ML20082R457

Corrected Testimony of J Purvis on Behalf of Carolina Environ Study Group Re Meteorology.Affirmation of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20082R457
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/08/1983
From:	Purvis J CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 8312130172
Download: ML20082R457 (9)

Text

. . -

Dac. 6, 1983-

, (correctsd)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00 GEED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T3 DEC 12 P2:35 In the Matter of )

DUKE POWER COMEANY, et. al. Docket Nos. ~

(Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) e- --

~ ~ _ _

_l x .

i a n n c;7 r:-0C C C '

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOHN PURVIS ON BEHALF OF CESG Please state your name and business address.

John Purvis, Water Resources Commission of theState of South Carolins, 3830 Forest Drive, Columbia, South Carolina.

-What is your position?

I am State Climatologist.

Do you have experience as a meteorologist?

Yes. I have provided a statement of my professional qualifications

~~

a's an attichment' to 'my testimony.

Are you acquainted with the meteorology of this region?

Yes.

1 How would you characterize it?

In the. context of the relationship of the Catawba nuclear station to the City of Charlotte: The Catawba plant is precisely 17.6 miles

! directly southwest from the intersection of Trade and Tryon Streets, .

the center of the business section of Charlotte. The closest i approach to the plant is a distance of 9 7 miles fnom the city limit 5 in the 22b sector to the northeast of the plant. The prevailing _

winds are generally from a southwesterly direction. There is an unusually high incidence of atmospheric inversions. There is also i 4

nore than average rainfall in Charlotte.

What is the incidence of winds from Catawba over the City of Charlotte?

B312130172 831208 PDR T ADOCK 05000413 PDR

];

The data are somewhat limited but they are fairly consistent.

Based on observation made by Duke at the plant site at an elevation of 30 feet, June 30, 1971 to June 30, 1972, wind from SW has a probability of occurrence of 20.7%, from WSW of 8.7% and SSW of 5.6%.

These winds carry over Charlotte. The total probability is 35.0%. j If the wind blew at random, the probability would be 18.8%. This is  ;

significantly directional. It is confirmed by data rpported by l Duke for the period 1976-1977 From the data in Table ER 2 3.0-2 l SW 13 5%,

st 40m above ground the corresponding occurrences are:

At lOm above WSW 5 9'% and and SSW 16.3% for a total of 35 7%.

Eround, about 33 feet, the occurrences are: SW 13 5%, WSW 7.1% and These occurrences are compatible SSW 13 8% for a total of 34 4%.

The with and should relate to National Weather Service records.

records' for the period 1941-1970 show a prevailing wind direction '

from the SW at a mean speed of 7 5 miles per hour. For 8 months of the year the prevailing wind direction was either from the SW or from the SSW. In 1982, under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a different system was used for reporting wind .

direction. Direction was reported in 10 increments. SSW would correspond to 191.25 to 213 75 from north; SW to 213 25 to 236,25 ; ,

and WSW to 236.25 to 258.75 from north. 0The ranee of these three I directions is very nearly from 190 to 260 . In 1982 for five months the prevailing wind direction fell within this sector. Resultant speeds for these months ranged from 0.5 miles per hour 1.n March to 2.4 miles per hour in July. The maximum wind speeds during those months was 20 miles per hour. This indicates a pattern of directional ,

changes, including reversals. The probability of a plume released at the Catawba plant being carried over Charlotte is about twice that of random chance. The wind speeds are such that the probable minimum time for a release to reach the city limit would be half an hour. As the mean wind speed is 7 5 miles per hour it would on the average take an hour and twenty minutes to reach the city limit, about two hours to reach city center. Under some circumstances

~

a change in wind direction could carry the plume back over the path by which it arrived.

How frequent are calms in this region?

The Environmental Report indicates a 4 3% incidence of calms in

l the period 1969-1973 and of 9.6% in 1976-1977 Observations  ;

made in 1976-1977 report an 8.77% occurrence of winds between 1.0 and 3 3 miles per hour at 40m; of 25.68% at 10M. To the extent that a plume deposits particulates, relatively still air results in a higher ground concentration of particulates. The length of exposure to radioactive gases in the plume would be increased, and the dilution by mixing of both gases and suspended particulates would be slowed.

Calms, with radiation and subsidence, are the factors in inversion genesis.

What are invarsions?

