ML20023B968
| ML20023B968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1983 |
| From: | Cohen L CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8305090425 | |
| Download: ML20023B968 (10) | |
Text
.
O 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
~~~---x
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-247-SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK
)
50-286-SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
)
April 28, 1983
()
POWER AUTi!ORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW
)
YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
__________________________________________x TESTIMONY OF LESTER A.
COHEN l
IN REBUTTAL TO TESTIMONY OF l,
DANIEL GUTMAN 1
1 1
Brent L.
Brandenburg
'*\\
g gee Assistant General Counsel g g" ' CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY l
@g OF NEW YORK, INC.
i en 4 Irving Place O
(212) 460-4333 00
,_lO lfl & <bb faf ) Jt Y
A lf P, /913 b"'"y 8
0 (~9c is M,.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris X
)
In the Matter of
)
) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK
)
50-286-SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
) April 28, 1983 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
)
(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
x b
U TESTIMONY OF LESTER A. COHEN IN REBUTTAL TO TESTIMONY OF DANIEL GUTMAN Q.
Please state your name, occupation and business address.
A.
I am Lester A. Cohen.
I am a Senior Meteorologist for Consolidated Edison Company of New York. My business address is 4 Irving Place, New York, N.Y.
i Q.
Have you testified previously in this proceeding?
A.
Yes I have as part of the Con Edison onsite emergency planning panel.
Our testimony was admitted into evidence following TR.11711.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
1 O
. V l
l
O v
A.
I will address several issues raised during the hearings with respect to Indian Point meteorology.
Q.
What specific issues are you addressing?
A.
The main topic is a clarification of the wind regime characteristics for Indian Point and the surrounding areas, with regard to plume transport.
Q.
Would you state your clarification?
A.
Yes.
As I stated in my direct testimony the Indian Point area is under the influence of topgraphic effects. Namely, the mountainous terrain on the east and west banks of the Hudson River. The result of these characteristics is to generate a valley wind system and induce a steering mechanism for low level wind flow.
The valley wind system is a durinal phenomena occurring during periods of weak synoptic pressure gradients. A pressure gradient exists from the development of horizontal pressure differences which generates the wind flow. However, when pressure gradients are weak during the other months of the year, a valley flow can develop. The passage of weather systems will reduce the frequency of valley winds in the
(~')
winter months. Valley winds predominate in the May through October
\\s /
period. However, when pressure gradients are weak during the other months of the year, a valley flow can develop. The passage of weather systems will reduce the frequency of valley winds in the winter months. A nightime downvalley (northeasterly) wind is generated by the cool drainage air flow. As the air progresses southward from Indian Point the topography steers the air flow to generally follow the river to the Haverstraw Bay area.
The valley wind speed is generally low in velocity. As sunrise rise occurs, the warming of the land causes the valley wind system to dissipate and reverse direction.
This results in an upvalley, south-westerly, flow. Observations have
)
illustrated this classic valley flow together with a meandering nighttime flow in the Haverstraw Bay area.
Q.
What conclusion can be drawn from the valley flow in relation to the southward transport of plumes?
l A.
During periods of downvalley flow the continued southward movement of plumes significantly beyond ten miles south of Indian Point is highly unlikely. The primary reason for the limitation of downvalley flow is a light transport wind (1-3 mph) combined with the daytime reversal which will dissipato the flow pattern. Transport time would have to exist ten to twelve hours for a plume to be carried approximately twentyfour miles downvalley.
During characteristic valley flow periods these downvalley systems begin after sunset and dissipate at 2
~~
V
\\
)
tO V
sunrise.
Generally the time periods of downvalley flow exist from eight to ten hours.
Q.
What about plume transport when the winds are northerly but of synoptic scale?
A.
Northerly component low level winds generated by synoptic scale
- patterns, high and low pressure weather
- systems, are not significantly influenced by the topography. However, the proximity of certain topographic features south of Indian Point, namely High Tor, South Mountain, and Hook Mountain State Park will have an effect on winds flowing from the north.
Q.
Can you expand on the effect of the terrain in the Hook Mountain State Park area?
A.
Yes. The topographic features in this area range from 570 to 820 feet in elevation which forms an obstacle to air moving due south from Indian Point.
Low level winds will have to diverge around the fountain, generally being reoriented with a more westerly wind component.
Q.
What effect does the diverging wind have on plume diffusion?
A.
Mountaneous terrain not only changes plume trajectories but also increases the diffusive capacity of a plume from the ' induced mechanical turbulence generated by the, air moving over rough terrain.
' hat effect does the terrain have on elevated releases from Indian Q.
W Point, for example at several hundred meters?
A.
