ML19329C297
| ML19329C297 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Andes R, Firstenberg H, Klotz J NUS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329C282 | List: |
| References | |
| NUS-TM-319, NUDOCS 8002121006 | |
| Download: ML19329C297 (22) | |
Text
/
NUS-TM-319 SUPPLEMENTAL NOISE SURVEY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 Prepared for THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY by Roger P. Andes Joel H. Klotz February 1979 NUS Corporation t+ Research Place Rockville, Maryland 20850 Approved:
8 "E/<4#
J G
H. Firstenberg Manager Air Quality Assessments l
~
~
8002ygg gg
. =..
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I.
Introduction I
II.
Characteristics of Sound 2
III.
Regulations and Criteria 5
IV.
Noise Survey Methods and Measurements 7
V.
Results and Discussion 9
References 11 4
J 4
e_
Wm 4
1 l
i
_...,_,-__....m.
LIST OF TABLES Page I.
Noise Sampling Locations at the Davis-Besse 12 Nuclear Power Station, November 20-21,1973 II.
Sound Pressure Level Measurements and Noise 13 Sources at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, November 20-21,1978 III.
Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels at the 14 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, November 20-21,1973 IV.
Wind Speed and Direction During the Noise 15 Survey at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, November 20-21,1978 enum M
dunum 9'4m enum emmes en-eius eumme li F
LIST OF FIGURES Page 1
Sampling Locations at the Davis-Besse Nuclear 16 Generating Station During the Noise Survey of November 20-21,1973 2
Operational Sound Pressure Levels at the 17 Davis-Besse Nuclear Generating Station, dBA l
een 84uh eAum m
quem 34m WilAm N
-.m m
gEmuS ill e.--..
,wr,
I.
INTRODUCTION A noise survey was conducted at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 on November 20-21,1973 to assess the operational noise impact of Davis-Besse Unit 1 at full load conditions. Station operational noise data collected during this survey supplements data collected during a previous noise survey while the station was not operating at full load. Due to the high wind speeds during the survey, sampling locations were limited to the immediate area around the major noise sources. The major noise sources include the natural draf t cooling tower, the transformers, and the turbine building.
Station operational noise was not measurable offsite or at the site boundary due to wind and wave noise.
However, the maximum noise impact of the station offsite has been determined by comparing the measured sound levels from the cooling tower with sound level measurements of other natural draft cooling towers. The noise impact of the station has been determined based on the noise from the cooling tower because the cooling tower is the predominant noise This report presents a description of the characteristics of sound, the source.
methodology used during the survey, a summary of the collected sound level data,
~
and a discussion of the results.
h amm ape N
1
==
m 1
i II.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND Noise can be defined as undesirable sound.
Sound is created when a pressure disturbance is propagated through air in the form of compression waves, for which the following relationship holds c=fA (1) where
~
velocity of sound (1130 ft/sec for standard atmospheric c
=
conditions of 70 F and 29.92 in. Hg) f
=
frequency, Hz A
wavelength, ft.
=
The pressure fluctuation at a point in space from sound waves is measured in terms of the sound pressure levels, defined as:(I)
L
= 20 log 101 p*)l (2) p
\\
where
~
L sound pressure level, decibels referenced to p,
=
p sound pressure, N/m p
=
2 reference sound pressure, N/m,
p,
=
A sound pressure variation that barely can be detected by the human ear is defined as the threshold of hearing, and has been established as 2 x 10' N/r This value is used as the reference sound pressure, p.
9 Sounds are composed of many frequencies, with a sound pressure level associated with each frequency, but most humans perceive only tfiose in the frequency range of 20 to 20,000 Hertz. This wide frequency range is usually divided into octave bands to provide a more detailed description of noise. The upper frequencies of these bands are twice the lower frequencies. Since the response of people to sound is frequency dependent, a sound is often measured in terms of the A-weighted 2
sound pressure level (dBA re 2 x 10 N/m ), which adjusts the contribution of each 2
octave band according to the frequency response curve of the human ear. The A-weighted sound pressure level is an approximation of human ear response to a given level of noise.
