ML20077E065

Environ Noise Impact of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

ML20077E065
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/30/1983
From:	ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20077E047	List: ML20077E033 ML20077E049 ML20077E065
References
973, NUDOCS 8307280079
Download: ML20077E065 (124)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 L J Serial No. 973 D D D } July 21, 1983 1 l ENVIRONMENT AL NOISE IMP ACT OF THE D AVIS-BESSE NUCLE AR POWER ST ATION JUNE 1983 PREPARED FOR. TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY TOLEDO, OHIO o ) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. ATI BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS O OOO 6 P PDR

l I ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION JUNE 1983 PREPARED FOR: TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY TOLEDO, OHIO SUBMITTED BY: AC0USTIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 240 Commercial Street Boston, MA c: I I 'I AccusTIC TECHNCLOGY INC. l 1 l l

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 PRE 0PERATIONAL SURVEY 3 2.1 Measurement Locations and Conditions 3 2.2 Results and Discussion 3 3.0 PREDICTION OF NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS 5 3.1 Prediction Techniques 5 3.2 Major Plant Noise Sources 6 3.2.1 Cooling Tower 6 3.2.2 Main Transformer 6 3.2.3 ventilation System Noise 7 3.2.4 Power Relief Valves 8 3.3 Combined Predicted Plant Noise at Sensitive Locations 9 3.4 Comparison of Predicted to Preoperational Noise Levels 9 4.0 FULL LOAD OPERATIONAL NOISE SURVEY 11 qw 1 AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. x

l l 4.1 Survey Methods and Equipment 11 4.2 Results and Discussion 13 4.2.1 Power Plant Noise Characteristics and Noise Levels 14 4.2.1a Cooling Tower 15 15 4.2.1b Pump House 4.2.1c Transformer 16 4.2.1d Propagation to Site Boundary 17 4.2.2 Sensitive Location Noise Characteristics and Noise Levels 19 4.2.2a S2, S3 and S4 20 4.2.2b Nearest Resident, SS 22 4.2.2c Nearest Wildlife Refuge, S1 23 4.3 Measured Operational L N se Level 50 25 Contour Map 26 5.0 1MPACT ANALYSIS 5.1 Carroll Township School, S3 26 5.2 Locust Point Cemetery, S4 27 5.3 Magee State Marsh, S2 28 5.4 Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, S1 29 5.5 Nearest Resident, SS 30 T. AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INO. a

a b l 1

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32 Tables and Figures 35 References 52 Map 1: Measurement and Noise Sensitive Locations in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Map 2: Measured Operational L Contour Map in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuck 0ear Power Station Appendix A: Frequency Spectrum Analysis for Select Operational Measurement Pointe Appendix B: Statistical Distribution Histograms for Select Operational Measurement Locations Appendix C: Cumulative Percent Distribution Curves from Histogram Values for Select Operational Measurement Locations e ,^ ,s [7 . ACCUSTIC IECHNOLOGY INC.

LIST OF TABLES i TABLE TITLE I l I Preoperational Noise Sampling Locations II Meteo.ological Data for Preoperational Survey III Preoperational L S und Pressure 50 Level Measurements IV Location of Closest Noise Sensitive Areas V Predicted Noise Levels at Sensitive Locations for Cooling Tower VI Predicted Noise Levels at Sensitive Locations for Transformer VII Predicted Noise Levels at Sensitive Locations for Steam Relief Valves VIII Total Predicted Noisc Due to Full Load Operation of Davis-Besse 'e ' Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. l n as

IX On Site Noise Sampling Locations for Full Load Operational Noise Survey X Hourly Average Meteorological Data During Full Load Operational Noise Survey XI Results of the On Site Operational Noise Survey XII Results of the Operational Noise Survey at S 2, S3 and S4 XIII Results of the Operational Noise Survey at SS XIV Results of the Operational Noise Survey at S1 e i

1. 2_ ~ x 3

) AccusTic TECHNCLOGY INC. o l l

SUMMARY

Substantial ambient noise measurements and analyses have been used to judge the environmental noise impact of the Toledo Edison Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. This report was prepared by Acoustic Technology, Inc. (ATI) for the Toledo Edison Company as part of the environmental assessment required by the NRC in Section 4.1 of Appendix B, Davis-Besse Technical Specifications. The ATI report and analysis includes: 1. A summary of the preoperational noise survey conducted by the NUS Corporation at the Davis-Besse site curing Mcy of 1974. 2. The prediction of noise emissions from the major noise sources of the operating station and the likely impact of these noise sources at the nearest noise sensitive locations. 3. An explanation _of the operational noise survey conducted by ATI during May 1983. The survey procedures, equipment and results are discussed. 4 An impact analysis based on the results of the operational and preoperational noise surveys. This e'

• i Acce;sTic TECHNCLOGY INC.

analysis considers absolute standards set by the EPA and the relative comparison of measured preoperational noise levels to measured existing levels during plant operation. 5. A list'of conclusions and recommendations based on the impact analysis and predictive methods. t I se. gG) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. g l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The noise impact of a power plant needs to be determined as part of the NRC licensing procedure. To assess the enviaonmental noise impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power ( Station, a series of noise surveys and analyses have been e.onducted. A preoperational noise survey was performed by the NUS Corporation in May of 1974. As part of the operational survey, Acoustic Technology, Inc. (ATI) conducted a predictive analysis which afforded insight to the possible power plant noise sources and provided a quantitative prediction as to the effect of the operational power plant on the existing noise levels. Further, ATI performed an extensive operational noise survey which provided a reliable, statistical statement as to the environmental noise conditions. Finally, with the data from the noise surveys and predictions, ATI assessed the impact of the operational power station and made a number of conclusions and recommendations. This report begins with a brief summary of the NUS preoperational survey and discusses the measurement locations, survey conditions and results. The next section continues with the predictive analysis. Each of the identified plant i noise sources is considered and the absolute levels due to the plant operation are tabulated. The results of these -ir ~ ) Accusuc TECHNOLOGY INC. w

predictions are shown in Tables V through VIII. Chapter 3.0 concludes with a comparison of predicted to preoperational noise levels in the vicinity of the power station. Chapter 4.0 continues with the full load operational r.oise survey. The survey methods and equipment are described in detail and the results are discussed. The survey results are tabulated in Tables XI thru XIV. Appendix A contains typical frequency spectra from select measurement locations and times. Appendix B presents typical noise variation histograms from the noise sensitive lccations. Appendix C contains cumulative percent distribution curves derived from the histogram values of Appendix B. Chapter 5.0 contains the environmental impact analysis. Each of the five closest noise sensitive areas is considered in light of the EPA noise regulations, and the measured operational noise levels are compared with preoperational noise levels. Chapter 6.G outlines a number of conclusions and recommendations based upon the analysis of Chapters 3.0 thru 5.0. 4m 1 AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. s

2.0. PREOPERATIONAL SURVEY 2.1 Measurement Locations and Conditions In order to provide a reference point against which the operational impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station could be judged, a preoperational noise survey was conducted l by the NUS Corporation during May of 1974 The survey included measurements taken during the periods of daytime (0700-1900 hr), evening (1900-2200 hr) and nighttime (2200-0700 hr). The preoperational measurement locations can be seen on Map 1 cnd a brief description of each site is listed in Table I. The meteorological data obtained during the survey from the on-site meteorological tower and supplemented with data from nearby airports are shown i r. Table II. 2.2. Results and Discussion The principal noise sources during the survey were highway traffic along Route 2 and wave action along the shores of Lake Erie. The weekday daytime measurements included noise contributions frem the construction of the plant itself. At the time of the survey, however, a large portion of the ;i e a v y outdoor construction was completed so that construction noise was negligible compared to that of the principal noise sources. Other audible sources of noise during the survey m

; AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC.

included wind, birds, rifle fire from Camp Perry and distant Lawnmowers. There were no intermittant or particularly annoying sounds which required 'setave band analysis. The L 50 sound levels at each measurement location and each sampling time are listed in Table III. 4_ <@w " 1 ;:, ACOUSTIC I ECHNOLOGY INC. a

4 3.0 PREDICTION OF NOISE LEVELS AT NOISE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS 4 9 t 3.1 Prediction Techniques The noise levels due to the operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station at each cf the noise sensitive locations around the plant (see Table IV and Map 1) can be predicted. This is done by identifying major noise generating equipment 4 on the plant site and knowing the relative location of this i equipment with respect to the noise sensitive areas. In doing the noise level predictions, four pieces of plant equipment were considered as the major contributors to noise in the areas surrounding the power p l. a n t. These noise sources include the cooling tower, the main transformer unit, the ventilation system for the turbine and transformer, and the steam relief valves. With specific information about this equipment, both the equivalent sound levels and octave band i sound levels due to each piece of equipment at each of the noise sensitive locations can be predicted. After the contribution of each noise source at each sensitive location has been determined, the logarithmic sum of these separate contributions can be taken to yield the total. praicted noise level at each sensitive location due to the r plant 1 operation., i a M AccusTIC TECrWOLOGY INC. %;L;/ 1 .-m_ .m

th=, m. 3.2 Major Plant Noise Sources 1 3. 2.' 1 Cooling Tower The cooling tower on the Davis-Besse site is a natural draft, counter flow cooling tower. It has a full load operating capacity of 480,000 gallons of water per minute. Contribution of noise due to the cooling tower at each of the five nearest noise sensitive locations was predicted using a method developed by Capano and Bradley The results of this p edictive technique are tabulated in Table V. The noise from the cooling tower is a result of the cooling water splashing in the tower's collecting pool. The water enters the tower and is sprayed over vertical sheets of board-like fill material. The water flows through t h c-s e sheets and is cooled by the natural draft of air flowing upward through these same sheets. After the water passes completely through these vertical spaces, it drips into the collecting pool at the base of the tower. The splashing of the drops of cooled water into the collecting pool sounds like a waterfall and produces noise of the same nature: constant and continuous. 3.2.2 Main Transformer The main transformer on the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is rated at 980 MVA and is 30.2 feet high, 31.6 feet long and 15.7 feet wide. Typical large transformers are potential,Gr T] Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. W-

• • v**@>'

.o .s contributors to pure tones emitted by the station. The pure tones, are generated in the core of the transformer by magnetostrictive effects at the fundamental frequency of 120 Hz and its associated harmonics of 240, 360 and 480 Hz. The contributions to the predicted noise levels and octave band levels at the five. nearest ' noise sensitive locations of the main trancformer were calculated using a technique developed by Gordon In propagating the acoustic predictions from the plant site to the noise sensitive locations, attenuations due t to spherical wave divergence and atmospheric absorption were considered. The results of these calculations are shown in i Table VI. I 3.2.3 Ventilation System Noise The significant fan noise emissions from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station are a result of the turbine building exhaust and ventilation systems. The turbine exhaust system consists of 6 axial type fans. operating at 485 RPM, 55,000 cfm i and a pressure rise of 0.25 inches of water. The ventilation a system consists of 6 centrifugal type fans operating at 939 RPM, 10,000 cfm and 1.75 inches of water pressure iise; plus 4 centrifugal fans operated at 990 RPM, 10,000 cfm and a pressure rise of 2 inches of water. Fan noise is generated by i ( the movement of air across the pressure differential created l by the rotation of the fan blades. The characteristic frequency of the noise lies in the octave band containing the h_ AccusTic T0cHNOLOG ,. _-,, -_,,.-..,_...,~~,_,

v.,,, _ _. _.,

,y,_,,__.,,_....,,,__,,....m_ ,%,_,,c,,,,-w...,..

. -.. _ = _ _ , w s -m .-e , +, frequency which is a function.of RPM and the number of blades (i.e. f = RPM X no. of blades /60). The noise emitted from 0 i the fans was calculated using a method described by the Edison 6] Electric Institute The results of these calculations suggest that fan noise will not be a contributor to the power plant noise impact at any of the noise sensitive locations. The fan noise levels will be well below ambient noise levels and can be neglected.as contributors to noise levels at the sensitive locations. 3.2.4 Power Relief Valves The main power relief valves are used to dissipate excess i steam which r'e s u l t s from unpredictable changes in station operating load. Davis-Besse Power Nuclear Power Station has two atmospheric vent valves in the steam system. Noise is i generated from these valves.because of turbulent flow from the valve orifice passing downstream through the standing shock

waves, creating shock interaction

noise, and from the turbulent jet exiting from the discharge pipe mixing with the atmosphere and causing jet mixing noise.

The noise emitted s from the power vent valves was calculated using a method described by the Edison Electric Institute The predictions based on this method are shown in Table VII for each of the octave band frequencies and for an equivalent sound level (L ) while steam is being discharged. These eq values are deceptively large because the valves operate only ! k Rh

wT.0 AccusTic TECHNCLOGY INC.

4 --n ..-.,,,.,,-..nn,,,,n.nr,,c.,,w.,_,,,,._,.,-,,,,.,--.,-,.pp...-._.,-,,,,,-nny,,n.x,---y,,v,m,w,,,p,--r--, .,,r,,,,w.,.,v-e-+n

intermittently, and high noise levels for short periods of time will not effect the equivalent day-night sound level indicator required by the EPA. 3.3 Combined Predicted Plant Noise g Sensitive Locations Tables V thru VII predict the separate noise contribution at each noise sensitive location due to various noise sources on the Davis-Besse site. These values have been logarithmically summed to yield the composite total noise prediction at each noise sensitive location. The results of this summation are shown in Table VIII. The octave band analysis and L noise levets were included at each sensitive location and these i values reflect the combined predicted noise from the coo 8.ing tower and main transformer, the major continuous noise sources. I 1 l 3.4 Comparison of Predicted to Preoperational Noise Levels f_ Examination of Table VIII shows that only three of the five i identified noise sensitive locations exhibit predicted noise levels which are large enough to have a possible effect on ambient noise conditions. Predicted noise levels for S2 and S3 are well below ambient levels. Of the remaining three, l sensitive locations S1 and SS are both on the lakefront. The _9_ KT> s.T;j AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. w, _ _ - _ _ ~ ~ - - _ _ _. _ _. _ _. _.., _ - ~ _ _ _ _ _

preoperational survey results suggest that because of wave and wind ambient noise, the predicted plant noise may be partially masked at these locations. The Locust Point Cemetery, S4, will be less effected by wave noise, but wind and traffic noise from Route 2 will have a great effect on ambient noise levels. Comparison with preoperational ambient noise levels suggests that at this location, predicted plant noise may produce an audible pure tone at the 125 Hz octave band, where predicted transformer noise slightly exceeds ambient levels. The noise attenuating effect of structures between the transformer building and S 4, however, will likely reduce this noise to below ambient levels. 1 The comparison of tu predictive analysis to the preoperational survey suggests that the results of the full Load operational survey should yield the highest noise levels at S1 and S5. The absolute value of these levels will be dependent mostly on existing wind and wave noise and slightly on power plant noise. Also, S4 may exhibit noise levels in the 125 Hz octave band which slightly exceed ambient levels, but should not exhibit any large change from preoperational conditions. Finally, at sensitive locations S2 and S3 there will be absolutely no contribution to existing noise levels by I the full load operatien of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. 1 i R %5;%N Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. Q =-

