ML20053F003
| ML20053F003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1982 |
| From: | Dubois T SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053E997 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206100286 | |
| Download: ML20053F003 (11) | |
Text
DAVID R. PIGOTT ..
/
EDWARD B. ROGIN SAMUEL B. CASEY '
Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE ._
A Professional Corporation _'
600 Montgomery Street ,,
San Francisco, CA 94111
'F l l . ,i.,
Telephone: (415) 392-1122 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO -
SOUTHER!1 CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY P.O. Boy 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Telephone: 572-1900 Attorneys for Applicants Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, City of Anaheim, California and City of Riverside, California UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-361 OI
) 50-362 OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA )
EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. ) AFFIDAVIT OF T. JAMES DuBOIS
) IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS' (San Onofre Nuclear ) COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF Generating Station, ) EXISTING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Units 2 and 3). ) SYSTEM IN SAN CLEMENTE,
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. )
i I, T. JAMES DuBOIS, being first duly sworn, declare that if called to testify in this proceeding I could i
competently do so, as follows:
- 1. The following matters are within my own knowledge.
! ///
l l 8206100286 820607
- PDR ADOCK 05000361 i G ppy i
- 2. I am employed by the Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") as Supervisor of the Technical Support Group of the Apparatus Engineering Section of the Engineering and Construction Department.
- 3. I testified in the above-captioned proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in connection with its hearings on emergency preparedness issues. My prepared written testimony appears at pages 6695 to 7021 of the transcript; corrections to that prepared testimony, examination by Intervenors and NRC Staff and Applicants redirect examination appear at pages 6910 to 8475 of the transcript; and my rebuttal testimony appears at pages 8733 to 8745 of the transcript. My background and experience is fully set forth at pages 6996 to 6997 of the transcript.
- 4. The purpose of this Affidavit is to describe the tests which have been performed on the siren system which has been installed by SCE in the Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") the investigation conducted by SCE concerning the effectiveness of the siren system. Based on the results of the investigations, I conclude that the siren system as presently installed meets or exceeds the design criteria described by Applicants in the record and satisfies applicable NRC regulations and guidance.
- 5. The siren system described in my previous testimony consisted of 40 sirens distributed over the 10-mile EPZ. Thirty-nine sirens manufactured by Sentry Siren Incorporated were installed by SCE. Sixteen of these Sentry sirens were specified by SCE and were rated by the 1
manufacturer at 115 decibels as measured on the "C" weighting scale ("dB(C)") while 23 sirens were specified and rated at either 107 or 112 dB(C). The additional siren was a civil defense siren previously installed by the City of San Clemente. This siren is rated at 125 dB(C).
- 6. During the week of January 24, 1982 the siren system was tested. The tests were conducted under my supervision and direction. The tests were conducted over a period of four days and included acoustic measurements as well as a Community Response Survey. Acceptance tests were performed on each siren. In addition, measurements were made during simultaneous activation of all sirens in each control zone and finally the complete siren system was activated.
The purpose of the tests was to determine if the system satisfied the applicable NRC regulations acd guidance and to identify any mechanical, electrical or acoustic deficiencies which should be corrected.
- 7. During the full scale test all but one of the 40 sirens operated. However, several sirens encountered electrical or mechanical problems causing them to " trip out" prematurely during the test. The malfunctions causing such problems were in the areas of timer settings, weather-proofing, fuses and starters. In addition, the sound output level of the sirens was lower than that specified by SCE and guaranteed by the manufacturer.
- 8. To test acoustic performance 81 locations were selected to measure the siren output. In 81% of the measured locations the sound levels were either 60 dB(C) or there was a 10 dB signal-to-noise ratio or greater, which is consistent with the guidance published by NRC and FEMA in Appendix 3 of NUREG 0654 REV-1, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants. Following the siren tests, community surveys were conducted in person and by telephone.
The results of the in-person interviews indicated that 91% of the people contacted heard the sirens. A telephone survey of 529 households of which at least one person was home during the test indicated that 67% heard the sirens. In addition, SCE has been informed that a telephone survey conducted by the City of San Clemente determined that 86% of the persons contacted heard the sirens during the testing program.
- 9. The electrical and mechanical problems identified during the tests have been eliminated. There were two reasons for the acoustical deficiencies determined during the test. First, it was learned that the siren rating system indicates an acoustical output higher than sirens produce.