The contribution of a given noise source to the background sound levels can be estimated based on its sound power level frequency spectrum. The sound power level frequency spectrum of a noise source is a measure of the total sound energy radiated by the source per unit time as a function of frequency. The sound pressure level at a distance r from a source is related to the sound power level at a given
~
frequency by the following equation:(1,2)
L (r, 6,f) = L,(f) - 20 log r p
+ 10 log Q ( 6,f) - A (f) r - 0.5 (3) n where sound pressure level, dB re 2 x 10-5N/m2 L (r,6,f)
=
sound power level, dB re 10-12 L,(f)
=
watts distt.nce from source, ft r
=
f frequency, Hz
=
A (f) excess attenuation, dB/ft
=
n Q( 6,f) directivity factor, dimensionless.
=
The term A (f) accounts for excess attenuation from atmospheric, terrain, and n
vegetation effects, and can be determined from field studies and empirical equations based on experimental data. The sound power level frequency spectrum, L,(f), may be evaluated for a given source based or sound level measurements around the source or calculated from measurements made around similar sources.
The directivity factor, Q,is defined as the ratio of the mean square sound pressure, at some fixed distance, averaged over all directions from the source.
The directivity index is defined as
~
G ( 6,f) = 10 log Q ( g,f) 3
^
For uniform spherical sound propagation G=0; for uniform hemispherical sound propagation G=3.
SeverM environmental factors will affect the sound levels at a given location, including variations in both meteorological conditic.is and the state of vegetation and ground cover.(1,2)
Variations in vegetation and groundcover, because of seasonal effects, will result in varying amounts of excess attenuation through the year, depending on the nature of the intervening vegetation and groundcover between the source and the receptor.(3' Meteorological conditions will affect the sound levels at any location.
Vertical
~
temperature and wind gradients will affect the directivity of a noise source because of the variation in the speed of sound with height, sometimes resulting in shadow zones into which sound waves are not effectively propagated. A shadow zone is commonly encountered upwind from the source, where the wind gradient refracts the sound waves upward. Downwind, the wind gradient refracts sound waves downward, and no shadow zone is produced. This results in a greater noise irrpact downwind of a source than upwind, along the d!Iection of the prevailing wind.
Temperature induced sound refraction tends to be symmetrical about the source. A shadow zone may completely encircle a source during unstable conditions with a
~
strong negative temperature gradient (Pasquill A or B stability class), and low wind speeds, such as on a calm, sunny day. However, there will be no shadow zone during stable conditions with a strong positive temperature gradient (Pasquill E or F stability class) and low wind speeds, such as on a clear, calm night. This results in a greater noise impact under very stable atmospheric conditions than under very unstable conditions.
l Under low-level inversion conditions, in which the temperature decreases to a certain level and then begins to increase, a channeling effect can occur in which the sound waves are refracted back into the levels beneath the inversion, leading to higher sound levels than normal and longer range sound propagation.
4
III.
REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA
/
U.S.' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
In a residential environment, the time-weighted day / night outdoor average sound level, L f 55 dBA has been identified as compatible with the protection of dn, public health and welfare.(6) This guideline protects the majority of the exposed population, under most conditions,against annoyance.
~
To determine the L sound level, the equivalent sound level, L, is first dn computed from
~
~
{I (10 ;/10' L
L
= 10 log
)
(5) q 100 iI where th L;
sound level in the time interval, dBA
=
th f;
percentage of total analysis time represented by the i time
=
in terval.
A.
The time-weighted day / night outdoor average sound level, Ldn, is computed from b /10
~
I d
(L" + 10)/10 "'
Ldn = 10I g 2i 15 (10
) + 9 (10
)
(6) where L
b f r the daytime (0700 to 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />) d eg L
b f r the nighttime (2200 to 0700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br />) n eg These are noise level guidelines which EPA recommends; :ney are not standards.
~~
According to EPA, nearly half the nation's population is exposed to L sound levels I
dn of 55 dBA or greater.
In a long-term national strategy document for noise abatement and control,I5 the following regulatory actions are recommended:
a.