4.0. FULL LOAD OPERATIONAL NOISE SURVEY t 4.1 Survey _ Methods and Equipment l A full load operational noise survey was conducted during May 23-25, 1983, by ATI consultants. The survey locations are shown on Msp 1 anc a brief description of each is provided in Table IV and Table IX. Because of the results of the predicted noise level analysis (see Chapter 3.0), the bulk of the noise mcasurements where conducted at sensitive locations S1 and SS. Locations S 2, S3 and S4 were visited at varying i times of the day in order to verify the predicted impact. Finally, a number of on-site sampling locations were chosen so that the power plant noise could be characterized and its propagation to off-site locations could be monitored. The methodology used in conducting the ambient noise survey incorporstes ANSI S3W50, which establishes guidelines for the evaluation of multiple sound sources in community noise. The survey locations and periods were chosen to yield a statistical statement of noise in the vicinity of the plant. Also, requirements as outlined in the Proposed Environmental Protection Plan for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (reference: NRC letter dated December 21, 1982) were considered when performing the noise survey. m M;l AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INO. w

At each measurement location and

time, a

Nagra IV-SJ u' sed to sample the typical instrumentation tape recorder was ambient noise environment. The recorder complies with ANSI S6.1-1973 (Qualifying a Sound Data Acquisition System). The microphone used was a B&K (3ruel & Kjaer) Type 4165 condenser microphone with the proper windscreen attached to a B&K Type 2215 Sound Level Meter operated in the linear mode. For each measurement Lccation and time, a 1-3 minute tape recorded sample was taken. Also, direct octave band, C-weighted and A-weighted sound level meter measurements were made. The recorded samples were then analyzed using a B&K Type 4426 Noise Level Analyzer which samples the varying sound level ten times a second for the duration of each tape-recorded sample. 10' 50' '90 and L,q The analyzer derives the A-weighted L sound levels from these data, plus a statistical histogram of the sound level variation. A B&K Type 2312 Alphanumeric Printer was used to produce the probability distribution histograms of select locations. All instruments are portable and battery-operated, requiring no power source. I i At the beginning of each tape, a calibration tone emitted from a B&K Type 4230 calibrator was recorded. All recording adjustments were noted and recorded on the tapes. Any variance from proper calibration was noted and proper l corrections were made to the data. This procedure was l followed in compliance with ANSI S1.10-1966 (Calibration of Microphones). l RA niin AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. i l

. - + + * -w i En order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the noise emitted from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, its j propagation and impact, a number of frequency spectrum plots were made using a B&K Type 2031 Narrow Band Spectrum Analyzer. The analyzer produces a spectral plot of frequency versus amplitude and reveals the frequency content of the analyzed scund signal. This allows the i dentification of any recurring noise at specific frequencies and indicates if the characteristic frequencies of the plant are audible at any of the noise sensitive locations. 4.2 Results and Discussion

n accordance with the specifications for the Environmental Noise Survey of the Davis-Besse Unit No.

1, meteorological data collected by the on-site meteorological tower during the s u r v 'r y are shown in Table X. The data include the date and time plus the hourly average wind speed, wind direction, temperature, temperature lapse rate, dew point and relative humidity. The collected noise data are shown in Tables XI thru XIV. These tables include an identification code, the date, time, wind speed, wind direction, L 10' '50' '90 and L,q statistical descriptors plus octave band sound pressure levels at each location for each measurement time. These weather data were compiled from 15 minute average data collected at the 10 meter level from the on-site meteorological tower, $q:p) AccusTic TECHNOLOGY I

except where noted. Frequency spectrum plots are included in Appendix A for typical measurement locations and times. The plots are a representation of sound pressure levels at different frequencies. These spectra wiLL allow identification of plant noise scurces and their impact at the i noise sensitive locations. Appendix B contains typical histograms of the statistical distribution vf varying noise levels at the identified noise sensitive locations. These histograms provide the range in sound levels that are found at the measurement points. Appendix C contains cumulative percent distribution curves derived from the histogram values in Appendix B. 4.2.1 Power Plant Noise Characteristics and Noise Levels The on-site survey locations (shown in Table IX and Map 1) provide information useful in characterizing the full load operational power plant noise spectra and its propagation to the site boundaries. Table XI shows the date, time, weather 10' 50' '90 and L statistical descriptors plus conditions, L i octave band noise levels for each on-site measurement location ) and time. The statistical deta provide insight into the 4 identification of the major noise sources. The octave band breakdown plus the frequency spectrum plots in Appendix A provide information about the noise content of each piece of analyzed plant equipment. - (w^ 1 y ACOUSTIC TECHNCLOGY IN

~ d 4.2.1a cooling Tower 4 The cooling tower noise is characterized by measurement location C1. This measurement point (approximately 100 feet from the cooling tower) will, because of its close location to the tower, provide noise information which will reflect only the contribution of noise from the tower itself. Table XI and Appendix A.1 suggest that the characteristic cooling tower noise is the same as was predicted; constant and continuous. The equivalent noise level (L ) is approximately 71 dBA at eq this close point. The octave band noise levels and spectral analysis indicate that there are no dominant frequencies which will cause pure tone impact or which will propagate to any of the noise sensitive locations. Also, the predictive technique employed in Section 3.2.1 predicts a noise level of approximately 75 dBA at 100 feet away from the cooling tower. This suggests that the cooling tower predicted levels are i slightly high (about 3-4 dBA) at each of the sensitive locations. Modifying Table V by 3 dBA would result in low L eq values. This suggests no noise impact of the cooling tower at the noise sensitive locations. 4.2.1b Pump House P .) The pump house noise can best be characterized by looking at l the results of the measurements taken at G1, approximately 50 feet east of the pump house. The pump house noise, regardless P(yf,j AccusnC TECHNOLOGY INC. w 4 e, ,,.--e- .,.-,,.. m,-_ --.-e.v ,.y _y ,-.,,,_,.,,,.n,,.., p. ,ry_,,., 7

I 4 of weather conditions, seems to be very high, as is indicated by the statistical descriptors of Table XI. The frequency spectrum analysis, Appendix A.2 and A.3, suggest that the pump house noise has a large component at 967.5 Hz and its associated harmonics of 1935, 2902.5, 3870 and 4837.5 Hz. t Examination of the octave band noise level breakdown verifies this. The octave band containing 967.5 Hz, the 1000 Hz band, shows a value 6-15 decibels higher than the neighboring octave bands. This suggests that if the pump house noise will have an impact at the nearest noise sensitive locations, it will be i distinguished by a noticeable amplitude at the 967.5 Hz frequency and an apparent increase in the 1000 Hz octave band. 4.2.1c Transformer 1 The transformer noise is best characterized by observing the l results of the measurements taken at T1, approximately 50 feet north of the transformer. The statistical descriptors of Table XI suggest that the transformer noise is quite high. The equivalent noise level (L ) ranged from 72 to 76 dBA at 50 feet from the transformer. Also, the octave band noise levels indicate the presence of a harmonic in the 125 Hz band, as was predicted in Section 3.2.2. The frequency spectrum analysis (see Appendix A.4 and A.5) shows the clear presence of the harmonic at 120 Hz and the associated higher i frequencies of 240, 360, 480, 600, 720 and 840 Hz. The 967.5 l Hz spike evident in Appendix A.4 and A.5 is the pump house I I. / ) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. l 49 I

fundamental frequency. The transformer noise, as well as the pump house

noise, therefore, exhibits distinct frequency content.

