ML20038A951
| ML20038A951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1981 |
| From: | Markee E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A943 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111240501 | |
| Download: ML20038A951 (15) | |
Text
.
11/7A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 Company, et al.
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF EARL H. MARKEE ON CONTENTION 9 Q1.
By whom are you employed and' describe the work you perform?
w I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a A1.
principal meteorologist in the Accident Evaluation Branch, Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
I am responsible for the evaluation of the meteorological charac-teristics of nuclear reactor sites, the implications of the meteorological characteristics on safety requirements of nuclear i
facility design and the impacts of such facilites on the environ-l ment. My statement of professional' qualifications is attached to this testimony.
5 I
Q2. What is the nature of the responsibilities you have had regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station?
A2.
I supervised the NRC Staff's evaluation of the Comanche Peak meteorology and the preparation of the Staff's short-tem (accident) l and long-term (routine) diffusion estimates.
i 4
8111240501 81112 6 PDR ADOCK 05000 4 T
k.
~ - - - -
. Q3. Would you describe the scope of the subject matter addressed in your testimony?
A3.
I have been asked to address 1) the Comanche Peak meteorological considerations as presented in 9 4.3.3.1 (" Local Meteorology")
of the Staff's " Final Environmental Statement related to the Opera-tion of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
(NUREG-0775), September 1981 and 95 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 of the Staff's -
" Safety Evaluation Rep rt related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2",. (NUREG-0797), July 1981; 2) the calculations in FES Table 5.7, " Summary of Atmospheric Dispersion Factors and Deposition Values for Maximum Site Boundary and Receptor Locations Near CPMS" and 3) the Staff's short-term (accident) and long-term (routine) diffusion estbates and procedures presented in 99 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 of the SER.
I supervised the preparation of the meteorology portions of FES 9 4.3.3 (99 4.3.3.1 and 4.3.3.2), Table 5.7 of the FES and 95 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 of the SER.
FES 95 4.3.3.1 (and the introductory portion of 6 4.3), FES Table 5.7 and SER 69 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 are included as attachments to this affidavit and their contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, with the following exception in SER $ 2.3.4: The northwest sector site boundary "(2206 f t.)" should be "(2206m)."
Also, by way of explanation, the relative concentration estimates made by the Applicants in response to FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Report) Question 372.17 were essentially the same as those made
. by the Staff. However, the Applicants utilized a model in t.ieir evaluation which produced substantially higher relative concentra-tion estiinates than the estimates ured by the Staff.
Q4. What method was used by the Staff to determine atmospheric transport and diffusion estimaces for radioactive releases to the atmosphere?
A4.
Based on the Staff's evaluation of the on-site meteorological data and the terrain at and surrounding the site, the Staff concluded 1) that the " constant near wind-direction model (Gaussian straight-line trajectory model) presented in Regulatory (Reg.) Guide 1.111, Rev.1,M i
was appropriate for use in detennining transport ano diffusion esti-mates for routine radioactive releases to the atmosphere and 2) that the model presented in Reg. Guide 1.145] was appropriate for use 2
in determining transport and diffusion estimates for accidental radioactive releases *.o the atmosphere.
QS.
In calculating the dispersion of gaseous radioactive effluents, were actual meteorological data employed?
A5.
Yes. The Staff considered on-site meteorlogical data for the fGJr year period between May 1972 and May 1976. These data, which are discussed in FES ss 4.3.3.1 and SER $ 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, were input y
See Reg. Guide 1.111, Rev.1, " Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transpart and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases frum Light Water Reactors", July 1977.
y See Reg. Guide 1.145, " Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments At Nuclear Power Plants", August 1979.
m
into the models mentioned above in order to estimate atmospheric dispersion of gaseous radioactive effluents.
Q6.
In determining relative concentrations of radioactive effluents, did the NRC Staff consider various atmospheric transport mechanisms at and beyond the exclusion boundary?
A6.
Yes. The models and procedures upon which the Staff's short-term (accident) and long-term (routine) diffusion estimates are based (see SER $$ 2.3.4 and FES Table 5.7, respectively) include consid-eration of various transport mechanisns, such as transport by wind-flow, and dilution and ground deposition by atmospheric turbulence.
t Q7. Were the dilution factors calculated using on-site meteorological data conservative?
A7. Comparison of meteorological data from Fort Worth during the four -
years of on-site data collection (May 1971 to May 1976) to long-term averages (fifteen years) at Fort Wdrth indicates that the four years of on-site date may produce dilution factors which are conservative with respect to conditions over the lifetime of the plant. This is due to the fact that wind speeds were lighter during the four year period, thus indicating that average off-site concentrations will be lower over the long term.
The influence of Squaw Creek Reservoir,,
when heated due to plant operation, will produce more unstable and thus better atmospheric diffusion conditions resulting in lower
,. concentrations than indicated by the on-site meteorological data used in both the Staff's and Applicants' diffusion estimates.
Q8. According to the procedures utilized by the NRC Staff and the Applicants in their evaluations, where will the maximum concentra-tions in the air of radionuclides be located?
A8.
Since the procedures specified in NRC Staff Reg. Guides 1.111 and 1.145 for this plant layout assume a ground level,elease of radionuclides with initial mixing due to turbulence generated by the plant structures, the maximum off-site concentration in the air at ground level is calculated to occur at the site boundary. Al so, with this assumption, the calculated concentrations beyond the site boundary will be lower than those at the site boundary because the concentration from a ground level release decreases with distance from the source. The assumption of a ground level release and building-caused mixing also tends to produce higher ground level concentrations at all distances than for an elevated release.
During the course of a long period of time'it is expected that elevated releases will occur at least part of the time. Therefore, the ground level release assumption provides conservative estimates of abnospheric radioactive effluent contentrations.
Q9.
Is th movement of storm-cloud fonnations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area part of the assessments of transport mechanisms for gaseous radioactive releases fran Comanche Peak?
. A9.
Yes.
The predaninant mover. ant of storm cloud fonnations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is fran the southwest to the northeast.
However, radioactive effluent releases from Comanche Peak are not expected to occur only during storm conditions.
Such releases are expected to occur randomly, during the plant lifetime, and the on-site meteorological data for the four year period of record analyzed by the Staff and the Applicants is expected to provide a reasonable representation of the frequency of the varioss meteorological conditions during this period, including storms.
Therefore, the short-term and long-term diffusion estinates based on this period of data record adequately account for the spectrun.
of meteorological conditions leading to transport and diffusion of radioactive releases.
Attachments:
FES, 9 4.3.3.1, Table 5.7 SER, 9 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, and 2.3.5 D
9
Professional Qualifications of Earl H. Markee I am Principal Meteorologist -in the Accident Ehaluation Branch, Dihision of SystemsIntegr$ tion,OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation. My responsibilities includeehaluationsofthemeteorologicalcharacteristicsofreactorsitesand their implications with respect to safety requirements of nuclear facility design andtheimpactofthesefacilitiesontheenhironment.
I receihed a Bachelor of Arts dagree in mathematics with a minor in physics in 1952 from Gettysburg College.
I attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology for one year to obtain the academic background for qualification asameteorologistintheU.S.AirForce[
~
I was a wing weather officer with the U. S. Air Force until 1956. After completion of my military obligation, I accepted a position as Research Meteorologist with the U. S. Weather Bureau on assignment to the U. S. Public Health Serhice in f:ncinnati, Ohio, where I particioated in urban air pollutionmeteorologyresearchandprohidedtechnicalassistancetostate and local government agencies on air pollution.
4
~
In 1962, I accepted a position as Senior Research Meteorologist with the EnhironmentalSciencesSethicesAdministrationonassignmenttotheU.S.
Atomic Energy Commission at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho.
My duties included the performance of research in the field of atmospheric turbulence and diffusion and ehaluation of the meteorological $spects of reactor experiments and siting of these experimental reactors. I returned toschoolforoneyearandreceiUedaMasterof'Sciencedegreeinmeteorology
~
l fromtheUnihersityofUtah,SaltLakeCityin1969.
In 1970, I accepted a J
~
i position as Meteorologist with the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. Subsequently.
IwaselehatedtothepositionofPrincipalMeteorologist.
I am a professional member of the American Meteorological Society and the 2
Air Pollution Control Association.
IhaYeauthoredeightresearchpapers 4
which were published in technical journals and several other research reports.
(
l 4
4 r
I i
i 4
9 1
T 9
4
NUREG-0797 Safety Evaluation Report
~
re'ated to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
l l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
)
3 July 1981 9
i
2.3.2 Local Meteorology Mean ocnthly temperatures in the area of the proposed site range from about 45*F in January to about 81*F in July arJ August. Maximum monthly precipita-tion occurs in April and May, coincid.'t.J with maximum monthly averages of thunderstore days.
Onsite data indicate a predominance of south to south-easterly winds occurring about 40% of the time, and a stean wind speed of 8.5 mph.
The " fastest mile" of wind in the site area is 69 mph and was recorded at Waco (about 60 mi southeast of the site) in June 1961.
During the period 1955 to 1977, 122 tornadoes were reported in the one-degree latitude-longitude square containing the site, resulting in a mean annual tornado frequency of about 4.5.
The computed recurrence interval for a tornado at the plant site is 316 years.* Annual snowfall in the area is not generally signifi-cant, ranging from 1.5 in. to 4.3 in. throughout the site area. Freezing rain occurs occasionally during the winter and early spring, most often in January.