Immediate reduction of environmental noise exposure of the population to an L value fn m re than 75 dBA;
~
dn 5
Q
value of b.
reduction of environmental noise exposure levels to an Ldn
~
65 dBA or lower through vigorous regulatory and planning actions; aiming for environmental noise levels that do not exceed an Ldn ""I'*
c.
of 35 dBA in future programs affecting environmental noise exposure.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
The HUD noise impact criteria state that noise levels below 45 dBA are Acceptable for continuous 24-hr exposure; levels up to 65 dBA are Normally Acceptable provided that 65 dBA is not exceeded more than 8 hr/ day; levels exceeding 65 cBA more than 8 hr/ day are Normally Unacceptable; and levels which exceed 75 dBA
~
more than 8 hr/ day or 30 dBA more than 60 min / day are Unacceptable.(6)
The HUD noise criteria are standards only for HUD sponsored projects, and may be considered recommended guidelines otherwise.
6 66 S ep O
h h -
j 6
m 6
IV.
NOISE SURVEY METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS In devising the methodology used during the noise survey, consideration was given to the American National Standards Institute (ANSD guidelines which establish a method for t!.e evaluation of noise in an area in which the ambient sound levels result from the superposition of multiple noise sources.I9' I Sound pressure level measurements were obtained at the seven locations shown in Figure 1.
Table I presents a description of each location including the distances from major noise sources.
The instrumentation used during the survey consisted of the following:
l.
Bruel and Kjaer Type 2209 Precision Sound Level Meter 2.
Bruel and Kjaer Type 4145 Condenser Microphone 3.
Bruel and Kjaer Type 4220 Pistonphone 4.
Nagra Type 53S Magnetic Tape Recorder i
This instrumentation meets the requirements of the ANSI standards for a Type I or precision sound level meter.(IN A 1-inch diameter condenser microphone was used to assure that accurate low level ambient sound measurements could be made. The meter was acoustically calibrated using the B&K Pistonphone before and af ter each measurement period to assure continued accuracy.
Headphones were used to determine any distortion, improper amplification characteristics, and intermittent electrical connections.
The microphene was tripod mounted and located a sufficient distance away from all vertical surfaces to minimize reflection effects.
All measurements were made using an open celled polyurethane foam wind screen to attenuate the effect of wind generated noise around the microphone. However, with a steady wind of 12 mph during the survey, the wind induced noise on the sound level meter was approximately 42 dBA.(12) Occasional gusts of wind would increase the wind induced sound level reading. Thus, except for location one, sound level measurements at the Davis-Besse station were limited to those areas with sound levels above 50 dBA to insure the accuracy of the measurements.
A measurement below 50 dBA was obtained at location one when the wind speed had dropped to 9 mph.
The gust effec:s were discernible during the measurement period.
l l
8 Sound level measurements were made with the sound level meter operated in the A-weighted slow response mode.
The instrument reading method involved observing and recording the meter reading once every five seconds, regardless of the location of the needle within its swing. These measurements were repeated until a statistically reliable sample was obtained. The number of readings required to achieve this condition was determined by the variability of the ambient sound level. The measurement approach of taking a sample even five seconds resulted in a statistically independent sample because the interval was considerably greater than the meter averaging time.
Table II presents the noise sources and the L sound levels (the sound level exceeded 50% of the time) at each sampling 50 location for the indicated dates and times during the survey.
Octave band analyses were obtained during all but one measurement period to identify the presence of any pure tone. The instrument reading method during the octave band analyses involved observing and recording the sound level corresponding to approximately the L sound level for each octave band. f te 50 measured sound levels in each octave band are presented in Table III for es. -
sampling location and measurement period. '!he sound levels measured in the 31.5 Hz and 63 Hz center band frequencies can be attributed to the wind effect on the microphone windscreen. The measurements in the center band frequencies above
~
63 Hz were not affected by the wind.(12)
The hourly windspeeds and directions as recorded at the Davis-Besse site meteorological tower during the survey are presented in Table IV for the 35 foot i
and 250 foot levels. The wind speeds presented are average hourly wind speeds.
During the survey the average wind speed ranged from 9 to 14.5 mph at the 35 foot i
level while the wind direction varied from 15 through 50 degrees.
l I
i m
8
~
V.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS With the exception of measurements in one octave band near the cooling tower,
~
the sound level measurements during the November 1978 survey at the Davis-Besse station are consistent with the sound levels measured during the first operational noise survey in March 1978.(I3)
The cooling tower noise predominates throughout the Davis-Besse station except in the immediate vicinity of the turbine building and the step-up transformers. Since the cooling tower is the major noise source, the noise impact of the station offsite can be determined from the sound levels from the tower. Although sound' level measurements could be made only close to the tower due to the wind conditions, the maximum contribution of tower noise to the offsite sound levels has been determined by comparing the measured sound levels
-~
with sound level measurements of other natural draf t cooling towers. A study of measured sound levels from twelve natural draf t cooling towers resulted in the development of a curve of maximum predicted sound levels versus distance from a natural draft tower.