This allowed the identification of the contribution of the transformer noise to the noise levels at each of the other measuring locations. 4.2.1d Propagation to Site Boundary in order to study the propagation of the identifiable plant no.ise to the site boundary, noise measurements were made along a line running north-east from the transformer (i.e. T2 and T3; see Map 1) and at the intersection of the site boundary with a line connecting the transformer _to the nearest resident (i.e. T4; see Map 1). The results of the measurements made at T2 suggest that the combined noise emitted from the transformer and pump house is attenuated about 15 decibels in the 700 feet from T1. The statistical descriptors of Table XI, the octave band noise levels (see Table XI) and the frequency spectrum amplitudes (see Appendix A), are all attenuated after moving from T1 to T2. The frequency spectra (see Appendix A.6 and A.7) still exhibit pronounced spikes at the transformer harmonics (120,

240, 360, 480, 600, 720 and 840 Hz) and the pump house fundamental frequency (967.5 Hz).

These spikes, though, are much lower in amplitude than the measurements at T1. my') Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. .l

~- -.m-- s-m-e. Moving even farther along this north-easterly

line, measurement point T3 (approximately 2500 feet from the transformer) is encountered.

At this measurement point, the increased distance from the power plant center has only a slight attenuating effect on the statistical descriptors, L10' 1 L L and L as is seen in Table XI. The contribution of 50' 90 the power plant to the measured noise levels at this 4 measurement location, however, has been largely attenuated by the increased distance. This is seen by comparing the octave i band breakdown from T2 and T3 (see Table XI) and comparing the frequency spectra (see Appendix A) of the same locations (i.e. T2 and T3). The octave band noise levels in the ranges characteristic of the power plant (i.e. 125 and 1000 Hz) have been attenuated by between 5 and 20 decibels. Also, the A.10) show decreases in frequency spectra (see Appendix A.8 the amplitude of the harmonics at 120, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720, 840 and 967.5 Hz of at least 15 decibles. This suggests that the statistical descriptor noise levels have remained l between 50 and 60 dBA (which corresponds to an L

1. "9' dn l

l 56 to 66 dBA at the site boundary) mainly because of ambient i ( noise sources and only negligibly because of the power plant noise sources. Figure 1 is a three dimensional graph showing the frequency spectrum as a function of distance away from the transformer. This figure pictorially summarizes the changes in the frequency spectrum of the plant noise as one moves away from l l M NM AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. w L

{ the plant. As was noted before, the amplitude of the dominant plant- *requencies noticeably decreases as the distance from the transformer increases. As the distance from the ' transformer approaches the distance of the nearest resident, SS, from the plant, the frequency spectrum suggests that the power plant noise will fall below the ambient noise level. i The results of the measurements taken at T4 further support this conclusion. All of the statistical noise levels (see i Table XI) are quite low. This can be accounted for by the calm wind conditions which prevailed during the measurement and the increase in dis *ance from the lakefront (which will decrease wave noise) as compared to T3. The octave band noise i levels are consistent with ambient conditions (see Table XI) and the frequency spectrum analysis shows only one small spike l at 120 Hz (see Appendix A.11). Obviously, the dominant plant i frequencies are not present and ambient noise is contributing, in large part, to the existing noise levels. f 4.2.2 Sensitive Location Noise Characteristics and Noise I Levels T The off-site measurement locations (shown in Map 1 and Table IV) provide the tequired information in order to assess the operational impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Tables XII thru XIV show the date, time, weather conditions, L10' '50' '90 8"d 'eq statistical descriptors plus octave band Q s a i Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. %J

noise levels for each of the measurement locations and times. 1 The statistical data provide information concerning absolute i noise levels at each of the sensitive locations. The octave band analyses plus_the frequency spectra in Appendix A provide insight to the source of the noise at each of the measurement points. 4.2.2a S 2, S3 and S4 To best understand the noise evident at S2, a nearby wildlife refuge, the measurement locations and times S2A, S2B and S2C 4 will be most informative. The weather conditions, date, time, statistical descriptors and octave band noise levels can be found in Table XII. The spectrum analysis of S2B and S2C can be found in Appendix A.12 and A.13. As can be seen from Map 1, the measurement location S2 is in close proximity to the lakefront. From this, it is expected that the noise levels i j present at this location will be due largely to wave noise and wiLL be strongly dependent on the wind speed. The results j tabulated in Table XII tend to support this conclusion. The statistical descriptors, L 10' '50' '90 8"d 'eq are high for the measurement times with strong winds and relatively low for f b. times with low wind speeds. The octave band noise levels as I well as the frequency spectra indicate that there are no pure i tones and that the dominant power plant frequencies are not { present. i

)

nw Qk AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. w - -.. -. -.. _, - -...,. -.. - -,,,. - - -, - -.. -,, - -, - - -, ~ ~, - -

S3A, S38 and 53C measurement times provide detailed information concerning the ambient noise at sensitive location S3, the Carroll Township School (see Map 1).

Table XII contains all of the relevant information concerning the measurement site and times and Appendix A.14 and A.15 are the frequency spectra for S3B and S3C respectively. The are very low 10' '50' '90

• "d 'n statistical descriptors, L (L

worst cases are below 50 dBA) so that little eq consideration needs to be given to the impact of full load operation of the power plant. The octave band noise levels and frequency spectra show no pure tones or power plant characteristic frequencies. This suggests

that, as was predicted, plant noise is not audible at the nearest school.

The ambient noise at the nearest

cemetery, S4, is best characterized by the measurement points S4A, S4B and S4C.

Table XII contains relevant weather information, the gg, 50' '90

• "d 'eq plus the octave statistical descriptors L L

band noise levels. Appendix A.16 and A.17 are the frequency spectrum plots for S4B and S4C respectively. Again, there is a strong correlation between the wind speed and the L10' '50' L and L noise levels. The higher the wind speed, the 90 higher the recorded noise levels. The measurement taken during the calmest conditions,

S4C, indicates that the

[ l absolute noise levels are very low. The L value is only 41 dBA, with contributions entirely from non plant related noise sources. This conclusion is further supported by the j I kW C ;) AcOusuc TECHNOLOGY INC. g

frequency spectrum plots and octave band noise levels. The i spectrum analysis (see Appendix A) shows no dominant plant frequencies and the octave band noise levels (see Table XII) show no pure tones in the frequency ranges of interest (i.e. 125 and 1000 He octave bands). This suggests that the plant provides a negligible contribution to the noise at the Locust Point Cemetery. 4.2.2b Nearest Resident, S5 Table XIII contains all of the relevant information concerning the measurements taken at location 55. The table lists an identification

code, the date,

time, temperature, relative 10' '50' '90 and L humidity, wind speed, wind direction, L noise

levels, plus the octave band analysis at each mea s u rement time.