The requirements in 10 CFR Part 100.10 to consider onsite meteorological conditions and those in GDC 2 to consider natural phenomena have been met for the meteorological parameters.
2.3.3 Onsite Meteorological Measurements; Program An onsite meteorological measurement < program was operated from May 1972 to May 1976, and accumulated data from instruments installed on a 200-ft tower situated about 1500 ft east of the reactor structures.
Instrumentation on the ir.eteorology tower consists of wind speed and direction sensors at the 33-and 200-ft elevations, instrocents to measure the ve.tical temperature gradients (AT) between 33 and 100 ft and between 33 and 200 ft, and dewpoint temperature sensors at 33 and 200 ft.
The applicant has submitted 4 years of hourly average onsite data on magnetic tape with joint wind speed, wind direction, and AT data recovery of about 95k.
Mhe recurrence interval is computed by the method presented in a paper by H.C.S. Thoa, " Tornado Probabilities."
2-11
..,, ~... - -.. --
,., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, -~~~
~~- ---
Jcint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction and ataospheric stability as darined by vertical temperature gradients were also provided in a fora sinlicr to that suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.23. The meteorological measurce.:nts progran met the position stated in Regulatory Guide 1.23 and.
provided adaquate data to represent the onsite meteorological conditions as required in 10 CFR Part 100.10.
The onsito data provided an acceptable basis for making conservative estimates of atmospheric diffusion for design-basis accidents and routine releases from the plant.
2.3.4 Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Esticates The short-term (less than 30 days) accidental releases from buildings and vents were evaluated by the staff according to the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.145. Wind direction and speed measured at the 33-ft level and AT between the 200- and 33-ft levels were used as input. A ground-level release with a building wake factor, cA, of 1600 m8 was assumed.
Ti.e maximum sector (0.5 percentile) relative concentration (X/Q) for the O to 2 hr time period was calculated to be 1.5 x 10 4 sec/m8 in the north est sector at the site boundary (2206 ft).
of the 0 to 8 hr,1.5 x 10-[LPZ) (6440 m) was calculated to be 2.
low population zone sec s for for 8 to 24 hr, 6.0 x 10 e for 1 to 4 days and 1.6 x 10 8 for 4 to 30 days, all in the northwest sector.
The relative concentration estimates made by the applicant were essentially the sat:e as those made by the staff.
The staff's calculated short-term X/Q values are used in the accident analyses presented in Chapter 15 of this report.
2.3.5 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates Estimates of diffusion of routine releases resulting fres normal plant operations were made according to the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, for a constant mean wind direction model. A ground-level release with a building wake correction factor of 1600 m2 was assumed and open terrain recirculation ifcantcalculatedlhesamenumericalvaluesforthe factors were used.
The app /Q values were used in evaluating the applicant's long-term diffusion.
The X proposed gaseous releases and compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I designobjectivesdiscussedinSection11.2ofthisreport.
a 4
2-12 9
NUREG47/5
-~n Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50445 and 50-446 Texas Utilities Generating Company e
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation September 1981
(
/
h, s
/
O e
e e
J i
I i
4 i
)
e i
s f
I r
l l
l l
I 4.3.3 Meteorology and Air Quality i
The regional climatology is described in Section 2.6 of the FES-CP. Mora recent data on the local meteorology and severe weather affecting the site are now available, and are summarized below.
4-12 4
l g
4
__,~~-------~,.~,--,,,n.--,,.,-.
. - - - - -. - - - - - - - -, - - ~ ~.
4.3.3.1 Local Meteorology Onsite meteorological data for three additional years (May 1973 to May 1976) have been submitted by the applicant.
The temperature data indicate that the conthly mean temperature at the site ranges frcm 7 C in January to about 27 C in July and August.
This is consistent with what other local data sources indicate (as reported in the FES-CP).
The absolute ininimum temperature for the four year period at the site was -14 C; the maximum was 38"C.
Wind data from the site for the four year period indicate a predcMoance of south to southeasterly winds (40% of the time).
The mean wind speed for the onsite data was 3.7 m/s, with 0.9% calms. A wind rose.of the onsite data is presented in Figure 4.4.
N NNW NNE NW NE WNW ENE j
j S
4 4% 6% 8% 10 % 12 % 14 % 16 4
=
-=j E
w
==
j t
WSW ESE
~
5'-
Figure 4.4.
Comanche Peak Wind Rose, 15 May 1972 to 14 May 1976.
(i.ength of black bar indicates the percentage of time that the wind comes from the indicated direction.)
4-14 G
9
Stable atccspheric conditions occurred over 75% of the four year period.
Unstable conditions accounted for less than 6% of the total valid hours reported.
t l
l L
G G
G 4-15 6
O