ML11356A526: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, | {{#Wiki_filter:RIV000099 Submitted: December 22, 2011 EXCERPT STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, DEC App. Nos. 3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2) and Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.'s 3-5522-00105/00031 (IP3) | ||
-ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION NO. 3 ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, LLC, AND ENTERGYNUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. By its attorneys, Elise N. Zoli U. Gwyn Williams William J. Trach Goodwin Procter LLP 53 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 09 Tel.: 617.570.1000 | Joint Application for CWA § 401 Water Quality Certification COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN, PH.D RADIOLOGICAL - ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION NO. 3 ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, LLC, AND ENTERGYNUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. | ||
More specifically, while the IP1 SFPs still contained spent fuel and water, the NCD and SFDS were collecting 20 to 40 times more strontium than was discharging to the river through the groundwater. | By its attorneys, Elise N. Zoli U. Gwyn Williams William J. Trach Goodwin Procter LLP 53 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 09 Tel.: 617.570.1000 October 4, 2011 Fax: 617.523.1231 | ||
These drains were then particularly effective during the period when the water level in the IP1 SFPs had to be raised to allow defueling. | |||
During this period of time, the two drains were capturing nearly 300 times as much strontium as was discharging to the river through the groundwater. | COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL 1 Unit 1 SFPs as a proactive measure, which was ultimately completed in 2008. | ||
In addition, even now that the IP 1 SFPs have been emptied and are no longer a source of releases, these collection drains are still serving to capture residual contamination partitioning off of the subsurface materials into the groundwater. | 2 While the NCD and SFDS were not fully successful in containing all the leakage 3 from the IP1 SFPs (as described in Exhibit 33), they did, and currently still do, 4 contain the vast majority of this historical leakage and subsequent residual 5 contaminant migration. | ||
Currently, the NCD and SFDS drains are still capturing approximately ten times as much strontium as is discharging to the river through the groundwater. | 6 More specifically, while the IP1 SFPs still contained spent fuel and water, 7 the NCD and SFDS were collecting 20 to 40 times more strontium than was 8 discharging to the river through the groundwater. These drains were then 9 particularly effective during the period when the water level in the IP1 SFPs had 10 to be raised to allow defueling. During this period of time, the two drains were 11 capturing nearly 300 times as much strontium as was discharging to the river 12 through the groundwater. In addition, even now that the IP 1 SFPs have been 13 emptied and are no longer a source of releases, these collection drains are still 14 serving to capture residual contamination partitioning off of the subsurface 15 materials into the groundwater. Currently, the NCD and SFDS drains are still 16 capturing approximately ten times as much strontium as is discharging to the river 17 through the groundwater. As such, these drains function as a valuable ongoing 18 source control portion of the Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Indian Point 19 site, and routine sampling and analysis of their discharge is incorporated into the 20 Long-Term Monitoring Program. | ||
As such, these drains function as a valuable ongoing source control portion of the Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Indian Point site, and routine sampling and analysis of their discharge is incorporated into the Long-Term Monitoring Program. On pages 9-10 of his testimony, Mr. Gunderson states that "leaks from the Unit 2 refueling pool have also been a substantial problem." Do you agree with this statement? | 21 Q: On pages 9-10 of his testimony, Mr. Gunderson states that "leaks from the 22 Unit 2 refueling pool have also been a substantial problem." Do you agree 23 with this statement? | ||
COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL Act has an identical provision, which prohibits any permit from authorizing the 2 discharge of high-level radioactive waste. See 33 U.S.C § 1311. While the Clean 3 Water Act does not define "high-level radioactive waste," EPA regulations define 4 "high-level radioactive waste" according to the definition contained in the 5 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. See 40 CFR 191.02(h) ("High-level 6 radioactive waste, as used in this part, means high-level radioactive waste as 7 defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-425)"). The 8 Nuclear Waste Policy Act defines "high-level radioactive waste" as: | |||
("High-level radioactive waste, as used in this part, means high-level radioactive waste as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-425)"). | 9 "(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the 10 reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced 11 directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such 12 liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient 13 concentrations; and 14 (B) other highly radioactive material that the Commission, 15 consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires 16 permanent isolation." | ||