Typical frequency spectra can be found in Appendix A.18 through A.23. Because of the proximity of this location to the lakefront, the measured noise levels will exhibit a noticeable dependence on wind speed. This expectation is supported by the information contained in Table 10' 50' '90 and L are XIII. The statistical descriptors, L eq strongly dependent on wind speed. High wind speeds (approximately 12-20 mph) exhibit L values in the range of 55 to 65 dBA. Lower wind speeds (between 8-12 mph) provide p L values between 50 and 55 dBA. Calm wind speeds (0-8 mph) eq exhibit a range of 45 to 50 dBA. This suggests that wind and wave noise account for the major portion of the measured noise.h Acoustic TECHNOLOGY IN w

b levels. The octave band noise levels in Table XIII show no presence of pure tones which may be annoying to the residents. The frequency spectra (see Appendix A.18 thru A.23) show that the noise measured at SS exhibits a slight dependence on the power plant. The 120 Hz and 967.5 Hz frequencies exhibit small constant spikes (about 40 and 30 dB respectively) in all of the spectra. The annoyance potential of these pure tones is dependent upon the background noise levels. If the background noise levels are high, as with high winds, it is impossible to notice the plant noise. If the background noise levels are low, the plant noise can be observed in the linear frequency spectra. However, the human ear does not respond to noise in a linear fashion. Figure 2 shows three weighting scales which are used by acoustic engineers. The A scale was derived to simulate the frequency response of the human ear. This figure reveals that the human ear deemphasizes low frequencies (below 1000 Hz) and slightly favors frequencies between 1000 and 5000 Hz. This leads to the conclusion that, even with low ambient noise levels, the plant noise will have no annoyance effect on the residents at SS. 4.2.2c Nearest Wildlife Refuge, S1 The results of the measurements performed at the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge are contained in Table XIV. This table lists, as before, an identification code, the date, time, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, L 10' 50' eih Q3 AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. w I

4 octave band breakdown at L and L,q noise levels, plus,the 90 every measurement time. Appendix A.24 through A.29 contain frequency spectra for select measurement times and conditions. The measurement point S1, as with S S, exhibits noise levels which are dependent on prevailing wind and wave conditions. As before, high win'd speeds (12-20 mph) produce L values in the 54-70 dBA range. Lower speeds (7-12 mph) provide L eq values in the range of 50-55 dBA. Very low wind speeds (0-7 mph) exhibit a range of 45-50 dBA as the L noise level. The i octave band frequency breakdown shows no unusual or noticeable pure tones. Lastly, the frequency spectra in Appendix A indicate small noise spikes of 45 and 30 d8 at 120 and 967.5 Hz respectively. As at S S, these spikes are relatively j' constant over the cross section of conditions and times, and i become more or less potentially audible depending upon background noise levels.

Hence, the power plant characteristic frequencies will be noticeable in the linear spectrum o n t, y under low background noise conditions.

As was previously discussed, the response of the human ear to noise i composed of different frequencies is not linear. The A weighting scale (shown in Figure 2) closely simulates the j actual human ear response. Because of the deemphasis of low frequencies (less than 1000 Hz), the plant noise will not be i noticeable to humans at the nearest wildlife refuge. l l l,e /@ Accusuc TECHNOLOGY INC. se i l L

4.3 Measured Operational h N ise Level contour Map 50 The operational measurement noise data for the Davis-Besse i Nuclear Power Station was used to estimate an A-weighted L 50 noise level contour map (see Map 2). The contour lines were estimated by the ATI sound propagation computer model. The i compute-model takes into account sound propagation loss factors. These factors are: l l 1. Atmospheric Absorption { 2. Spherical Wave Divergence 3. Ground Condition Effects t 4. Local Barrier Effects, and I j 5. Wind Effects. i To predict the sound contours, yearly average meteorological i data (i.e. temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and wind j -- direction) were used. All ground conditions and local topographical features were obtained from direct readings of the appropriate USGS maps. Actual measurement noise levels i and locations were used by the computer model to extrapolate i the measured noise levels to encompass the entire vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The results of this analysis provided the 40, 50, 60 and 70 dBA sound contours and these contours were then drawn on a site map. N l:Jj AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. w

t 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS Zn order to be able to objectively judge the operational I iOpact. of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station on the environmental noise conditions, -two scales need to be 1 employed. One scale converts the equivalent sound levels to an equivalent day-night sound level (L ch ads (L,q) DN a. weighting for the more sensitive evening hours. The EPA uses this sound level (i.e. L " 9 "9 DN i absolute noise in a residential community. EPA guidelines require that the L a g un c mmun y e ess than 55 DN dBA. Comparing the preoperational to operational noise levels (as Stevens, Rosenblith and Bolt suggest) provides another I scale against which the impact of the power plant can be judged. If measured noise levels exhibit no appreciable increase due to the full load operation of the station, then i it can be concluded that ambient noise is masking the noise i produced by the operation of the plant. Finally, the HUD I j criteria of classifying noise environments as " acceptable", "normally acceptable", "normally unacceptable", or " unacceptable" will be considered [8, 9, 10]. i f 5.1 Carroll Township School, S3 j The impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station at the l nearest school (i.e. S3) was predicted to be negligible. The i 1 k Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. 49 i l

recorded measurements performed at this location confirmed this fact. None of the measur d L values, including those taken with extremely high winds, exceeded 48 dBA. This converts to an L ng alm dnds, the L was DN eq recorded as 36 dBA which is equivalent to an L sound level DN of 42 dBA. Obviously, the operation of the power plant does not effect the noise levels at this sensitive location.

Also, the octave band sound levels indicate the lack of pure tones caused by the station near the school.

The measured noise levels at S3 are considered "normally acceptable" by HUD i criteria. 5.2 Locust Point Cemetery, M The impact of the plant operation at the nearest cemetery can 1 best be judged by comparing the preoperational survey results directly to the operational measurements. P4 and S4 are measurement points which are the same location tested before the plant started full load operation and after full load operation began. The preoperational survey results provide L sound levels in the 35-46 dBA range. Only unoer extremely 50 windy conditions (about 20 moh wind speeds) did operational survey results exceed this range. Aside from this extremely high wind speed, the measured L sound levels are between 40 and 48 dBA. These values correspond to L sound levels of 46 DN and 54 dBA respe:tively, both of which lie within the EPA requirements. The octave band analysis suggests inat there h@9 Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC.

di. are no pure tones present at the cemetery. The noise measurements at S4 are classified as "normally acceptable" by HUD criteria. 5.3 Magee State Marsh, M The Magee State Marsh is located very close to the shore of Lake Erie. Because of this closo proximity to the lakefront, it can be expected that measured noise levels will be high due to wind and wave noise. As Table XII indicates, the measured noise levels at S2 are rather high (L values range from H dn to 64 dBA) and do illustrate a correspondence with wind speed, (i.e. the higher the wind speed the higher the measured noise levels). Also, the predictive techniques employed in Chapter 3.0 suggest that S2 is too far from the power plant to notice any effect from plant operation. This is confirmed by examining the frequency spectrum plots A.12 and A.13. None of the dominant plant frequencies are present, implying no plant impact. Hence, the high noise levels measured at S2 are due to conditions which existed before the plant began operations (i.e. ambient conditions). Because of this, the high L DN values are nat attributable to plant noise. The HUD criteria classify the measured noise levels at S2 as "normally a c c e p t a b l e . I , ) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC.

5.6 ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, S1_ As with S2, the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge is very close to the shore of Lake Erie. This suggests that measured noise levels will be correlated to the wind speed. This is illustrated to be t:.e case as is shown in Table XIV and was discussed in Section 4.2.2c. Also, since preoperational survey locotion P1 corresponds to operational survey location 51, a direct comparison can be made. All of the preoperational survey measurements were performed when the recorded wind speeds were less than 10 mph. The recorded L 50 noise levels with these weather conditions were between 48 and 56 dBA. The L perational survey results for wind speeds 50 less than 10 mph all lie between 45 and 54 dBA. This suggests that the full load operation of the power station has had no effect on the noise conditions at the Ottawa Wildlife Refuge. For windspeeds less than 10 mph, the measured L noise levels range from 46 to 54 dBA. These equivalent noise levels correspond to L n ise levels f 52 and 60 dBA respectively. DN Once again, these equivalent day-night noise levels are not t very informative because preoperational L DN the same range. The measured operational frequency spectrum plots for location S1 (see Appendix A.24 through A.29) ao show slight indications of the presence of the dominant power station frequencies. Because of the response of the human ear to noise composed of different frequencies, however, it will f not be a source of annoyance. Another means to judge the f degree of impact of these dominant plant frequencies is to observe the octave band noise levels. Table XIV shows no ~29-Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. ed i

i presence of noticeable increases in either of the octave bands of interest (i.e. 125 and 1000 Hz frequency bands).