Under normally windy conditions there is good mixing both horizontally and vertically of the atmosphere. As the temperature of the upper atmosphere is lower than that of the earth's surface, a negative bemperature gradient results. That is, the higher above .

the earth's surface, the lower the temperature. Under conditions of low air flow the atmosphere nocte nal near the surface is appreciably s u ut i9 4h i warmed. When, through/ heat loss by radiation, the earth cools more rapidly than the air above it, a positive tamperature gradient results. The intersection of the lower positive gradient air with the higher negative gradient air is a barrier to the mixing of the lower air with the upper air. Warm air will, due to density differ-ences rise in a negative gradient, decline in a positive gradient.

Attachment A shows the behavior of plumes under six gradient conditions.

By retarding vertical mixing, inversions further contribute to the maintenance of high concentrations in pollutant releases, exacerbating the problem of poor mixing and slow transport which I earlier referred f

to. i Are inversions frequent in the Catawba / Charlotte vicinity?

They are among the highest known in the United States. The thirty  ;

5 year weather record shows that this locality experienced stagnations of 4 or more. days 350. times. . . Similar~stagnations in-chicago happened only 50 timekInversions there were notorious because the amount of soot in the atmosphere was high enough to cause black days.

A radioactive plume staying close to habitations will cause more exposure than one rising and mixing upward. -

What effect does rainfall have on a plume?

-u- .

l Rain washes particulates out of the atmosphere and brings them l.

to earth. Under dry conditions the particulates in a plume are '

brought down by gravity. Larger, denser particulates settle more rapidly than smaller, less dense particulates. We are all familiar i with the conveyance of pollen and dust by the wind. b What do we know about the nature of the particulates in the v

release from a nuclear accident?

~

5 Very little. Assumptions are made about the particle size  :

distribution. One can conceive of the particulates in an accident i release differing with the nature of the accident. But of one E thing we can be sure. In dry weather small particles will be borne farther from the release than lar6e particles. If rain is encountered both large and anall particles will be brought down at a distance nearer to the point of release than would otherwise have occurred and at a higher concentration because there will have been less I opportunity for mixing. -

What is the incidence of rainfall in the Charlotte area?

a year On the average there have been 112 days /with recordable rain in

~

Charlotte. In 1982 there were 120 days. This is one day in three.

How much rain falls in Charlotte annually? 1 J

The thirty year average is 42 72 inches water equivalent. This  ;

includes snow and ice pellets. In 1982 the total precipitation was

[

41.69 inches.

How doe,s this compare to other parts of the country?

There is a listing of weather data from 29 weather stations cf F the rainfall in typical meteorological years in NUREG/CR-2239. The ,

average of these values is 29.9 inches. Charlotte receives 43% '.

more rain than the average station reported.  :

How heavy or light is this rainfall?

It covers the range from mists er drizzle to heavy. In a 30 year period the heaviest 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> fall was 5 34 inches. In 1982 the heaviest fall was 2.17 inches in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. A heavy enough rainfall will tend to wash away pollutants. The average Charlotte rainfall is 0 38 inches, hardly a cleansing downpour.

5 .

Are there any other weather factors in relation to an atmospheric release of radioactivity that you would call to our attention?

Yes. Snow would probably entrain particulates with about the same efficiency as rain. The larger surface to mass ratic of snow flakes would make them more efficient scavengers than spherical drops.

There are strong attractive forces between small particles and larger masses; the snow would not need to have a moist surface to capture aerosol dimension particles. The particles would be immobilized where the snow fell. Depending on the rate of the thaw, there could be little or no runoff and efficient deposition of the particles on the ground and other snowed-on surfaces.

Is this the only effect snow would have?

Not 'necessarily. Depending on the rate of f all, depth, wetness, etc., it could seriously impede automobile travel--in this context, evacuation. Other severe weather conditions could interfere with communication by siren or bullhorn such as high winds and the noise background that would be generated.

Does this complete your testimony in regard to weather influences in the event of an accidental release of radioactivity into the atmosphere?

Yes.

How would you sum up your testimony?

The prevailin5 winds are such that Charlotte has twice a random chance of having a release from the Catawba plant come over it. Lo~w wind speeds and frequent inversions would make for prolonged exposure in the event of such a release. The probability of rainout of particulates over Charlotte is about 40% more than fo'r average reported national weather conditions. Insofar as meteorological conditions affect the consequences of an ace'idental release of radioactivity, Charlotte is substantially more at risk than a representative community of the same size at the same distance from a nuclear plant.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS JOHN PURVIS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA 3

I am presently the State Climatologist, Water Resouces Commission, 1 State of South Carolina, with offices at 3830 Forest Drive,

• Columbie, South Carolina.

l I commenced my post high. school  !

education at Wingate College, 1936-1938 and received a '