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act defines "high-level radioactive waste" as: "(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires permanent isolation." 42 U.S.C. § 10101(12). | 17 42 U.S.C. § 10101(12). The water containing principally tritium and strontium 18 identified in GZA' s 2008 Site Investigation Report is not "high-level radioactive 19 waste" as that term is defined by law. | ||
The water containing principally tritium and strontium identified in GZA' s 2008 Site Investigation Report is not "high-level radioactive waste" as that term is defined by law. While Entergy believes that NYSDEC's legal position that Entergy's unplanned radionuclide releases are proscribed by law is erroneous, are there measures that could be taken during the license renewal term to provide reasonable assurances that groundwater containing these | 20 Q: While Entergy believes that NYSDEC's legal position that Entergy's 21 unplanned radionuclide releases are proscribed by law is erroneous, are 22 there measures that could be taken during the license renewal term to 23 provide reasonable assurances that groundwater containing these COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL 1 radionuclides will not reach the Hudson River? | ||
A gradient reversal in this context refers to a change in the direction of groundwater flow; rather than the current flow from the site to the Hudson River, the extraction wells would result in groundwater flowing from the Hudson River toward the wells located on-site. Entergy would then extract the groundwater containing radionuclides from the subsurface, and process that groundwater in an appropriate manner. I believe that the installation of such extraction wells would provide reasonable assurances that groundwater containing these radionuclides will not | 2 A: (MJB) Yes. As set forth in my initial prefiled testimony, the Indian Point site is 3 primarily underlain by bedrock. As such, the volume of groundwater moving 4 beneath the site toward the Hudson River is constrained to flow through relatively 5 thin fractures in the bedrock. This, in part, accounts for the small total 6 radionuclide activity actually reaching the Hudson River from groundwater on an 7 annual basis. Further, as demonstrated in the Site Investigation Report (Ex. 33), | ||
In this regard, I have been personally involved in the investigation and remediation design for a number of superfund sites, as well as state-led remediation sites, employing this technique, beginning in the 1970s. One such site, Grace Chemical and the Town of Acton, Massachusetts, was the second EPA NPL enforcement action in the nation resulting in a remedial action consent | 8 the groundwater containing the identified tritium and strontium plumes discharges 9 to the river through a relatively small section of waterfront along the perimeter of 10 the site. | ||
As part of this remediation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater, GZA used extraction wells to capture and contain the contaminated groundwater flowing through the bedrock on site. This work was completed on behalf of the State ofNH and the EPA. In recognition of this work, GZA was awarded the ASCE Outstanding Engineering Achievement A ward, the ACEC New England Grand Conceptor Award and the National ACEC Grand Award for Engineering Excellence, as well as a $250,000 sole-source R&D full-scale test section contract by EPA. END OF TESTIMONY | 11 Based on my knowledge of the Indian Point site hydrogeology, and my 12 experience with groundwater remediation, I have performed an analysis of 13 possible measures that could be taken to prevent these radionuclides from 14 reaching the Hudson River. Based on that analysis, I have concluded that Entergy 15 could install a sufficient number of groundwater extraction wells so as to contain 16 these radionuclides on-site by establishing a groundwater gradient reversal. A 17 gradient reversal in this context refers to a change in the direction of groundwater 18 flow; rather than the current flow from the site to the Hudson River, the extraction 19 wells would result in groundwater flowing from the Hudson River toward the 20 wells located on-site. Entergy would then extract the groundwater containing 21 radionuclides from the subsurface, and process that groundwater in an appropriate 22 manner. I believe that the installation of such extraction wells would provide 23 reasonable assurances that groundwater containing these radionuclides will not COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL reach the Hudson River as a result of the operation of Indian Point during the 2 license renewal term. | ||
3 Q: Are extraction wells a proven, reliable method for creating a gradient 4 reversal in order to prevent groundwater containing contaminants from 5 moving away from a site? | |||
6 A: (MJB) The use of extraction wells specifically to prevent groundwater from 7 moving away from a site is, and has been a commonly employed technique for 8 approximately 40 years, including at EPA superfund sites, as well as many other 9 non-superfund sites. In its Report No. 2003-P-000006 dated March 27, 2003, 10 EPA concluded that: "Pumping contaminated groundwater from the subsurface and 11 treating the water to rid it of contamination has been a generally accepted means of 12 remediation in the Superfund program. In January 2002, EPA reported that although 13 the number of Records of Decision selecting the pump-and-treat remedy decreased 14 from 92 percent in 1986 to 30 percent in 1999, pump-and-treat remedies are still the 15 most common groundwater cleanup remedies used at National Priority List [NPL] | |||