Second, the Sentry Sirens originally installed by SCE not only did not perform at their rated levels, but performed i
somewhat below the level of sirens with the same ratings made by other manufacturers.
- 10. Since the sour.d levels achieved in the January
! siren tests were less than expacted, SCE studied ways to improve the siren system. As a result of these studies, SCE determined to immediately replace the 39 sirens previously installed by SCE with sirens made by a different manufacturer, Federal Signal Corporation. The Federal sirens
were tested and determined to produce a higher output et a lower frequency which results in better sound propagation in the atmosphere. Twenty-three of the 39 Sentry Sirens were rated at either 107 or 112 dB(C). To further increase the sound level, all of the Sentry Sirens were replaced by Federal sirens rated at 115 dB(C). The cost of replacing the sirens, and making the electrical and mechanical repairs discussed above, was $1.3 million.
- 11. SCE determined that the siren system with the new sirens installed should be tested to insure that its performance was consistent with applicable NRC regulations and guidance. A second series of tests was conducted on May 24, 1982 under my supervision and direction. Twenty-nine of the 81 locations were selected for additional acoustic measurement. These 29 locations were selected from the areas where the acoustic performance required improvement.
- 12. During the second test, the measurement equipment failed at one location, so data was collected from 28 of the 29 originally selected locations. Of these 28 locations, 23 achieved signal-to-noise ratios in excess of 10 dB and 24 recorded siren levels equal to or exceeding 60 dB(C). Combining these test results with those obtained I during the January 1982 tests shows that of the 81 i
measurement locations, there were 70 locations (86%) where signal levels equalled or exceeded 60 dB(C), and where the signal-to-noise ratio equalled or exceeded 10 dB.
- 13. At three of the test locations, applicable criteria were not met due to unusual circumstances which l
should not reoccur. At one location the sound level could not be tested due to a failure of the measurement equipment.
Based on observed siren performance in the May tests and the test results obtained in January, this location should meet the criteria. At a second location, the siren failed to operate for electrical and mechanical reasons which have been corrected. This location also should meet applicable criteria based on January tests results and expected siren performance. At the third location, the siren achieved a signal level of 60 dB(C), but the 10 dB signal-to-noise ratic was not achieved due to unusually loud construction noise coinciding with the test.
- 14. At the hearings, I testified that all the population areas within the EPZ were predicted to be covered by the siren system. (Tr. 6941-6942) This was shown by the 60 dB(C) contours drawn on Applicants' Exhibit 135. The tests conducted in January and May 1982 confirm that the populated areas within the EPZ are covered by the siren system. Exhibit A to this Affidavit, which was prepared under my supervision and direction, shows that the populated areas are covered by the siren system. Exhibit A shows: 1) the siren location; 2) the 81 measurement locations; 3) the actual siren signal levels measured during the May 1982 tests: 4) predicted siren signal levels based on actual data from the January and May 1982 tests; and, 5) 60 dB(C) contour lines predicted from actual test results. There are two populated areas in which the applicable regulations and guidance may not be met. One is an area between siren c, , ..
locations SJ02 and SJ03 on the border of the EPZ as shown in Exhibit A. This area will be covered under the expansion of the siren system into Dana Point and remaining portions of San Juan Capistrano. The second area is between siren locations SC11 and SC12 where a measurement of 56 dB(C) was recorded. This location is shielded from SC11 by the local topography and the signal from SCl2, the San Clemente civil defense siren, does not extend far enough into this area.
SCE is examining alternative means to assure coverage of this localized area. In the only other measurement location, between SC13 and SCl2, in which 60 dB(C) was not recorded, the signal-to-noise ratio was 18 db.
- 15. Based on the results of the tests described above, I conclude that as installed and as tested the siren system in the EPZ meets or exceeds applicable NRC regulations and guidance.
\ .
, 9 n w, L / &
,- . James DuBois
/
Sworn to and subscribed to beforh me this 4th day of June, 1982.
. ~ ~ . . - . . . - .
I < ,. OF FICIAL SEAL
<g ' " j'g /g ,
ALICE S. SILVAS
.' N ', NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA Notary Public, State of California PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN County of Los Angeles. LOS ANGELES COUNTY MyCommission Espres Nov.24,1983
- =-. _
DOCU V EN- -
PAG:-
=
P 1LE A O.wa -
\
NO. OF PAGES ,
REASON O PAGE liLEGlBl.
OTHER 3 3 D BETTER COP ( REOJESTED ON SPAGE 100 LARGE 10 FILM.
Gf sArcCOP(FilD AT PDR Q - -
OTHER _ - - -
8 FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NOS%6mn6 ,
r-
]
,ee -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS OR EXPRESS MAIL 1
I certify pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.712(e)(2) that:
I am employed as an attorney in the City and County of San Francisco, California and am one of counsel for Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas &
Electric Company.
I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 600 Montgomery Street, loth Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.
On June 7, 1982, I served the attached " APPLICANTS' COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF EXISTING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM IN SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA" and the related " AFFIDAVIT OF T. JAMES CuBOIS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS' COMMENTS ON ADEQUACY OF EXISTING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM IN SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA" and the referenced attachments and exhibit, in said cause by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in the United States mail, first class (or by Express Mail, where asterisked), at San Francisco, California addressed as follows:
Stephen F. Eilperin, Esq.
- James L. Kelley, Chairman Chairman, Atomic Safety Administrative Judge And Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Washington, D.C. 20555 Board Washington, D.C. 20555 l
l l'
1 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board c/o Bodega Marine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Laboratory Commission University of California Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Dr. W. Reed Johnson *Dr. Elizabeth B. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o Westin Bonaventure Hotel Appeal Board 4045 Figueroa Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Los Angeles, CA 90071 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert Dietch, Vice President Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Southern California Edison Rourke & Woodruff Company California First Bank P. O. Box 800 Building 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 10555 North Main Street Rosemead, CA 91770 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq. Gary D. Cotton Donald F. Hassell, Esq. Louis Bernath Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Diego Gas & Electric Office of the Executive 101 Ash Street Legal Director P. O. Box 1931 Washington, D.C. 20555 San Diego, CA 92701 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks Mr. Lloyd von Haden GUARD 2089 Foothill Drive 3908 Calle Ariana Vista, CA 92083 San Clemente, CA 92801 Richard J. Wharton, Esq. James F. Davis University of San Diego State Geologist School of Law Division of Mines and Alcala Park Geology San Diego, CA 92110 1416 Ninth Street, Rm 1341 Sacramento, CA 95814 Janice E Kerr, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing J. Calvin Simpson, Esq. Appeal Board Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory California Public Utilities Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 350 McAllister Atreet San Francisco, CA 94102 2
1
- Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq. Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
24012 Calle De La Plata 1695 W. Crescent Avenue Suite 330 Suite 222 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Anaheim, California 92801
- Docketing and Service Section Spence Perry, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 840 (3 copies) 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 Dated: June 7, 1982 _;;>
\ .
95amueI'B. Casey One of Counsel for Applican s SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C IANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 3
M n
ter s 42, ,., - -
.r
~ s, t >
.5 .e A
. , , ', - - ,n s
. / -.
5
'_ ,p,[+ .
,j ,"*L,4
?. e
- m J% lpp. 2' ," (. . , . m - jg-.,n p r r ' - - g 5. .
( . -d P
Q ?H% k'* k . . , -
m.n2'%'c m. , , -
. - ...m W -,,2 < ' 7 -
s ,w_
w . m .y
-,: m.x s ,.
, ,__ gg - q: ,.
p , . L.,, Q e ,__
+ 6 qus
- 'i , e, 1
-q. 3 M, <
f g_
4.. --
.; y ,;
., e g . 1 , . y * * 3
'1 #5-'
7 9 . ' - m_
s q
a < s t > , "
>x; <.m s
', ; o ,
t - e -
yy" 2 , ,.
Q
!g , n(.'Q^ ,,%?.
y m
-
- y g>g ,
. 0;,'- m; y : q, ,
o ,y, + +>
' , , '3 ,' f. i w
,~ , ,
i-m- _yy* 9 - %-
,A
.g"' ',
_,~p, a ,s. _ + q "g , t s *- _.y' ty
,j
, , ,Q l _ =,c_ ' +,,
/
4
[* .
I
.p- g, > ; ' ' q s
. ;; , y e- f.e n. c-
~, r &e:y ..
- c ,
. s., .
m , , , - f. -
, , . _ o-.. x (n ,
p s
--e n ;p,;:s g' .
,.,.'t . _ , , ; 7 , b4'~ ,. -
, w p-
, Y !f
- ? . .- , ~x .;.- I1e'[
8
,:) ,:,
, % '" ' w e >3 g f*
>- p- ~
1 n
22rv
- i .
