ML20082N465

Testimony of Ma Casper Re Palmetto Alliance & Carolina Environ Study Group Contention 17.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20082N465
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/02/1983
From:	Casper M DUKE POWER CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8312070187
Download: ML20082N465 (9)

Text

-

._' n PILATID C0FES?OZCZ

~

~UQUIffED U3:4?C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 83 DEC -5 A11 :45 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ETF "r 5i 't.

aC;2

9. ,a" " '

In the Matter of ) ~

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket No. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station )

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF MARK A. CASPER REGARDING PALMETTO ALLIANCE AND CESG CONTENTION 17 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

A. My name is Mark A. Casper. My business address is Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242.

Q. WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT POSITION WITH DUKE POWER COMPANY?

t A. I am a meteorologist for the Design Engineering Department of Duke Power  ;

a Company. In this position I conduct various meteorological analyses l ,

associated with Duke Power Company's fossil and nuclear generation facil- i

4 ities. My professional qualifications are attached to this testimony. l F

l t l

~

Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TESTIMONY?

l A. This testimony addresses the allegations expressed in Palmetto Alliance )

l and CESG's Contention 17 that the Staff's environmental analysis is i E

flawed in that in assessing the potential consequences of accidents the I a

Staff failed to consider adverse meteorological conditions.

O. IN THE STAFF'S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ("FES") AND SAFETY EVALU-ATION REPORT ("SER") ON CATAWBA, THE STAFF STATES THAT IN EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS AND SERIOUS ACCIDENTS h/ It:

8312070187 831202 PDR ADOCK 05000413 n U 3 i.L T PDR

{

s BEYOND THE DESIGN BASIS, THE STAFF USED METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FROM l THE CATAWBA SITE DURING A TWO YEAR PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 1975 TO DECEMBER 1977. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT RELEVANT METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS WERE MEAS-URED AT THE CATAWBA SITE DURING THIS PERIOD?

A. Onsi.te meteorological measurements, made from December 17, 1975 through y J

December 16, 1977, include wind direction and speed, ambient and dew point temperatures, vertical temperature gradient, and precip tation.

All meteorological measurement at Catawba complied with the recommen-dations contained in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23.

Q. IS THIS TWO YEAR PERIOD REPRESENTATIVE OF METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND ARE ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE NEXT 40 YEAR PERIOD BARRING CATASTROPHIC CLIMATIC CHANGES?

A. Yes. I have researched records of the relevant meteorological conditions near the Catawba site for the 14 year period for which pertinent data are available, and, in my professional opinion, the meteorological conditions used by the Staff from this two year period (including the frequency and extent of worst case, stable air inversion, low wind speed conditions) l are clearly representative of past conditions and, absent catastrophic climatic changes (which are not expected to occur), reflect conditions .

which will occur over the next 40 years.

Q. PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN SIMPLE TERMS, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT METEOROLOGICALVkRIABLESANDDOWNWINDCONCENTRATIONS.

A. Simply stated, the less stable the air and the greater the windspeed, the greater the dispersion of the hypothetical radioactive plume from an

assumed accident. Thus, from a practical perspective, to postulate a radioactive plume traveling to a' major population center would necessi-tate meteorological conditions (such as wind) which would cause signif- .

icant dispersion in the postulated plume. An equation expressing down-wind concentration as a function of the amount of contaminant released, the wind speed, the stability of the atmosphere and the downwind distance is as follows:

1 X/Q = g;7- cy Oz U In this expression, X is the downwind contaminant concentration, Q is the source strength, o y and o g are parameters which reflect the lateral and vertical plume spreads, respectively, and U is the wind speed.

Because X/Q is inversely proportional to o, y cz and U, a high X/Q val-ue is the result of stable conditions and low wind speeds.