At higher plume transport levels the wind is governed more by the synoptic scale pressure gradients than by the topographic effects of the valley. Northerly winds at high elevations at Indian Point would remain northerly as one proceeded south, during periods of strong pressure gradients. These pressure gradients would generally produce higher wind speeds which would enhance the atmospheric diffusion process.
Q.
Are there any observations of winds at elevations of several hundred meters?
A.
Yes.
In the New York metropolitan area the only routine upper air wind observations taken were from J. F. Kennedy Airport and later at Fort Totten using radiosondes. These upper air stations have stopped taking measurements. A five year (1960-1964) composite wind rose from 3
(v 1
~.
i L, O daily observations was generated for the 300 meter elevation at J. F.
Kennedy.
It rhowed that winds from the north only occur six percent of the time ann'ually. The highest percentage of winds are those with a westerly component (SSW clockwise through NNW), sixty eight percent of the time annually. The remaining twenty five percent is for NNE clockwise through S winds.
Calm winds and missing data account for the other one percent.
s e
Q.
Are annual frequency data indicative of plume transport?
A.
No.
Annual frequencies only present the wind data for general climatological interpretation. In order to evaluate plume transport one would have to have consecutive hourly data to define the true plume trajectory. However, the data indicates the low percentage of northerly winds.
i I
Q.
Is there any unique characteristic of winds blowing from the NNW and N that would effect atmospheric dif fusion.
A.
Yes. Geostrophic, and at lower elevations gradient winds, from the NNW and N directions associated with synoptic weather patterns are t
characteristic of turbulent atmospheric diffusion states. Namely, low pressure storm systems having strong northerly winds and Pasquill i
D category or high pressure systems having Pasquill A-C categories.
l These Pasquill classes range from unstable to neutral stabilities.
i Q.
Would you explain Table 14 of the York Services Corporation report in the updated Unit No. 2 FSAR.
A.
Yes. For each hour a hypothetical release was assumed to occur at i
Indian Point.
The release was tracked for each hour, up to eight c
hours. This methodology produced eight end points, one for each hour.
The end points within the 21 by 21 mile grid (Figure 1C) together with those that left the grid are tabulated. The results in Table 14 summarize the end point locations for the months March through December 1980.
Q.
What significance is there for the total end points passing the south boundary?
A:
The southern boundary of the grid used in this study was 17 miles south of Indian Point. The grid width at this distance (Piermont) is 21 miles.
Monthly data in Table 14 show the number of end points passing south of Piermont anywhere alc ng the 21 mile width.
i Q.
Are these end points representative of plume trajectories?
..-4
,,,,e-
,--,.,_-,---,v----
,,, ~., -,. - - -
-w._,,.-w,,
- _ _., - ~ -._ -. -. - - -, _ - - - - -
v
- O A.
No.
If one would look at eight consecutive hours of wind data, for a release at a specific time, there would be less trajectories than end poin. For e.xample, in August there were 5924 end points but there a
weald be only 737 trajectories.
Q.
How would trajectory results effect the southern boundary results?
A.
In Table 14, August showed 12.0 percent of the end points passing the southern boundary.
If one analyzes only the trajectories, approximately 7 percent continued south of Piermont.
Q.
What is the eventual path of the trajectories passing south of Piermont?
A.
No data was collected south of Piermont in this study. One can only assume that the plume would remain on course based on the last hourly data taken at Piermont. This is a conservative assumption for valley flow since meteorological data for the New York City area show t
different wind frequency distributions than Indian Point. For low wind speeds, less than 6 mph, the persistence factor could be low, than for higher wind speeds, greater than 8 mph.
Q.
Can you explain the results of this study?
A.
Yes.
The results indicate the high percentage of time that plumes would be confined to the 21 by 21 mile' grid, illustrated in Figure 16.
The lower percentages passing the southern boundary during the valley eind season, (May to October) 6.7 to 17.7 percent, support the recirculation pattern of valley induced winds. During winter months, November through April, the percentages are higher due to a stronger pressure gradient and higher frequency of northerly component winds.
Table 19 of the York report shows the diurnal resultant winds for summer and winter are presented for 1974 and 1979-80. This data supports the conclusions reached in the trajectory end point study.
Q.
Do you believe a substantial probability, 20-30 percent, of theoretical annual releases can reach New York City?
A.
No.
The review of annual wind roses for the area encompassing New i
York City illustrates the high percentage of westerly component winds. This fact combined wi6n the high persistence factor required to transport plumes in a con:: ant direction would not produce a substantial probability. Additionally, highly persistent winds would enhance the atmospheric diffusion process thereby reducing the relative ground-level concentrations.