Hence, the plant is a negligible contributor to the noise levels measured at the nearest wildlife refuge.

The noise measurements at S1 are considered to be '*no rma ll y acceptable" by HUD noise level criteria. J 5.5 Nearest Resident, SS The nearest resident to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is located 2,900 feet due north of the transformer, about 200 feet from the shore of Lake Erie. This location suggests, as i before, that measured noise levels will be strongly dependent on wind and wave noise. The preoperational survey location P3, though further from the plant site than SS, exhibits the same preoperational noise characteristics as SS. This comparison is valid because both locations are within very 1 ) close proximity to the lakefront and they are surrounded by similar terrain with similar noise sources. The preoperational survey L n ise levet.s at P3 ranged from 50 to 50 64 dBA for wind speeds between 0 and 10 mph. The operational survey results show L n ise levels which range from 51 to 64 50 dBA for wind speeds ranging from 0 to 20 mph. This suggests 1 that the operation of the plant has had no effect on measured noise levels. The equivalent noise levels (L ) f r the eo operational survey under weather conditions where the wind speeds did not exceed 10 mph range from 44 to 55 dBA. This ! j m) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. i l i - - _ _ _, _,. -. _ -, -. - - -. -, ~

~- 1 corresponds to a range of 50 to 61 dBA as an equivalent day-night (L se eve a equ e y e A. As at 31, DN the preoperational and full load operational L noise levels DN lie within the same range. This suggests that the plant is not the cause of the recorded high L noise levels. The DN frequency spectrum plots shown in Appendix A.18 thru A.23 exhibit. slight dependence on the power plant dominant frequencies. This plant noise will not be an annoyance to humans because of the nonlinear response of the human ear to 1 noise composed of different frequencies. Also, the extent of the measured dependence can be judged by observing the s relative octave band frequency noise levels in the frequency ranges of interest (namely, the 125 and 1000 Hz frequency bands). Table XIII shows no ob.-ious impact in either of the two ranges of interest leading tu the conclusion that there is no impact of full load operation of the power station at the nearest resident. The noise levels measured at S5 are j classified as "normally acceptable" by HUD criteria. Finally, it is worth mentioning the noise complaint history of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Since the start of full load operation of the power station, there have been no noise related complaints. This

suggests, as does this a na lys i s, that the operation o# the Davis-Besse Station has had no environmental noise impact in the vicinity of the power station.

l l h Acousnc TECHNOLOGY INC. qqs L

6.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS The preceding analysis of the environmental noise conditions at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station considered the preoperational noise levels previously measured, a prediction of the probable plant noise sources, an estimate of the likely i impact of the noise generating equipment on ambient noise levels, the m e a s u r e rc e n t of existing full load operational noise levels and a comparison of these full load noise levels to preoperational levels and the absolute standards set by the EPA. Based on this analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are made: 1. The major preoperational noise sources included wind and wave noise. These noise sources were especially noticeable at or near the lakefront. 2. The noise levels at S 3, the closest school to the power plant, are low and show no signs of impact i caused by the operation of the plant, as predicted. i 3. The nearest cemetery to the power

plant, S4, exhibits somewhat higher noise levels.

These levels ( are a result of wind, wave and traffic noise and i negligibly due to plant noise. This conclusion is based on the comparison of preoperational to full i Load operational noise levels. This comparison i ! Qi> ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY IN )

_i__ shows that measured operational levels are no higher than preoperational levels. This conclusion was 4 also suggested by the predictive methods. i 4. Location S 2, the Magee State Marsh, has noise levels i I as predicted. The closeness of_this location to the lakefront suggests that the high measured noise levels are caused by wind and wave noise. Also, the large distance between S2 and the power plant makes it impossible for the plant to be contributing to existing noise levels. This observation is supported by the lack of dominant plant frequencies in the noise composition at S2. 5. The measured noise levels at the closest wildlife l refuge, S1, are high. The close proximity of this i location to the lakefront suggests that wind and wave noise are the major contributors to these l Levels. The comparison of preoperational noise levets to full load noise levels shows that the plant operation has had little effect on the noise levels at S1. The frequency spectra indicate the slight presence of plant noise, but taking into 1 account the octave band analysis and allowing for i the frequency response of the human ear to noise shows that the effect is, in fact, negligible. ) ]

Acoustic TECHNOLOGY lNC.

~ 6. The nearest resident to the power plant, SS, has high measured operational noise levels. Again, the close location of this resident to the lakefront leads to the expectation that wind and wave noise are the key noise sources. The comparison of preoperational to' operational noise levels shows that the plant is not effecting existing noise levels. The frequency spectra, octave band analysis and the known response of the human ear support this Concl.usion. i 1 I i ) l , ) ( Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC.

==y g-2 TABLE I PREOPERATIONAL NOISE SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT THE . DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION MAY 16-18, 1974 i r LOCATION DESCRIPTION P1 On the lakefront, in the northern most corner of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge i P2 On the plant site, approximately 1000 ft due east of the cooling tower i P3 On the lakefront northwest of Sand Beach, approximately 1.3 miles from the plant i P4 At the Locust Point Cemetery, approximately 2000 ft due west of Route 2 PS At the intersection of Route 2 and the i main avenue.in Locust Point j P6 On the cove in Locust Point P7 In a rural area south-southwest of Locust Point on the south side of the Troussaint i River, approximately 1.8 miles from the site t 4 i - 3 5-Acoustic TECHNCLCGY INC. w

TABLE II METEOROLOGICAP. DATA FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE DURING THE PREOPERATIONAL BACKGROUND NOISE SURVEY MAY 16-18, 1974 Wind Wind Barometric Direction Speed Temperature Dew Point Pressure Time ( Fr. N.) (mph) ( F) ( F) (in. Hg.)

Friday, May 17, 1974 1100 180 10 69 68 29.89 1130 200

'O 71 68 ~ 1200 310 12 72 65 1230 340 7 73 64 1300 300 6 75 62 1330 320 7 79 62 1400 030 8 65 55 1930 080 4 59 52 29.48 2000 070 3 59 52 2030 070 3 59 52 2100 080 2 59 52 l 2200 080 3 59 52 2230 060 3 59 52 i 2300 050 3 59 52 2330 090 3 59 52 29.45 r% gj AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. w

TABLE II - CONTINUED Wind Wind Barometric Direction Speed Temperature Dew Point-Pressure _ mph) ( F) ( F) (in. Hg.) ( Time ( Fr. N.)

Saturday, May 18,1974-1000 060 7

58 41 1030' 040 7 58 41 1100 030 9 59 41 29.43 1130 030 8 61 43 1200 030 6 61 41 2000 060 8 62 44 29.41 2030 050 6 62 44 2100 030 9 61 44 2130 040 6 59 47 2200 030 6 59 48 2230 040 5 59 48 2300 030 6 59 48 29.44 i 4 i L - 3 7-Ab@p 4 AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC.

TABLE III PREOPERATIONAL L SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 50 OBTAINED AT THE DAVIS-BESSE SITE, MAY 17-18, 1974 FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1974 SATURDAY, MAY 18, 1974 LOCATION DAYTIME EVENING NIGHTTIME DAYTIME EVENING NIGHTTIME P1 48 50 49 54 56 54 P2 47 37 34 42 43 34 P3 50 56 52 63 64 61 P4 46 44 37 46 41 35 P5 50 42 37 44 42 36 P6 58 49 45 53 54 40 P7 42 44 33 40 43 35 - 3 8-Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC.

TABLE IV LOCATION OF CLOSEST NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS S1-Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 4,000 ft east of cooling tower on Lake Erie 2,300 ft NE of transformer S2-Magee State Marsh (Wildlife Refuge) 11,000 ft W-NW of cooling tower 12,600 ft NW of transformer S3-Carroll Elementary School 18,000 ft SW of cooling tower 19,000 ft SW of transforaer S4-Locust Point Cemetery 3,800 ft E-SE of cooling tower 5,000 ft E of transformer SS-Nearest Resident 2,700 ft NE of cooling tower 2,900 ft N of transformer i t I l l l i r I i e

i 1 TABLE V i PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE LOCATIONS FOR NOISE CONTRIBUTION OF COOLING TOWER i -5 (dB, re: 2 x 10 Nh2) (dBA) Location 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 L eq S1 40 44 41 35 36 35 24 0 0 39 S2 <33 <27 <34 <28 <31 <32 <30 <25 <16 <30 S3 <33 <27 <34 <28 <31 <32 <30 <25 <16 <30 S4 41 45 42 36 37 36 30 12 0 40 SS 45 49 46 40 41 42 37 25 5 45 1 4 f ?: :i Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. f?f i s; p

TABLE VI PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE LOCATIONS FOR NOISE CONTRIBUTION OF TRANSFORMER ~' (dB, re: 2 x 10 N/m ) (dBA) Location 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Leq S1 0 0 58 45 38 0 0 0 0 44 S2 0 0 43 30 24 0 0 0 0 29 S3 0 0 40 27 20 0 0 0 0 26 S4 0 0 51 38 32 0 0 0 0 37 SS C 0 56 43 37 0 0 0 0 42 j lff;AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC.

l e l TABLE VII PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE LOCATIONS FOR NOISE CONTRIBUTION OF STEAM RELIEF VALVES (dB re: 2x 10 gf,2) (dBA) -5 Location 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 L eq S1 0 0 70 77 83 83 74 27 0 0 90 S2 0 0 50 54 51 43 21 0 0 0 61 S3 0 0 42 43 40 13 0 0 0 0 44 S4 0 0 63 70 76 68 59 12 0 0 83 \\ SS 0 0 59 66 72 66 59 26 0 0 80 i

• During st?am expulsion.

i i l 1 Q< : ACOUSTIC TECHNOLO I

TABLE VIII TOTAL PREDICTED NOISE DUE TO FULL LOAD OPERATION OF DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ,1 } l 10 N/m ) (dBA) (dB, re: 2 x 1 Location 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Leq S1 40 44 58 45 40 35 24 0 0 45 S2 Less than ambient noise levels S3 Less than ambient noise levels S4 41 45 52 40 38 36 30 12 0 42 SS 45 49 57 45 42 42 37 25 5 47 [ l i i o - 4 3-d@) AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC. i g.-

4 TABLE IX NOISE SAMPLING LOCATIONS ON THE DAVIS-BESSE PLANT SITE DURING FULL LOAD OPERATIONAL NOISE SURVEY, MAY 23-25, 1983 _ LOCATION DESCRIPTION T1 Approxiraately 50 ft due north of transformer T2 Extreme northeast corner of parking lot, near marsh, approximately 750 ft from transformer T3 On North Dike Road, 2500 ft northeast of transformer T4 On North Dike Road, in a line between transformer and 55, 2500 ft north of transformer G1 Between water treatment building and transformer C1 Approximately 100 ft from cooling tower l l i i e e e i [ Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC.

m Table X: Hourly Average Meteorological Data at the 10 M Height Collected rom On-Site Meteorological Tower During the Full Load Operational Noise Survey at the Dawls-Besse Nuclear Power Station. May 23-25,1983. e e i i R.I tle. Sese es e.e.s..melte....ta. n o wt w eed ]i s o.a.d ( o.. resas n =6ais, t e.mo. s.iur.e p Temo s i.e. o to.ir..,is ne e. n.) to e r) t o. nei to.e #3 (s) .o s..o p.t. .um. amon) 4 i 1 5-23 0800 10.3 267 59 -1.1 55 87 2v.73e 5-23 0900 12.3 255 60 -1.5 55 85 29.749 ) 5-23 1000 14.2 259 et -1.8 54 79 29.769 ) 5-23 1100 15.3 256 63 -1.9 55 75 29.774 1 5-23 1200 64 -1.8 53 69 29.786 5-23 1300 65 -1.8 53 65 29.809 i 5-23 1400 66 -1.9 51 59 29.794 5-23 1500 89.6 275 66 -1.9 49 55 29.Wot 5-23 1600 18.9 275 67 -1.7 46 48 29.80t 5-23 1700 15.7 271 e s 489 50+ 29.839 4 5-23 1800 20.2 287 47 -1.6 466 54+ 29.856 j 5-23 1900 20.1 306 64 -1.7 474 606 29.864 5-23 2000 19.9 301 41 -1.4 464 64+ 29.876 5-23 2100 17.1 291 58 -0.8 469 6tt 29.89+ j-5-23 2200 17.2 302 58 -0.9 456 699 29.926 f 5-23 2300 19.3 322 50 -0.8 44+ 744 29.956 5-24 0000 18.1 320 55 -0.7 446 77+ 29.966 4 l 5-24 0100 14.3 321 54 -0.6 44+ 804 29.976 3 5-24 0200 12.8 321 54 -0.5 426 866 29.979 4: 5-74 0300 11.8 329 53 -0.3 424 93t 29.976 i 5-24 0400 6.5 292 51 t.1 446 936 29.986 j 5-24 0500 5.9 278 50 2.1 446 09t 29.99+ 5-24 0600 6.1 313 51 1.2 41+ 936 30.0tt l 5-24 0700 6.1 338 52 0.0 47* 966 30.036 a y 5-24 0800 5.9 344 54 -l.4 49+ 896 30.046 j 5-24 0900 4.1 334 38 -1,2 34 87 30.056 5-24 1000 3.2 333 546 s 39 70s 30.076 5-24 8100 3.4 041 599 e 37 644 30.0?t ggf% 5-24 1200 3.4 163 634 e 4 Let 30.06t h,h., '. 5-24 1300 5.6 199 674 e 44 624 30.03t rf 5-24 8400 0.1 243 664 e 45 526 30.0?t ' 1;p 5-24 1500 9.7 250 e e 45 8 29.V94 i 5-24 2300 5.7 230 636 e 46 486 29.954 5-25 0000 5.1 228 62t e 46 546 29.934 5-25 0100 5.3 198 604 s 47 556 29.94+ 5-25 1000 0.7 251 See e 50 804 29.864 (7 5-25 1100 9.4 243 564 6 51 87t 29.864 i 5-25 1200 13.2 214 56+ 8 52 90+ 29.869 i 5-25 1300 13.0 214 596 e 53 876 29.936 () i --I Ul i () I a 2 C) r-() e unavantable due to eautement calibratton C) e froa evteurolostcal tower at Toledo Eneress 4treort MMZO i 9 l