16 sites. . . . EPA estimates that over 700 groundwater pump-and-treat systems are 17 operating at National Priority List sites." (Ex. 83). This equates to the use of 18 groundwater extraction for containment and/or cleanup at 57 percent of the NPL sites 19 (700/1233). In this regard, I have been personally involved in the investigation 20 and remediation design for a number of superfund sites, as well as state-led 21 remediation sites, employing this technique, beginning in the 1970s. One such 22 site, Grace Chemical and the Town of Acton, Massachusetts, was the second EPA 23 NPL enforcement action in the nation resulting in a remedial action consent COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL 1 decree. Another such site, the Gilson Road/Sylvester Site, was the nation's first 2 cooperatively funded Superfund hazardous waste site hydrodynamic 3 isolation/cutoff wall remediation. As part of this remediation of chlorinated 4 solvents in groundwater, GZA used extraction wells to capture and contain the 5 contaminated groundwater flowing through the bedrock on site. This work was 6 completed on behalf of the State ofNH and the EPA. In recognition of this work, 7 GZA was awarded the ASCE Outstanding Engineering Achievement A ward, the 8 ACEC New England Grand Conceptor Award and the National ACEC Grand 9 Award for Engineering Excellence, as well as a $250,000 sole-source R&D full-10 scale test section contract by EPA. | |||
11 12 END OF TESTIMONY | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 20:19, 6 February 2020
| ML11356A526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/2011 |
| From: | Trach W Goodwin Procter, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, State of NY, Dept of Environmental Conservation |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21642, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML11356A526 (6) | |
Text
RIV000099 Submitted: December 22, 2011 EXCERPT STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, DEC App. Nos. 3-5522-00011/00030 (IP2) and Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.'s 3-5522-00105/00031 (IP3)
Joint Application for CWA § 401 Water Quality Certification COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN, PH.D RADIOLOGICAL - ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION NO. 3 ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC, ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, LLC, AND ENTERGYNUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
By its attorneys, Elise N. Zoli U. Gwyn Williams William J. Trach Goodwin Procter LLP 53 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 09 Tel.: 617.570.1000 October 4, 2011 Fax: 617.523.1231
COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL 1 Unit 1 SFPs as a proactive measure, which was ultimately completed in 2008.
2 While the NCD and SFDS were not fully successful in containing all the leakage 3 from the IP1 SFPs (as described in Exhibit 33), they did, and currently still do, 4 contain the vast majority of this historical leakage and subsequent residual 5 contaminant migration.
6 More specifically, while the IP1 SFPs still contained spent fuel and water, 7 the NCD and SFDS were collecting 20 to 40 times more strontium than was 8 discharging to the river through the groundwater. These drains were then 9 particularly effective during the period when the water level in the IP1 SFPs had 10 to be raised to allow defueling. During this period of time, the two drains were 11 capturing nearly 300 times as much strontium as was discharging to the river 12 through the groundwater. In addition, even now that the IP 1 SFPs have been 13 emptied and are no longer a source of releases, these collection drains are still 14 serving to capture residual contamination partitioning off of the subsurface 15 materials into the groundwater. Currently, the NCD and SFDS drains are still 16 capturing approximately ten times as much strontium as is discharging to the river 17 through the groundwater. As such, these drains function as a valuable ongoing 18 source control portion of the Monitored Natural Attenuation at the Indian Point 19 site, and routine sampling and analysis of their discharge is incorporated into the 20 Long-Term Monitoring Program.
21 Q: On pages 9-10 of his testimony, Mr. Gunderson states that "leaks from the 22 Unit 2 refueling pool have also been a substantial problem." Do you agree 23 with this statement?
COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL Act has an identical provision, which prohibits any permit from authorizing the 2 discharge of high-level radioactive waste. See 33 U.S.C § 1311. While the Clean 3 Water Act does not define "high-level radioactive waste," EPA regulations define 4 "high-level radioactive waste" according to the definition contained in the 5 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. See 40 CFR 191.02(h) ("High-level 6 radioactive waste, as used in this part, means high-level radioactive waste as 7 defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub. L.97-425)"). The 8 Nuclear Waste Policy Act defines "high-level radioactive waste" as:
9 "(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the 10 reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced 11 directly in reprocessing and any solid material derived from such 12 liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient 13 concentrations; and 14 (B) other highly radioactive material that the Commission, 15 consistent with existing law, determines by rule requires 16 permanent isolation."
