ML20072P877
| ML20072P877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1983 |
| From: | Rosalyn Jones TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072P866 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304040405 | |
| Download: ML20072P877 (8) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMid SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, -et al.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. JONES REGARDING OPERABILITY TESTING OF EMERGENCY SIRENS 01.
Mr. Jones, please state your full name, business address, position and educational and professional qualifications.
A1.
(Jones)
My name is Richard A. Jones.
My business address is Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas 76043.
I am Manager of Plant Operations for Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO).
A I
l statement of my educational and professional qualifi-I cations was received into evidence at Tr. 513 as Attachment A to Applicants' Exhibit 10.
02.
What are your responsibilities at Comanche Peak?
A2.
(Jones)
My responsibilities include overall manage-ment of operations in the event of an emergency at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
Q3.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
f l
8304040405 830329 PDR ADOCK 05000445
('
T PDR l
. A3.
(Jones)
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the operability tests of individual sirens conducted in January, 1983.
Q4.
Briefly describe the siren system used for notifica-tion of the public in the event of an emergency.
A4.
(Jones)
Emergency plans for notification of the public in the event of an emergency include an outdoor alerting system consisting of 40 acoustical sirens.
Each siren is mounted on a stand approximately 50 feet above ground level.
When activated the siren emits the appropriate sound while rotating at a frequency of one rotation every 30 seconds.
Eighteen of the 40 sirens are located in Somervell County with two located within approximately 5,000 feet of Glen Rose, Texas.
A more detailed description of this system is set forth in Section 3.0 of the CPSES Emergency Plan (Applicants' Exhibit 143D).
05.
Describe in general terms the siren test which were conducted in January, 1983.
A5.
(Jones)
During an approximate two week period in January, 1983, each siren was individually tested.
The objectives of the tests were two-fold -- (1) to perform an equipment component checkout to include the general condition of the equipment, oil level and 4
possible ground faults; and (2) to conduct operability l
l L
i tests of each siren to include response to activation signals and capability of the power source.
To accom-plish these objectives each siren was individually in-spected in a non-activated mode and then activated by the appropriate signal and allowed to operate for approximately 50 seconds.
This allowed each siren to rotate about twice.
A 50 second operability test was conducted for each of the three operation modes (radi-ological emergency, tornado alert and nuclear attack).
In order to individually check each siren, these teste were conducted over a two week period.
In short, the tests conducted in January, 1983 were limited to tests of individual sirens.
The tests were not intended to check the full alerting capabilities of the siren system.
06.
Were efforts taken to minimize the possible impact on the public of these isolated tests?
A6.
(Jones)
Yes, they were.
In an effort to minimize the possible impact on the public of these tests, actions were taken to avoid unnecessary public inconvenience l
and concern.
For example, at no time during the two-week period were any two sirens operated at the same time.
Indeed, on some days only one or two sirens were tested during any eight-hour period.
Thus, sound levels were minimized in that there was no sound
. overlap between adjacent sirens.
Further, during each test, the siren was operated for less than a minute, minimizing the full build-up of volume due to reflec-tion.
Because of the short test time, due to the ro-tation of the siren, the public received only a very short direct exposure of the maximum siren volume.
07.
With regard to sound levels and public exposure, how would a total test of the system differ from the oper-ability checkouts conducted in January, 19837 A7.
(Jones)
During the individual tests, each siren was only operated for approximately 50 seconds.
In a total test of the system, the sirens would, of course, be operating for some length of time, thus allowing sound levels to achieve maximum volume, and exposing the population to this maximum volume for many revolu-tions of the siren.
Further, testing the entire system would result in a significant amount of overlap of sound from all sirens.
Thus, during a full test of the system there would be a higher decibel level than would be the case for operation of any one siren.
08.
Are you familiar with the test which was conducted near the vicinity of County Judge Crump's office, which was referred to in his February 21, 1983 letter to this Board?
AB.
(Jones)
Yes, I am.
. 09.
Would you please describe this test and any other tests which were conducted on that day.
A9.
(Jones) With specific regard to the siren test con-ducted on January 24, 1983, referenced in a February 21, 1983, letter to Chairman Miller from County Judge George R. Crump, the siren tested is located approximately 4,000 feet from the center of Glen Rose and Judge Crump's office.
As with the other tests, the siren was given a physical inspection and was activated for approximately 50 seconds for each activation mode.
On this date only one other test in Somervell County was conducted.
That test was conducted on a siren located at some distance from Glen Rose.
Glen Rose has one other siren in the near vicinity (approximately 5,000 feet from the center of town) and several others within hearing distance.
Q10.
Did the tests which were conducted in January, 1983 reflect a sound level which would be present during an i
entire test of the system?
A10.
(Jones)
No, they did not.
An entire test of the l
system would result in a sound level significantly greater.
011.
Do you intend to conduct a performance test of the entire f
siren system in the near future?
All.
(Jones)
Yes.
A performance test of the entire siren i
system was originally scheduled for late summer, 1983.
I However, in view of the concern expressed by Judge Crump l
1
. and in response to a request from Mr. Alton Armstrong, 4
State of Texas Division of Emergency Management, Applicants have scheduled the performance test of the siren system for the first two weeks of June, 1983.
This test is designed to confirm the adequacy of the i
entire siren system.
i s
I l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
(Application for Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating Licenses)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Testimony of Richard A. Jones Regarding Operability Testing of Emergency Sirens," in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by express delivery (**)
or by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 29th day of March 1983:
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Chairmane Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Lucinda Minton, Esq.
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W.
Outer Drive Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Washington, D.C.
20555 Dean, Division of Engineering Architecture and Technology
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Oklahoma State University Office of the Executive Legal l
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Director l
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Mr.
John Collins Commission Regional Administrator, Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and l
Commission Licensing Appeal Panel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C.
20555 1
l 1
., ** David J. Preister, Esq.
Mr. Scott W. Stucky Assistant Attorney General Docketing & Service Branch Environmental Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Division Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C.
20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and Mrs. Juanita Ellis General Manager President, CASE Texas Utilities Generating Company 1426 South Polk Street 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75224 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny Alan Sinkin Robert G. Taylor 838 East Magnolia Avenue Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak San Antonio, Texas 78212 Steam Electric Station c/o U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 OA.LA
&p4LC i
William A. Horin
/
cc:
Homer C. Schmidt Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
e-,, - -
v
-