- O
. - _ =
s' UNITED STATED OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'()
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICL;! SING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon
_________________________________x CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO!!PANY OF Docket Nos. 50-247-SP MEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, a
50-286-SP Unit No. 2)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF April 28, 1983 NEW YORK, (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I certify that I have served copies of the O
Testimony of Lester A. Cohen in Rebuttal to Testimony of Daniel Gutman on the 28th day of April, 1983, to be hand delivered to those parties marked with an asterisk and by first class mail, postage prepaid on all others.
Docketing and Service Branch
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Of fice of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission, Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
~
Commission James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge 513 Gilmoure Drive James A. Laurenson Silver Springs, Maryland 20901
' Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555
}
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 O
1 m ~
s Paul F. folarulli, Esq.
Charles J.
Maikish, Esq.
Joseph J.
Levin, Jr., Esq.
Litigation Division (g
Damela S.
Horowitz, Esq.
The Port Authority of"
(_)
Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq.
New York and New Jersey Morgan Associates, Chartered One World Trade Center 1899 L Street, N.W.
New York, New York 10048 Washington, D.C.
20036 Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Charles M.
Pratt, Esq.
Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
Stephen L.
Baum New York State Attorney Power Authority of the State General's Office of New York Two World Trade Center 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10047 New York, New York 10019 Andrew P. O'Rourke Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Westchester County Executive William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
148 Martine Avenue
!!armon & Weiss White Plains, New York 10601 1725 1 Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Paul Chessin, Esq.
Joan Holt, Project Director Laurens R.
Schwartz, Esq.
Indian Point Project Botein, llays, Sklar & Herzberg New York Public Intereat 200 Park Avenue Research Group New York, New York 10166 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Stanley D. Klimberg New York State Energy f s)
Melvin Goldberg 2 Rockefeller State Plaza
(
Staff Attorney Albany, New York 12223 New York Public Interest Research Group Ruth Messinger 9 Murray Street Member of the Council of the New York, New York 10007 City of New York District #4
- Jef frey M. Blum City Itall New York University Law School New York, New York 10007 423 Vanderbilt Hall l
Washington Square South Marc L.
Parris, Esq.
l New York, New York 10012 County Attorney County of Rockland Donald Davidoff, Director 11 New Ilempstead Road Radiological Preparedness New City, New York 10010 Group Empire State Plaza e Craig Kaplan, Esq.
Tower Building - Room 1750 National Emergency Civil Albany, New York 12237 Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Avenue - Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 l
l i
(
Joa'n Miles.
Alan Latman, Esq.
Indian Point Coordinator 44 Sunset Drive New York City Audubon Society C ro ton-on-llud son, New York 105M O,s 71 W.
23rd Street, Suite 1828 New York, New York 10010 Richard M. Ilartzman, Esq.
Lorna Salzman Greater New York Council on Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Energy 208 West 13th Street c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New York, New York 10011 llew York University 26 Stuyvesant Street
- Zipporah S.
Fleisher New York, New York 10003 West Branch Conservation 443 Buena Vista Road Atomic Safety and Licensing New York, New York 10956 Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Mayor F. Webster Pierce Commission Village of Buchanan Washington, D.C.
20555 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, New York 10511 Atomic Safety and Licensing Judith 1:essler, Coordinator Appeal Boald Panel Rockland Citizens for Safe U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Energy Commission 300 New itempstead Road Washington, D.C.
20555 New City, New York 10956 Richard L. Brodsky David H.
Pikus, Esq.
Member of the County Legislature Richard F. Czaja, Esq.
.-()
Westchester County 330 Madison Avenue County Office Building New York, New York 10017 White Plains, New York 10601
' Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesperson Parents Concerned About New York Public Interest Indian Point Research Group, Inc.
P.O.
Box 125 9 Murray Street, 3rd Floor _
Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 New York, New York 10007 Charles A. Scheiner Janice Moore, Esq.
Co-Chairperson Office of the Execitive Westchester People's Action Legal Director Coalition, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 488 Commission White Plains, New York 10602 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel, Room 1347 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278
Jonathan D.
Feinberg New York State Public
+
[ )
Service Commission David B. Duboff
\\/
Three Empire State Plaza Westchester People's Albany, New York 12223 Action Coalition 255 Grove Street Steven C. Sholly White Plains, New York 10601 Union of Concerned Scientists Spence W.
Perry 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Office of General Counsel Suite 1101 Federal Emergency Washington, D.C.
20036 Management Agency 500 C Street Southwest David Lewis, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 13ew York State Assembly Commission Albany, New York 12248 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dated:
April 28,1983
!!ew York, 11ew York f
A N
\\/
N NE e
6 en
^%
(]