17 42 U.S.C. § 10101(12). The water containing principally tritium and strontium 18 identified in GZA' s 2008 Site Investigation Report is not "high-level radioactive 19 waste" as that term is defined by law.
20 Q: While Entergy believes that NYSDEC's legal position that Entergy's 21 unplanned radionuclide releases are proscribed by law is erroneous, are 22 there measures that could be taken during the license renewal term to 23 provide reasonable assurances that groundwater containing these COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL 1 radionuclides will not reach the Hudson River?
2 A: (MJB) Yes. As set forth in my initial prefiled testimony, the Indian Point site is 3 primarily underlain by bedrock. As such, the volume of groundwater moving 4 beneath the site toward the Hudson River is constrained to flow through relatively 5 thin fractures in the bedrock. This, in part, accounts for the small total 6 radionuclide activity actually reaching the Hudson River from groundwater on an 7 annual basis. Further, as demonstrated in the Site Investigation Report (Ex. 33),
8 the groundwater containing the identified tritium and strontium plumes discharges 9 to the river through a relatively small section of waterfront along the perimeter of 10 the site.
11 Based on my knowledge of the Indian Point site hydrogeology, and my 12 experience with groundwater remediation, I have performed an analysis of 13 possible measures that could be taken to prevent these radionuclides from 14 reaching the Hudson River. Based on that analysis, I have concluded that Entergy 15 could install a sufficient number of groundwater extraction wells so as to contain 16 these radionuclides on-site by establishing a groundwater gradient reversal. A 17 gradient reversal in this context refers to a change in the direction of groundwater 18 flow; rather than the current flow from the site to the Hudson River, the extraction 19 wells would result in groundwater flowing from the Hudson River toward the 20 wells located on-site. Entergy would then extract the groundwater containing 21 radionuclides from the subsurface, and process that groundwater in an appropriate 22 manner. I believe that the installation of such extraction wells would provide 23 reasonable assurances that groundwater containing these radionuclides will not COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL reach the Hudson River as a result of the operation of Indian Point during the 2 license renewal term.
3 Q: Are extraction wells a proven, reliable method for creating a gradient 4 reversal in order to prevent groundwater containing contaminants from 5 moving away from a site?
6 A: (MJB) The use of extraction wells specifically to prevent groundwater from 7 moving away from a site is, and has been a commonly employed technique for 8 approximately 40 years, including at EPA superfund sites, as well as many other 9 non-superfund sites. In its Report No. 2003-P-000006 dated March 27, 2003, 10 EPA concluded that: "Pumping contaminated groundwater from the subsurface and 11 treating the water to rid it of contamination has been a generally accepted means of 12 remediation in the Superfund program. In January 2002, EPA reported that although 13 the number of Records of Decision selecting the pump-and-treat remedy decreased 14 from 92 percent in 1986 to 30 percent in 1999, pump-and-treat remedies are still the 15 most common groundwater cleanup remedies used at National Priority List [NPL]
16 sites. . . . EPA estimates that over 700 groundwater pump-and-treat systems are 17 operating at National Priority List sites." (Ex. 83). This equates to the use of 18 groundwater extraction for containment and/or cleanup at 57 percent of the NPL sites 19 (700/1233). In this regard, I have been personally involved in the investigation 20 and remediation design for a number of superfund sites, as well as state-led 21 remediation sites, employing this technique, beginning in the 1970s. One such 22 site, Grace Chemical and the Town of Acton, Massachusetts, was the second EPA 23 NPL enforcement action in the nation resulting in a remedial action consent COMBINED PREFILED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. ESSELMAN, PH.D., AND MATTHEW J. BARVENIK, AND F. OWEN HOFFMAN; PH.D RADIOLOGICAL 1 decree. Another such site, the Gilson Road/Sylvester Site, was the nation's first 2 cooperatively funded Superfund hazardous waste site hydrodynamic 3 isolation/cutoff wall remediation. As part of this remediation of chlorinated 4 solvents in groundwater, GZA used extraction wells to capture and contain the 5 contaminated groundwater flowing through the bedrock on site. This work was 6 completed on behalf of the State ofNH and the EPA. In recognition of this work, 7 GZA was awarded the ASCE Outstanding Engineering Achievement A ward, the 8 ACEC New England Grand Conceptor Award and the National ACEC Grand 9 Award for Engineering Excellence, as well as a $250,000 sole-source R&D full-10 scale test section contract by EPA.
11 12 END OF TESTIMONY