Bachelor of Science degree from Wake Forest completing studies -

there 1938-1940. I received the Master of Science degree for (

a meteorological studies in the Department of Geography at the University of South Carolina at Columbia.

f I have done further

[

graduate studies at the University of Michigan and at Penn State j University.  ?

f I was employed 41 years by the National Weather Service, retiring  ?

in December, 1981. This cervice has been in the capacity of 5 professional meteorologist. I have served at Spartanburg, South y

Carolina, Washington, District of Columbia, Boston, Massachusetts, [

Swan Island in the West Indies, and in the Coast Guard in the f North Atlantic. After World War II I was assigned to' Charlotte, h

North Carolina, in charge of the station at the Charlotte Airport. }

In 1947 I was sent to Columbia, South Carolina as the meteorologist  ;

in charge of the airport station. Later I became meteorologist  ;

in charge of the Forecast Office.

I a

I commenced my work as State Climatologist for the~ Water Resources I Commission of South Carolina after my retirement from the United States Weather Service in December, 1981 and continue in that E position. b

=

w

" .?

. . _ . _ ,. , _ , . . - . _ _ . , . , . _ _ , _ _ - . _ - _ , _ _ , ..---p _4

,- StBGehm nt A i 1

POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION YARIATION '

D. B. Turner

• f THE INFLUENCE OF VERTICAL TEMPER- ela.vation of the plume is encountered. l ATURE STRUCTURE UPON STACK EFFLU- Clear skies with light winds during the .

__, ENTS ,

night are favorable conditions for fanning.

-7 The' manner in which stack effluents diffuse ' "

is primarily a function of the stability of. LOFTING the atmosphere. Church (1949) has typed  ;

the behavior of smoke plumes into five classes. i

- Lofting occurs when there is a superadia- f Hewson (1960) has added a sixth class taking batic layer above a surface inversion. '

into account inversions aloft. Under this condition diffusion is rapid up-ward but downward diffusion does not LOOPING penetrate the inversion and so is damped out. With these conditions gases will not

.~ reach the surface but particles with Looping occurs with a superadiabatic lapse appreciable settling ralocities will drop rate. Large thermal eddies are developed through the inversion. Near sunset on a in the unstable air and high concentrations clear evening in open country is most favor-may be brought to the ground for short time able for lofting. Lofting is generally a intervals. Diffusion is good however when transition situation and as the inversion f p,

considering longer time periods. The deepens 'is replaced by fanning.

superadiabatic conditions causing looping occurs o'nly with light winds and strong solar

', s heating. Cloudiness or high winds will i

~ ~ ~ FUMIGATION l!

prevent such unstable conditions from forming, lf#

As solar heating increases the lower layers CONING are heated and a super-adiabatic lapse rate +

b occurs through a deeper and deeper layer.'

I When the layer is deep enough to reuh .

With vertical temperature gradient between the fanning plume, thermal turbulence vill Ilt dry adiabatic and isothermal, slight instability bring high concentrations to the ground occurs with both horizontal and vertical alotg the full length of the plume. This f'.

mixing but not as intense as in the looping is favored by clear skies and light winds and situation. The plume tends to be cone shaped .l is apt to occur more frequently in summer hence the name. The plume reaches the due to increased heating.

ground at greater distances than with looping.

Coning is prevalent on cloudy or windy days Another type of fumigat.m may occur in the or nights. Diffusion equations are more early evening over cities. Heat sources '

, successful in calculating concentrations for and mechanical turbulence due to surface this type of plume than for any cther, roughness causes a lapse condition in the  ;

lower layers of the stable air moving into the city from non-urban areas where FANNING .

radiation inversions are already forming, j

This causes a fumigation until the city loses If the temperature increases upward the air is

'] enough heat so that the lapse condition can sinble and vertical turbulence is suppressed, no longer be maintained. .

Horizontal mixing is not as great as in coning -'

but s.111 occurs. The plume will therefore .

j a spread horizontally but little if any vertically. TRAPPING

~ Since the winds are usually light the plume ]

';i; will also meander in the horizontal. Plume When an inversion occurs aloft such as a P concentrations are high but little effluent from frontal or subsidence inversion a plume

! 1: elevated sources reaches the ground with this , . ..

j released beneath the inversion will be trapped . <

situation except when the inversion is broken beneath it. Even if the diffusion is good due to surface heating, or terrain at the

. j j i ..

beneath the inversion such as a coning plume, .

