this proceeding:

Ultimately, NEPA requires the NRC to provide a reasonable mitigation alternatives analysis, containing reasonable estimates, including, where appropriate, full disclosures of any known shortcomings in available methodology, disclosure of incomplete or unavailable information and significant uncertainties, and a reasoned evaluation of whether and to what extent these or other considerations credibly could or would alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

Memorandum and Order, CLI-10-22, (slip op. at 10-11) (Aug. 27, 2010).

III. ENTERGYS STATEMENT OF POSITION ON FACTUAL ISSUES A. Entergys Witnesses Entergy's testimony on PW Contention 3 will be presented by a panel of two distinguished experts, Dr. Kevin R. OKula, who is an expert on SAMA analyses and the use and application of the 7

The 10th Circuit has likewise held that a federal agency need not consider the potential consequences resulting from an accident whose risk is low. In Lee v. U.S. Air Force, 354 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2004), petitioners challenged the EIS prepared by the U.S. Air Force in support of its plan to permit the German Air Force to station 30 fighter aircraft at an Air Force base, in addition to 12 fighter craft already there. Lee, 354 F.3d at 1233. Specifically, petitioners challenged the U.S. Air Force's alleged failure to discuss the environmental and economic impacts of a potential forest fire caused by an aircraft crash. Id. at 1245. As summarized by the 10th Circuit, the EIS acknowledged the risk of accident, described its methodology for calculating the risk, and described the results of these calculations. Id. Further, the EIS acknowledged that fires and environmental contamination may result from a crash, particularly in highly vegetated areas during a hot, dry summer. Id. The Court ruled, however, that because the U.S. Air Force concluded that the risk of accident was relatively low, [the Air Force] was not required to describe the potential consequences of a resulting fire in further detail. Id. More generally, the Court stated that the EIS need only furnish such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project. Id. (citation omitted).

5

MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS), and Dr. Steven R. Hanna, who is an expert in atmospheric turbulence and dispersion, in the analysis of meteorological and air quality data, and in the development, evaluation, and application of air quality models.

Dr. Kevin OKula:

  • Has over 28 years of experience in the nuclear industry, including deterministic and probabilistic accident and consequence analysis;
  • Has over 20 years experience in using and applying the MACCS and MACCS2 computer codes;
  • Has taught MACCS2 training courses for the Department of Energy ("DOE") and its contractors;
  • Was the lead author of a DOE guidance document on the use of MACCS and MACCS2 for DOE safety analysis applications; and
  • Is a member of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) Project Peer Review Committee that provides recommendations on applying MACCS2 in the context of severe reactor accident analysis.

Dr. Steven Hanna:

  • Dr. Steven R. Hanna, is president of Hanna Consultants and also an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Harvard School of Public Health;
  • Is an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist with over 43 years of experience;
  • Served as Chief Editor of the Journal of Applied Meteorology from 1988-1997; and
  • Is a specialist in atmospheric turbulence and dispersion, in the analysis of meteorological and air quality data, and in the development, evaluation, and application of air quality models, including CALMET/CALPUFF and AERMOD.

6

The testimony and opinions of the Dr. OKula and Dr. Hanna on PW Contention 3 are based on both their technical expertise and their personal knowledge of the issues raised in PW Contention 3.

B. Entergys Evidence The testimony of Dr. OKula and Dr. Hanna and their supporting exhibits demonstrate that the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA requirements and that accounting for the meteorological patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch cannot credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement. The major points set forth by Dr. OKula and Dr. Hanna in their testimony are as follows:

1. The Gaussian Plume Segment model used in the ATMOS module of MACCS2 is adequate and reasonable for performing SAMA analyses. See Entergy Dir. at A33 and A48-A50.
  • The ATMOS module of MACCS2 uses a Gaussian plume segment model to simulate the radioactive plumes transport, dispersion, and deposition, not a standard straight-line Gaussian plume model. Entergy Dir. at A33, A48. Unlike a standard straight-line Gaussian plume model, a plume segment model updates key meteorological variables, other than wind direction, on an hourly basis. Id.
  • The Gaussian plume segment model used by MACCS2 is appropriate for use in SAMA analyses that are concerned with calculating annual expected consequences integrated over a 50-mile radius domain based on numerous accident release conditions that could occur at any time under varying weather conditions. Entergy Dir. at A16, A48-A50. ATMOS takes into account different meteorological patterns on a statistical basis producing results based on a large number of representative weather events, each weighted by the probability of the representative weather sequence and the wind direction. Entergy Dir. at A36-A37, A50.

Taking into account a multitude of wind patterns on a statistical basis, and probabilistically 7

sampling from a full year of hourly conditions, as done by ATMOS, produces a reasonable estimate of the mean consequences - one that is sufficient for the SAMA application. Entergy Dir. at A50.

  • Consequently, the details of a particular plumes trajectory do not have a material impact on the statistical expected value, or mean, of the overall SAMA analysis because the unique behavior in a wind trajectory for a specific plume will tend to be compensated by the trajectories of other plumes. SAMA analyses, therefore, have an entirely different purpose from that of emergency response or from a worst case analyses which are concerned with the tracking of individual plumes. Entergy Dir. at A17, A52. The tracking of individual plumes is not required for computing a long-term annual consequence summed over a broad area.

Entergy Dir. at A48.

2. MACCS2 compares favorably with more complex models. See Entergy Dir. at A51-A60.
  • Codes suggested by Pilgrim Watch, such as AERMOD and CAPUFF, were not designed to perform SAMA analysis but to better predict individual plume behavior in order to meet specific regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act, typically determining maximum allowable concentrations at any location, which differ from the objectives of a SAMA analysis.

Entergy Dir. at A52.

  • Because all codes have generally been fitted to the same basic set of field experiments, using other codes, such as AERMOD or CALMET, will not significantly improve the accuracy of a SAMA analysis. Entergy Dir. at A52, A54-A55, A60.
  • MACCS2 closely approximates the results of more complex models. A model-to-model comparison between MACCS2 and more complex atmospheric dispersion and transportation models indicates that results calculated by the various models are generally within a factor of 8

two and that MACCS2 is within plus or minus 10% of a state-of-the art three dimensional model when averaged over a series of radial arcs out to fifty miles. Entergy Dir. at A58.

3. The meteorological data inputs used for the Pilgrim SAMA analysis are both temporally and spatially representative. See Entergy Dir. at A61-A72.
  • Comparing the annual wind rose (which shows the frequency that the wind is blowing in each of 16 wind directions) at Pilgrim for 2001 to the annual wind roses at Pilgrim from 1996-2000 shows that the 2001 annual wind rose at the Pilgrim Station is representative of other years.

Entergy Dir. at A65.

  • Comparing the annual wind rose at Pilgrim to the wind roses for 18 other sites in the 50-mile region of interest shows that the Pilgrim site wind direction frequencies are within the range of statistical expectation for 18 other sites and that the Pilgrim data are representative of the 50-mile SAMA region. Entergy Dir. at A62, A67-A69.
  • Evaluation of the 2001 Plymouth Municipal Airport annual precipitation data used in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis shows that the data are representative of the precipitation levels from 1995-2009 at Plymouth and at eight other sites in the 50-mile region. Entergy Dir. at A72.
4. Coastal Breezes are appropriately accounted for in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis See Entergy Dir. at A73-A81
  • The 2001 Pilgrim hourly meteorological data used in the SAMA analysis captures the coastal breeze effect, including any sea breeze blowing inland and any land breeze blowing offshore during the night. Entergy Dir. at A73, A77.
  • Coastal breezes are localized phenomena generally limited to 10 miles or less which occur approximately 40 to 50 days a year during the summer months. Entergy Dir. at A75, A80.

Significant for a SAMA analysis, for every day when there is a sea breeze blowing on shore, 9

during the same day there is typically a nighttime land breeze blowing offshore, such that the two effects cancel out when performing an annual consequence evaluation over a broad area, as done in a SAMA analysis. Entergy Dir. at A74, A75, A78, A80.

  • As such, Pilgrims SAMA analysis adequately takes coastal breezes into account and further refinement of the accounting for sea breezes and land breezes will not significantly alter the overall impacts estimated by MACCS2 and the conclusions regarding those SAMAs that are potentially cost-beneficial. This fact is confirmed by the CALMET wind trajectory analysis.

Entergy Dir. at A79-A80.

5. Hot spots as claimed by Pilgrim Watch are both technically incorrect and immaterial. See Entergy Dir. at A82-A89.
  • Pilgrim Watchs claim that plumes remain tightly concentrated as hot spots as they travel out over the ocean and come back onto land lacks any technical merit because all plumes rapidly disperse even if they travel under worst-case very stable conditions. Entergy Dir. at A83-A85.
  • There is no consistent, frequently occurring pattern of wind blowing out to sea and then reversing direction and heading for the coast that might conceivably affect the time and space integrated results of the SAMA analysis. Entergy Dir. at A89.
6. The CALMET Wind Trajectory Analysis shows that any short-term differences in observed winds across the SAMA domain have negligible effect on the annual frequencies of trajectory directions and on the Pilgrim SAMA consequences. See Entergy Dir. at A92-A105.
  • Entergy performed an analysis using CALMET, a meteorological model that develops three-dimensional time and spatially variable wind fields using data from multiple weather stations throughout the Pilgrim SAMA region, to develop and evaluate trajectories for assumed 10

hypothetical releases from the Pilgrim Station for each hour of 2001. The CALMET wind trajectories developed for each hour of 2001 were then compared to the 2001 Pilgrim wind rose used as the basis for the SAMA analysis. Entergy Dir. at A95, A96; ENT000004.

  • Based on the CALMET wind trajectory analysis, the Gaussian plume segment model with constant wind direction for a plume released at a given hour used in ATMOS, and the three-dimensional CALMET trajectory model produce similar results. Therefore, when one is interested in annual distributions summed over time and over the Pilgrim SAMA domain, the ability to account for short-term time and space variations of meteorology does not significantly enhance the accuracy of the SAMA analysis. Entergy Dir. at A97.
  • Quantitative comparison and analysis of the CALMET wind trajectories with the wind rose for the Pilgrim Station used in the MACCS2 analysis show that a CALMET based methodology that takes into account time and spatially variable wind fields would have negligible impact (less than 4%) on the results of the SAMA analysis. This small impact is far less than the greater than factor of two increase in benefits necessary to cause additional SAMAs to become potentially cost beneficial. Entergy Dir. at A100, A104-A105.
7. Terrain is conservatively treated for purposes of the Pilgrim SAMA Analysis. See Entergy Dir. at A106-A114.
  • For purposes of the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, use of the Gaussian plume segment model (which does not directly model terrain features), is conservative because terrain features such as hills have a dispersive effect as plume passes over and around them, making the plume concentration less than it otherwise would have been, and therefore having less impact on persons and property on the downwind side of the terrain feature where the bulk of the population is located. Entergy Dir. at A107, A109, A112.

11

  • The Pilgrim SAMA analysis uses a conservative roughness factor (which is a measure of mechanical mixing caused by surface elements such as vegetation and structures) which introduces additional conservatism in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis. Entergy Dir. at 111.
  • For purposes of identifying whether any SAMAs are cost beneficial, the MACCS2 methodology for accounting for terrain effects and its conservative application (from the viewpoint of the entire 50-mile radius area and the one-year period) by Pilgrim is adequate.

Entergy Dir. at A114.

8. Pilgrim Watchs other Contention 3 issues are without merit. See Entergy Dir. at A115-A118.
  • The MACCS2 code was only used to calculate off-site consequences, not on-site consequences. Entergy Dir. at A115. Additionally, the resuspension of radioactive materials deposited on the site was fully accounted for as provided for by MACCS2. Entergy Dir. at A116.
  • The range for which the Gaussian plume model may be used depends on various factors, such as significant changes in weather or terrain patterns over the range of distances and times modeled. There is no technically justifiable reason to limit the use of MACCS2 to 50 km, and the wind rose comparisons and the CALMET wind trajectory analysis shows that use of the Gausian plume segment model for the 50-mile Pilgrim SAMA domain is reasonable. Entergy Dir at A117-118.

IV. CONCLUSION The meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the CALMET trajectory wind analysis, accounting 12

for the meteorological patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch cannot credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost-beneficial to implement.

Respectfully Submitted,

_Signed Electronically_____________

David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8000 Dated: January 3, 2011 Counsel for Entergy 13

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML110030988&oldid=2242279"