The measured sound levels from the Davis-Besse tower are I to 2 dB less than the maximum predicted levels at specific distances near the tower. Therefore, the sound levels offsite will be less than the maximum values determined in the study. Figure 2 presents the sound level isopleths around the Davis-Besse station based on the measured sound levels within 1000 feet of the
~
tower and the maximum 3.edicted sound levels determined by the tower no.se study for distances beyond 1000 feet.
Since the water flow through the tower is constant, the sound levels in Figure 2 represent approximately the L,q sound levels.
Actual sound levels will vary depending on the operation of auxiliary equipment, the use of equipment producing intermittent noise, and meteorological conditions.,
The maximum expected sound level at the site boundary due to cooling tower noise is 52 dBA in the absence of any excess attenuation due to meteorological effects.
The maximbm expected distance for a 45 dBA sound level contribution from the l
tower ex* ends to just south of the Sand Beach residences.
Neither the HUD acceptable level of 45 dBA nor the EPA L level f 55 dBA will be exceeded at dn l
Sand Beach due to the operation of Davis-Besse Unit 1.
However, the noise from wave action can normally exceed 50 dBA at Sand Beach.IISI Depending on the size of the waves, he wave noise will partially or completely mask the cooling tower noise at Sand Beach.
M 9
~
i
During the November survey the water flow rate through the tower was at the -
maximum rate of 480,000 gallons per minute, but during the March survey the water flow rate was only half the maximum rate. During the November survey the
~
L sound levels at location 2 near the cooling tower were 2 to 3 dBA higher than 50 the L sound levels in March. However, the sound levels measured at the base of 50 the tower, location 3, in November were nearly identical to the sound levels measured in March'. This indicates that the difference in the sound levels measured at location 2 can not be attributed to an increase in the tower water flow rate.
Rather, an increase in the background sound levels due to wind and wave noise is most likely responsible for the difference in the measured sound levels between the two surveys.
There was one noticeable difference in the tower noise between the March and November survey. In the 125 Hz centerband frequency the sound level at location 3 had increased from 57 dB in March to between 74 to 82 dB in November. This low pitched drone from the tower was distinctly audible over the other frequencies even at a distance of several hundred feet. The increase in the 125 Hz band did not affect the A-weighted measurements because the sound pressure levels in the 125 Hz band are attenuated by 16 dB in the A-weighted full spectrum sound level measurements. The increased sound level in the 125 Hz band may be due to a combination of the increase in water flow and a corresponding increase in air flow through the tower between the two surveys.
see I
mass a
W b ee 49
~
10 l
~
REFERENCES l.
Harris, C.M., Handbook of Noise Control,.lcGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,1957.
s-2.
Beranek, L.L., Noise and Vibration Control, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,1971.
t_
3.
Wiener, F.M., and D.N. Keast, "An Experimental Study of the Propagation of Sound Over Ground," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 31, No. 6, June 1959, pp. 724-733.
4.
Aylor, D., " Noise Reduction by Vegetation and Ground", Journal of g Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 31, No.1 (Part 2),1972.
5.
Ingard, U., "A Review of the Influence of Meteorological Conditions on Sound Propagation," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 25, No.1, May 1953, pp. 405-411.
6.
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agen.
. formation on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect ute Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control, April 1977.
8.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Noise Abatement and Control. Deoartment Policy, Imolementation Resoonsibilities cad Standards, Circular 1390.2, July 16,1971.
9.
American National Standards Institute, Draf t Method for Measurement o_f, Community Noise, ANSI S3W50, November ll,1969.
10.
American National Standards Institute, Method for the Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels, ANSI SI.13-1971, August 14,1971.
11.
American National Standards Institute, Soecifications for Sound Level Meters, 51.4-1971, 1971.
j 12.
Bruel and Kjaer, Condenser Microphones and Microphone Preamolifiers.