'

• iI Meteorologist, Air Resources Cincinnati

)l Laboratory ESSA, NAPCA, Cincinnati, <l '

Ohio l- P A. M E. sd. 30a. 8. 62 l Y l :F

)[y[R.; "

"WM

• Pollutant Concentr tinn Variativn 2

~

A  !

the Litnit to upward diffusion willincrease '

e noncentration in the plume and at ground o

. level. ._ , 'O i r3 u l

~ .. . . . . .

The six plume classes are diagrammed in ~

] c the accompanying figure. U c

j o

13 Q '

. * * # L O S ,lm.

• y . ,,,- >

' '^ ,

y

. l f I f f f f f I f f g g l *

. . i. u u i. i. . . * .

t' g p > , '.

co .

Diurnal Variations of Ground-Level Concen trations from Elevated Urban Sources i .

t

} \ .......

l l The primary maximum around 10 AM is

} due to fumigation. The rapid decrease in f 4

.e, g> . < tonias concentration following this is due to the  :

heating of a progressively deeper layer --

l and mixing of pollutants through this layer. . _

~ '~" ~ The increase of concentrations during the 5 j ',*,

1 ate afternoon are due to the slight increase i y

,j in stability after the period of maximum heating. During this period the lapse

.' [

i

'i, rate is generally changing from strong

, e...... ,:

i. > > j.,,3 / lapse to weak lapse.  !

=-~. w .in. u .o.... .

i'a**='cta=i*'s The secondary maximum that occurs in #

the evening is a phenornena observed only r i VARIATICN OF POLLUTANT COCENTRA- in the urban area. During the late afternoon -

TIONS DUE TO METEOROLCGIC VARIATIONS and early evening a radiation inversion. "

~.

begins to form at the earth's surface in the i An example of the diurnal variation of non-urban areas, i. e. , the surrounding "

l pollutant concentrations is given in this countryside. The air over the city, how-(

. E figu r e. These are the concentrations ever, does not have a radiation inversion I some distance down-wind f rom a contin- in the lower layers due to release of heat uous elevated urban source on a day when from the buildings and pavings of the city, }r stability reaches extremes, i. e. , on a 11 wever, later in the evening, an imrersion f g clear day wi,th light winds. This shows abow the weak lapse layer forms above the -

only the variations on the order of an city and a mixing of the pollutants in this -

hour's duration rather that the rapid varia-layer produces the higher concentrations. F tions which may occur a few minutes This has been described by Mann and Katz -

du ration. .

1,.

, 'o'

. . - a j. . . ~ . .: :.

2-S e

,o

.g- , *. .*.

n ~. sw* w sf. .

~n. As .es n. J

. 2* M .

A

^'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

0(.S BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '*

In the Matter of ) '83 DEC G N

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL. Docket.N,os. 50-413p ,

(Catawba Nuclear Station, & d.S5R.o Qf ,

Units 1 and 2) .

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE I hereby affirm that copies, DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOHN PURVIS ON BEHALF OF CESG, corrected, and a statement of Professional .

Qualifications of John Purvis,in the above captioned proceeding, have been served by hand delivery as indicated by an asterisk, or served by deposit in the U.S. mail'first class, this 8th day of December, 1983. .

• James L. Kelley, Chairman < Robert Guild, Esq.-

Administrative Judge Attorney for the Palmetto Alliance -5 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 12097 -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Charleston, South Carolina 29412  :

Washington, DC 20555 ,

cPalmetto Alliance

• Dr. Paul W. Purdom 2135i Devine Street Administrative Judge Columbia, South Carolina 29205 235 Columbia Drive ;1

• J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

~

Decatur, Georgia 30030 Debevoise and Liberman _

1200 17th Street, NW . .

• Dr. Richard F. Foster Washingten, DC 20036 j Administrative Judge  ?

P. O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97702 William L. Porter, Esq. E Albert V. Carr, Esq. I c5?ichard P. Wilson, Esq. Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.

ssistant Attorney General Duke Power Company J. O. Box 11549 P. O. Box 33189 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Charlotte, NC 28242  ;

=

• George E. Johnson, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i Office of Exec. Legal Directpr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [

U.S. Nuclear ReSulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

' Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. Donald R. Willard . Board Panel -

Department of Environmental Health U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 Blythe Boulevard Washington, DC 20555 r Charlotte, NC 28203 9 Docketing & Service Section -

Karen E. Long Office of the Secretary a Assistant Attorney Ger,eral U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j N.C. Department of Justice Washington, DC 205 5 1 Post Office Box 629 9 Raleigh, NC 27602 / y O/#1l l u...r.

m 1.v rnn nusn '