Q. IN THE STAFF'S FES AND SER REGARDING CATAWBA, THE STAFF STATES THAT IN EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A DBA IT EMPLOYED TWO ANALYTICAL E

PR,0 CESSES, ONE USING " AVERAGE" METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND ONE USING "VERY POOR" METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS. WHAT ARE " AVERAGE" AND "VERY POOR" METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN RELATION TO INVERSION STABILITY CHAR-ACTERISTICS AND WIND SPEED AROUND THE CATAWBA SITE?

A. The meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the Catawba site fre-quently are characterized by stable air (i.e., inversion conditions) and low wind speeds. During the two year period used by the Staff, which as

~

b

W

previously stated is reflective of historical and anticipated future con- }

ditions, the predominant meteorological conditions in terms of joint fre-quency was one of stable air (inversion conditions) and low wind speed, ,

i.e., adverse meteorological conditions. Accordingly, " average" h meteorological conditions (50 percentile or median) used by the Staff is reflective of conditions which are skewed toward the adverso conditions of stable air and very low wind speeds. p

?

7 With regard to the Staff's use of "very poor" meteorological conditions, the Staff based its analysis of DBAs on a extremely adverse [=

meteorological conditions characterized by ir. version (stable air) condi- 3 tions and low wind speeds. While tbc e conditions are associated with a mathematical value of X/Q which would not be exceeded more than 5% of the time, as a practical matter, given the conservatisms inherent in the cal-culation of X/Q, the likelihood of meteorological conditions which would result in a greater actual ambient concentration is very remote. Exam-ples of these conservatisms in calculating X/Q are as follows:

1. The mathematical analysis assumes no time variation in meteorological parameters such as wind speed and direction except on a hourly basis.

(

2. The mathematical analysis assumes no spatial variation i.n atmospheric conditions, i.e., the analysis assumes the exact same conditions will exist over the entire travel distance of the hypothetical plume.

2 i

i

3. The mathematical analysis assames no mechanical dispersion caused by i f

downwind obstructions (e.g. trees and buildings). y 9

4. The mathematical analysis assumes that the centerline, worst case concen- J 15 tration of the hypothetical plume will continuously be at ground level.  ;

Diffusion studies comparing measured to modeled downwind concentrations have ig L

shown the mathematical model to be conservative. t(

In conclusion, extreme adverse meteorological conditions were considered and factored into the evaluation of the potential consequences of DBAs. $;

.3 9

Q. HOW DID THE NRC STAFF FACTOR IN UNFAVORABLE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

=

L INTO ITS ANALYSIS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HYPOTHETICAL SEVERE ACCIDENTS 5

BEYOND THE DESIGN BASES? l 9

A. The model used in the severe accident analysis calculates so.t.s of conse- )

quences from all of the combinations of effluent release magnitudes, pop- }

I ulation groupings and samplings of actual meteorolocical conditions.

h 1

l Actual meteorological conditions used were onsite meteorological data E reflecting 91 meteorological start times, starting every four days on 13 hour1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> intervals. This sampling technique represents diurnal and seasonal {

variations in the meteorological data, and produces data which is entire-ly representative of historical and expected future conditions. Within I the 91 start times individually analyzed by the Staff, several examples of " worst case" meteoroiogical conditions of very stable air (inversion)

~

I and very low wind speed are represented. For example, the May 12-13 sequence starting at 2100 hours0.0243 days <br />0.583 hours <br />0.00347 weeks <br />7.9905e-4 months <br />.begins with very stable (inversion) con-ditions and very low wind speeds for a distance of 17 miles (the approxi-mate distance to the center of Charlotte, North Carolina) followed by a virtual stagnation (wind speeds less than 1 meter per second) for a six hour period. This condition was raised by Palmetto Alliance and CESG as one of the two major conditions which it viewed as worst case conditions. j The other adverse meteorological condition of concern to the intervenors is illustrated by the May 20 sequence starting at 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br /> which also begins with stable conditions and low wind speed. The radioactive cloud .

s travels approximately 16 miles (again the approximate distance to {

Charlotte)whenitbeginstorain,washingoutpartoftheradIoactive f 5

cloud under stable and very low wind conditions. [

l In short, the 91 start times which were each used by individual assess- a a

ments of potential consequences of serious accidents, includes the {

extreme adverse meteorological conditions which the intervenors raised as l the two worst case conditions reflecting their concerns.