Theory and Aeolication Handbook, May 1977.
13.
Andes, R., and J. Klotz, Operational Noise Survey of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, NUS Corporation, NUS-TM-316, May 1973.
j 14.
Capano, G.A., and W.E. Bradley, " Noise Prediction Techniques for Siting Large Natural-Draft and Mechanical-Draft Cooling Towers", Proceedings of
~
the American Power Conference. Volume 38,1976, pp. 756-762.
~
15.
Toledo Edison Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No.1, Sucolement to Environmental Reports. Ooerating License Stage. Prepared by NUS Corporation,1974 t
11
,..,-n, c
~
TABLE 1 NOISE SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION NOVEMBER 20-21,1978 Location Description 1
On the southern side of the intak-canal, approximately 1000 feet east of the plant.
2 On the perimeter access road approximately 700 feet north of the cooling tower.
3 Approximately 100 feet north of the cooling tower.
4 At the flagpole in parking lot, approximately 200 feet east of transformer.
S At the entrance gate to tower and perimeter access road, approximately 700 feet west of the cooling tower.
6
, At the southeastern corner of the parking lot.
7 On access road between the switchyard and the reactor building.
ename
=.
12 elumb.
a 4
TABLE II
~
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AND NOISE SOURCES AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION NOVEMBER 20-21, 1978 Sampling Location Date Time (50 Noise Sources 1
11/21 21:03 44 Turbine building, cooling tower 2
11/20 15:17 58 11/21 11:00 57 1
Cooling tower, wind, birds
~
l1/21 21:20 58 a
3 11/20 15:45 70 Cooling 11/21 11:23 70 tower 11/21 21:32 70
\\
4 11/20 16:45 60 Transformer, l
11/21 14:45 62 turbine building, bell, 11/21 20:05 62 cooling tower 5
11/20 17:10 58 Cooling tower, 11/21 15:00 60 traffic 6
11/21 14:20 51 Wind, turbine and water treatment buildings, vehicles 7
11/21 20:25 58 Turbine building, cooling tower W
e 13
=
I I
I f
f I
(
(~
l
~(
(
(
i
[
[
(
(
(
g TABLE Ill OCTAVE BAND SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION NOVEMBER 20-21, 1978 Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels (dB re 2 x 10 ' N/m )
~
Location Date Time 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 (Hertz) 1 11/21 21:04 68 60 52 48 48 48 40 40 30 26 2
11/20 15:20 58 56 67 50 50 52 53 48 34 8
11/21 11:10 56 58 70 50 50 52 52 44 32 9
11/21 21:25 62 50 64 52 43 44 47 42 33 10 3
11/20 15:46 62 58 74 54 55 57 58 57 32 40 11/21 11:28 61 63 80 59 60 64 64 63 58 44 7
11/21 21:35 60 62 80 57 60 63 64 63 58 44 4
11/20 16:55 72 68 73 63 56 34 44 36 11/21 14:50 74 68 74 65 56 55 48 40 32 17 11/21 20:10 71 69 76 63 36 54 47 40 32 32 5
11/20 17:15 60 54 66 48 55 33 52 47 33 8
11/21 15:05 62 68 68 51 52 54 53 49 32 18 6
11/21 14:20 (no data due to wind) 7 11/21 20:25 64 57 55 52 51 54 53 46 29 11 1
l
TABLE IV WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION DURING THE NOISE SURVEY AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, NOVEMBER 20-21, 1978 35 Foot Wind Data 250 Foot Wind Data Wind Speed Wind Direction Wind Speed Wind Direction Date Hour (mph)
(degrees)
(mph)
(degrees) 11/20 14:00 12.0 025 12.5 035 15:00 14.5 030 15.0 045 16:00 12.5 035 13.5 045 17:00 13.5 040 15.0 050 11/21 11:00 12.5 030 13.5 040 12:00 12.5 025 13.5 035 13:00 13.0 025 14.0 035 14:00 13.5 025 14.0 035 15:00 12.0 025 13.0 035
~
16:00 11.0 025 12.0 035 17:00 10.0 025 10.0 040 18:00 9.5 025 10.5 040 19:00 8.0 015 10.5 035 20:00 10.0 020 12.0 025 21:00 9.0 020 11.0 030 22:00 9.0 020 11.0 030 6
l 15 n
f H. %.
c s,s q, -
p~ ~ m.~\\
. -: =_
m.t
/ n _:'.)
- = p _ 7-s
, :s_
"- T %, _n
_m g
/
/
l j
i 1
s.*
r_-_- u~ o -
.2 o.
s
,,w,~ 'jf:.
ase stOAQ
'J-0.=
l s
N,
._ r _.
n F
li d'
- "e fly i
y A'- M l-a 4
- 7
=<'
l 1
M A
R S W
l q
]
l6 lI',M~
/
W E.'. :-
i.
.m._
h 1
CONTICCL. GAFC
/
.h
\\
t%
\\
t m
/
.O
/
y w3 wxw---
=.
_-_w
- - -n.
y 4
s 3
l
[--
g
'3 g&@
s' Qw.6l%
j
,/
r
.t
, a W
l
- j.... l.
. _]
c,,,
n.. --.
pe'[
f 's Ip,j yV
8
/
./
..# p,
,i o
g:
o a
bl m_
n n f
.- @I l(@- - -
2 4-W%
......(
-x
-.-_ /
L B
~
9 C[;_
- l ~ ~
' tr'"
p %'~ J -'
'~
r : :::. : =:' ;
I
/
e
/
/,:
M A R E y, / f ;i y
,Y M+y,-N--
s, a
l@
d.O @
e
~
p' '., a
-/
.. ' ! r-i l
=,
w
~,
w g
L7
)7_
d f
',l lj '
J g
een.sec==.mg l 1
- cur 9;
e
/
,' E'* ***dt i
^'
ll s ' Ym i
l
...'a..
lu U
i saamm-
.:r !
- i.
y o
- acoc e
-i il j
/,.
i:
,! i i /.
4 s
.. -----_.,. N-(Ad.~t%<k... *
?
N
~
W.
\\
n a,,
_2 0
I 1:
gs 4
- J l
)[( qi I
1,y
'Telli i
- W i
'n
""");4.:3.emss i !_a 11 i
n s
.n. __ 9..
r
//
h
~
,f i
FIGURE 1 y'
-- ~
7 ' "C"n -.- - --
- SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT THE 1
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR GENERATING I
l STATION DURING THE NOISE SURVEY l
OF NOVEMBER 20-21, 1573 g
~
IT rrion i
s N
e s',
_~
t
%;'s
,F j-al '
'N
.a -
\\,'
l f,::::-.MM%. = -
-h
?
[.,.,
,.~
- \\
'. _.. _ d'I
[:
b
/
\\
s u.c.imi<&a
.~~-f::s,,s ' 'r
?6_
'//
,1 o
I 7
,.-:-~_~
- s. - -
N 1:
_ x - <
I I,
f
\\
//
i'
~
q 45 II-7.
i
.n s--
'5 i
M A
R S l-4 ll
.d q
l I
i.
f-
"~"
savn.
,/g, L
w s _w_. t I l N
{
g s, f, j --]t 1
s..e s
I I pw g
\\\\
\\
A t.
,C\\-
l l.4 7
~
i'
~((
- - ---n -
3 W / M i-lit-
'Y+,sf*
- f/f
~ - - -
s 1
(
.t j
fil!I F
[
l g
j/
(
,, / '
J e
J._ a....... -jf l
(O go
[-
'/' '13 i
2E +f-I8.
\\
/
o I
^
b',
,,,;;f;
- -- g
..a.
_,p
_ lM J
r ;
,f,
1II
. y "1
J.
i i,,Y ll Y,./
l f
i % - 9 6 ~
-l!.
o
='
v l.
n J F'-
n T
.7
$= =
- __ A_~ _~-_,/f g:r.:::pi
(
i l
- g
!j -
_l Nn i
d
' ' -eta 3
I If I
i i sonnoward
' f.'
s
.91 c
- nocx w_-
il j
I i
{:t g
1 ej
~
=
h = -eaanv3 Tf,, g, I
e l
9 n
i
.h, ^. <
a
.h
,I i
i i !_,,_g p:
{ _ _"*-
c~m i
l ii f,%
FIGURE 2 T"
OPERATIONAL SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS AT THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, dBA 17
__