I s
. X n_ %,, m' I,N
.< m_ f-. #
../. ,f h *
,I; ( .1%
- g-l: , ..
N, , y . - '
4 s
- >A v: , . ;:s . ,
, , , , _ my 1
- w. .
i *e' , * ' os;- ~ ,
s>@,
~
i
.r,,#zy g .,
.:'w 5
-e.: ' ' . , .% y ,
g v ' J. n %p ; y, 9 1 ?
a w, -* y ' 1'.q - J eg ,,; -,
- , t
. c. R J
y 4; ;.
a
- A_- ..
> , " ; g-, , ,
.<F WaWYLE a w* _
1ABORATO.RIESMw'; w ,
g e 4 r a.,
v, r .. ..j; w;<< a ,,
-g'i . ,
) .
> < .~, m -er y" -
_ s* . .s.. m _s :
t m ~, ~ * ,
sr .yg y '"
- y,_ N. u- . , ;:9 ,,, g >.
-. -s p ,s s,
c .. .
4 --
~ J'/A$ck. y Io &h c
y,
- 1. '
s
_3 l L,'
m ~ 'l) .
, _'O .s .. l O " ' ~ ' a 1
- kbb$f ';
.,.;W : ' '
i
+ .W, l_ -
, Nl. [h ; lf) ~ :
? -l Y Y w
' .. ~ .4%*%uv%g%.p - w' .
c.
t .. _ 7x..'L m, - .. - -
.,'f 1"
Jis 'h -
W. j '
MQ 7 g
+
- '- d;"Of*3 j' 3"..E..
- s. s, : s., ..
. .g $ ~ ., -
kf ...;< ,. g, ,...:..9 ,. A< - 4
< - s-
, , - < ~
,., ,, s,. s . .
r
-p
, , ,p s. . >
,p n:> # ~
. J.; c p i.., , . . S. .s3 . ,.-
. W .f.. ;. " *. .L., . ' m . ' .. . . . - ,,, . N,-
. - . .. -." <J y +, .; Mr?",
. .g
'v'i' . t .. _ -
. . ,, o r a. .. ._r y' ..q:
i I
. . ,s ..~ -:
Y 7 ,} 4'i _ '
^1 [ *" f a
+ , .
., _,.. ~
-- e
- 7,1. ,
, .. g
, ~
s
> t
> -. g r
- , .1
$f?
g
' 7 y >
j , : '?- v
( f> d ,
Y . , . _h2 ,, _, s-.
't 4- * '&-'E.--
3 P d
% , .%' yr t r ,;4 t
. ;.,_._ _3 i * -
., s , as , s . .
\ ,
. z. .1 y.
lt ,.. .
,. , , , & 4- '-
- a vd V
4WYLE4 RESEARCH' ^ '~, '
-: I
, iEl Segundo, Califomial 1
- ;G- . .
N, _
w , . i . , . ' * ,
c ' . -
e q3e m
. 4 .
A '
% i
% 5 >-Q b
mg' f yT v
g y .J * - .d*_
Lx .
AL rF
-.( , k
~
. : 4 3: t Nf . %
7
, T _
I y g4 f. .
+
7 7 , *( >A > ,
,M' ~f
, l -'.
.j F"' ,q 3
6 e S #-
)..
-- , _ _ , . _, ,~ . . , ~ - , *
~ >..t< ,4, , ,
( '* 2 8_' " .;, { l-' e
- . 4 .. b , # 4 .. ' * ,
x .
- ' m m
- 1 .
, ~
/ ! N ! v
?
g
+y (
y r ,
n. .,' y
-- . g g. ?
'hI [ .
v , -. a si,,e s
. ; +
$. w N a Y \
- q 4 y
+
- t. Y
^^
e,
_-f l %. , - __ p L ' Y. ! , 4 k y
/W '. " ' '--
.r T / + -
\\J q
, % 4 - ~, , Q q ~
,_ , , Of - 7 h.,
, u hT$T >. :;,.* . , >
,.y-
- f _
r a-f o 7, 5 c. u ,
'_g' s y
,+. ' -- - .. , .
- .d-'
.-}
'); :
A-( y 1'y 4 .,A, f
t y.-. ,
4 b 6 , -
, - , m_ ~
br . ' 9 j 4,, 3 9
~. , .
- s. b W g y