1 e

i I

l l

L

Attachment MARK A. CASPER PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DESIGN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DUKE POWER COMPANY I have been a Meteorologist with Duke Power company, Design Engineering Department, Civil / Environmental Section, since January 1981.

I received a BS' degree in Meteorology from the University of Michigan in 1979.

While an undergraduate, I participated in a study of the environmental impact of the once through cooling systems and subsequent emissions of waste heat and moisture into the atmosphere at the Cook and Palisades Nuclear Power Plants on Lake Michigan. My responsibilities included the processing and analysis of the meteorological data acquired near the plants.

I entered the graduate program at the University of Michigan in 1979, and was awarded an MS degree in Meteorology in 1980. In addition to continuing my association with the Cook and Palisades project, I participated in the solar and meteorological measurement program conducted at the University of Michigan under contract by the Solar Energy Research Institute. I was also a teaching assistant for a senior level meteorological synoptic lab class.

I accepted my present position in January 1981. In this position I conduct varicus meteorological analysis associated with Duke Power Company's electric ,

generation operations at all facilitiet, both nuclear and fossil. Such meteo-l rological aspects typically involve (a) diffusion applications involving esti-mates of atmospheric transport / diffusion of pollutants related to both coal-fired and nuclear electric generation including the development of transport /

diffusion models for nuclear emergency response, and (b) synoptic applications involving estimates of specialized short-term weather forecasts. Diffusion applications also involve the transport / diffusion of excess water vapor asso-clated with cooling tower and cooling pond releases. ~

f l

l am a member of the American Meteorological Society, the Air Pollution Con-trol Association, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group's Atmospheric Modeling Committee.

l l

r e

a M

00;nETE" =

t ip .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '83 DEC -5 All :45 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFili.bc : .-.. . - .

CDCntil:4G & SEpy, .r -

ERANCH In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket No. 50-413 g

) 50-414 e (Catawba Nuclear Station )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  :

i I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Testimony of Mark A. Casper Regarding Palmetto Alliance and CESG Contention 17" 3 in the above captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit j in the United States mail this 2nd day of December, 1983.  ;

i

• James L. Kelley, Chairman

• Richard P. Wilson, Esq. l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General {

Panel State of South Carolina j l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 11549 s Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 l

! *Dr. Paul W. Purdom

• Robert Guild, Esq. <

235 Columbia Drive Attorney-at-Law Decatur, Georgia 30030 P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 '

• Dr. Richard F. Foster Palmetto Alliance P. O. Box 4263 2135 1/2 Devine Street Sunriver, Oregon 97702 Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Chairman Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety and Licensing 854 Henley Place Board Panel Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman Henry A. Presler Atomic Safety and Licensing 945 Henley Place Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

i

• George E. Johnson, Esq. 1 Office of the Executive Legal Director 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq. Scott Stucky  !

Anne W. Cottingham, Esq. Docketing and Service Section  ?

Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory j 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555 l t

Don R. Willard Karen E. Long &

l- Mecklenburg County Assistant Attorney General 8 Department of Environmental N. C. Department of Justice l Health P. O. Box 629 1200 Blythe Boulevard Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l i

Charlotte, North Carolina 28203  :,

2 i

4 b s ATbert V. Carr, Jr. i:;

i b

i

• Designates hand delivery on December 2,1983. f 2

I.

l

. s

i

- _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ , _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ , , _ _ _ _ - . _ . , _ _ . _ _ . - . . . _ _ , _ _ - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ . _ . - . _ _.