ML20073R305

Testimony of D Gutman Re Prevailing Wind Patterns

ML20073R305
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/19/1983
From:	Gutman D NEW YORK, NY, PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:
Shared Package
ML20073R287	List: ML20073R305 ML20073R326 ML20073R332 ML20073R347 ML20073R351 ML20073R353
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8305030619
Download: ML20073R305 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIllG BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK } Docket Nos. 50-247 SP (Indian Point Unit 2) / 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )

April 19, 1983 (Indian Point Unit 3) )

TESTIM 0h7 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF UCS/NYPIRC AND MEMBERS OF THE NEW

! YORK CITY COUNCIL By DANIEL CUTMAN This Document Has Been Filed By: y Amanda Potterfield, Esq. Craig Kaplan, Esq.

New York Public Interest Research National Emergency Civil Group, Inc. Liberties Committee 9 Murray St., 3rd Floor 175 Fif th Avenue, Suite 712 New York, New York 10007 New York, New York 10010 212-349-6460 212-673-2040 For UCS and NYPIRG For Members of the New York City Council 8305030619 830419 PDR ADOCK 05000247 o PDR EXHIBIT A

[

DANIEL GUTMAN Q. Please state your name and business.

A. My name is Daniel Cutman. My address is 407 W. 44th Street, New York, New York 10036. I am a consultant in the fields of air pollution dispersion and traffic analysis.

Q. By whom have you been employed?

A. Between September 1978 and August 1980 I was employed by the United ,

States Environmental Protection Agency in connection with EPA's participation in the Westway Indirect Source Permit proceedings before New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I was responsible for EPA's analysis of the traffic and air pollution modelling for the highway.

Since then I have been a consultant to other organizations such as the N.Y.C. Public Development Corporation, the Natural' Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund, for which I testified in the hearings regarding the Lovett Station, across the river from Indian Point.

Q. What is your educational background?

A. I received an MS degree in physics from the University of Illinois in 1966, and a BS in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1964. I am currently pursuing a doctorate in physics at the City College of New Yark.

Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?

A. The purpose of my testimony is to review certain evidence relating to the likelihood that winds from Indian Point, particularly those that m1ght carry with them radioactive material, reaching lower Westchester County and New York City.

I t

l Q. How did this issue come up?

i 1

A. I was asked to review the testimony of Ms. Lamonica and Mr. Cohen, I

I witnesses who appeared in this proceeding on behalf of the Power Authority of the State of New York and Consolidated Edison, respectively. More  !

i

specifically, I was given the testimony provided by those witnesses l i

in response to questions by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,

! judges about prevailing wind patterns and other meteorological information ,

i j contained in the Safety Analysis Report for Indian Point, which was not l

a part of the record here. Their testimony was rather cursery and did t i

! not fully answer the judges' questions.  !

Q. Please describe the trajectory study referred to by the utilities' citnesses. [

l 1 A. The trajectory study was mentioned by Mr. Cohen on pages 11718, 11721-j 27 of the transcript of March 25, 1983. This study used wind data, i

l (direction and speed), from 13-14 monitoring sites in the Hudson Valley from Iona Island north of Indian Point to Piermont, south of the Tappan Zee Bridge. The data was fed into a computer, which generated trajectories

for hourly releases from Indian Point for a ten month period. The end point of each hourly release was recorded after one hour, two hours, etc., up to the eighth hour. Thus there are eight times as many end points as releases, and there is one release for each hour in the ten t

l month period.

Q. What were the results of the study?

! A. The results, contained in the F.S.A.R. Meteorological Update, September i

! 1981, Table 14, show that, depending on the month, (and except for July), >

l between 11% and 31% of the end points were south of Piermont, the southern boundary of the study. This, however, is for end points, not for releases.

The percentage of releases that crose the southern boundary is higher,

i

> s^ i l

s i and perhaps substantially higher.

i The reason for this is that a release that eventually crosses  !

I the Southern boundary, in hour five, for example, will still con-I i

l tribute four end points (for hours one to four) that are not south j i

i of that boundary. A release that does not cross a boundary contributes [

l eightfendpoints that are not south of the southern boundary. If these  !

were the only two releases, 50% of the releases would have crossed the ,

I southern boundary, but only 15% of the endpoints.

i l Q. What conclusions can one draw from this study?

l t

A. Based on this study, one can conclude that there is a substantial probability--20 to 30% at minimum--that a low level release at l l

Indian Point ~will reach lower Westchester County or New York City, which is only 9 miles south of Piermont.

i One should keep in mind that although this study appears to be one of the most extensive ever carried out in the Hudson Valley, l it was limited in the sense that it tracked parcels only for eight i

hours and only to Piermont.  !

Q. Are there other limitations of the study? j i

A. Yes, this study only dealt with surface winds, which are part of the l Valley wind system. Higher level winds, above about 400 feet, are generally decoupled from the Valley flow. These winds are synoptic  !

i scale and, as pointed out by Mr. Cohen (T.11719), are more persistent.

Thus, if a release from Indian Point were to rise to 400 feet or f f

above, it may be even more likely that radioactive material would  ;

i i

reach New York City if there is a northerly wind. Unfortunately, j l

there is very little data in the F.S. A.R. regarding synoptic winds,  ;

I particularly the frequency of persistent north winds. l l

t

- _ .- . . . _. _ - . . -