Table Xt: Results of the On Site. Full Load Operational Noise Survey of the Davis-Desse Nuclear Power Station, May 23-25, 1983. ~ ocee.e sees aaeaveae sees eiices osec .i.,e noi. wena tasal cas T Hum. speed Wlag ( e.o meF1 (s) (mpn) Dae-Leo L60 Leo Leg 33 63 126 260 600 en 2n du en t6m Lesation8.D. Date T im e g 11 si L-23 0955 63 790 it.1 250 72.3 11.9 71.3 71.c 64 ?? 83 70 71 6e 60 L3 44 3L 11 b L-24 IOLO L94 64e 2.5 23L 77.5 7.o 14.0 /L./ 12 7e 81 16 ?? 69 56 4/ 40 34 12 A L-23 1018 64 758 15.4 254 59.0 57.0 5L.3 L7.3 62 64 71 L6 54 53 48 43 28 17 12 P L-24 1031 Lvo 64s 3.6 15/ $9.0 57.0 L*s. 8 57.2 e4 62 61 54 50 50 39 30 !? le I3 A 5-23 1300 65 65s + 4 60.0 59.0 58.0 59.1 6e Le 53 50 52 49 49 46 36 30 f3 L-23 1638 6e 21.0 288 58.8 L7.8 57.5 5U.0 63 56 53 49 49 46 43 39 32 22 f3 C L-24 0630 54 96s 6.2 344 51.5 50.5 L0.0 LO. 57

• 2 47 42 43 44 42 40 30 17 1

T3 D L-24 111 ti 63e Los L.3 129 49.5 4/.O 4o.3 47.1 5' 55 51 4L 41 40 Ju 27 20 to i 13 E L-2L 1032 Lee 874 13.7 247 52.0 50.8 49.0 LO.o 60 57 L2 48 48 46 41 35 25 19 14 '-24 064v L4 968 L.3 340 50.0 48.3 47.3 50.2 58 t. 45 39 40 40 39 43 2L 20 t. Ah $ we))l N.q ;- 61 A L-23 100% of 7Le 15.1 250 85.3 81.8 78.L e2.5 Le 7v .' l '. c9 75 06 60 47 32 61 P L-24 1004 LVs 648 2.9 /0 87.8 84.3 81.0 84.7 79 19 13 12 72 EL 68 61 49 32 O C k C1 e 24 3L0 628 549 L.3 188 78.3 71.0 70.u 70.8 to 59 58 55 61 63 o4 63 59 46 O H m O

• r.

'd ,,t. t n... o... ,.e., r i v o e,.,,,.. t o o. o i m a n.s e t., ~*'$'- a' ' a * '* t c a t e t' '

• t ' ** *

> a v a i t a e ! ".- ne c e a. "o f r-w.r e t t asil .s !.a e an.1., m e s e t t.i t b t J t s er. Q +4 O< W ..O

..~... -. ._-.~ s ( 1 l Table Xil: Results of the Full Load Operational Noise Survey of the Dawls-Besse Nuclear Power Station 9 at Sensitive Locations S2, S3. S4. May 23-25,1983. 1 i i si.es.ies. o......... oci... a.ae A a.s v.s. n wi sasa sans u s. s e.n.e v a. a wina g t o.. i s.. o.o. o.. T im. to =e e r) (m) (men) oir. t,, ts, t,, L., as as its aso 500 in en .a sa seu S2 A 5-23 1210 65 65e

• +

++ 56.5 56.3 55.8 56.1 48 58 54 44 43 45 40 34 29 23 S2 9 5-23 20 t 'J Su 648 15.2 294 56.3 57.5 56.8 58.2 75 63 49 4W 49 4? 44 48 35 2B $2 C 5-24 2230 63e 48e 5.3 229 57.3 49.5 46.3 52.2 54 50 53 47 46 40 35 24 16 16 . I l! I t S3 A 5-23 1840 65 699 ++ 6+ 48.3 47.5 46.8 48.0

58. 43 41 37 40 43 37 35 30 32 I

4 i S3 9 5-23 2038 58 64* 16.6 308 49.3 47.8 47.0 48.1 52 45 41 35 33 31 29 28 28 17 S3 C 5-24 2250 6Je 486 5.1 226 36.0 35.5 35 3 36.0 48 42 45 30 d7 20 84 14 14 to I j S4 A 5-23 1317 66 599 17.0 286 47.8 46.5 46.0 47.8 63 58 44 42 43 38 36 32 28 17 [c e)) - S4 9 5-23 2053 57 648 19.9 386 55 8 55.5 55.5 55.8 54 49 45 41 40 38 35 29 22 !? S T' S4 C 5-24 2308 62s 546 4.6 202 41.5 39.8 38.3 40.9 52 49 47 37 36 35 24 22 16 16 M O i O C

• ob t a a r.ed from hourtw averase meteorotosical data Q

t unavantable because of eautement calibration i ++ ur.re t t abl e value because of emusement calibration l 1 m O IZO r-OO W ~ O. 9 k

ti q l \\ I i i i lable X111: Results of the Full Load Operational Noise Survey of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station at Sensitive Location SS (Nearest Residence). May 23-25, 1983. 3 4 l 1 s,.... .... o.......... o....e....a...... j Rel. wgne (aga) (gg) T o ms-Hum. spees W.ed L#c.ttoa BJD. Date 76m e toeg F) (sl fuent Die. t,0 L60 L90 L.4 32 63 t?S 250 600 cm Fu 4K su 16K 55 At 5-23 0809 60 874 12.3 267 52.8 58.0 50.3 51.6 57 54 50 43 45 45 42 40 35 22 1 SS bl 5-23 1045 64 75e 66 ++ 55.8 54.3 53.5 54.3 57 55 50 43 42 41 43 42 33 29 [ 55 Cl 5-23 3230 67 459 +6 ++ 62.3 61.0 59.5 40.9 60 59 57 52 51 48 46 47 37 30 SS D1 5-23 1332 66 59s 18.0 276 54.0 53.0 52.0 53.3 54 56 55 47 51 49 46 46 36 23 j 55 El 5-23 1418 47 55*. 19.5

61 56.8 53.8 52.5 55.3 55 55 53 51 51 52, 50 50 40 34 j

SS FI 5-23 1452 66 558 19.1 264 55,8 53.3 52.3 53.7 63 40 23 49 44 44 44 41 IS 25 SS 01 5-23 1507 4/ tus 14.3 312 63.8 68.5 60.0 61.8 58 56 55 58 47 47 46 41 34 26 j' SS M1 5-23 teOS 67 506 19.8 283 64.3 63.0 48.3 62.8 60 57 54 ' 50 51 52 49 45 41 33 SS 11 5-23 1620 67 50s 19.8 283 53.0 51.3 30.0 53.3 58 53 52 47 46 46 47 45 48 33 SS J1 5-23 1952 5b 649 16 3 284 59.3 58.5 58.0 59.6 58 58 55 54 53 51 53 51 43 30 S5 h1 5-23 2000 58 64s 37.Y 291 40.5 58.8 58.5 59.3 60 56 54 53 53 55 52 50 45 31 S5 Lt 5-23 2200 56 69e 17.3 319 $7.5 56.5 55.3 56.5 58 56 55 53 50 51 50 46 38 27 i SS nt 5-23 2207 56 748 17.3 319 60.8 59.8 58.8 60.6 62 54 52 51 50 51 50 46 38 27 i I i SS N1 5-23 2228 55 74s 19.2 318 65.0 63.5 61.0 63.4 65 57 59 55 52 52 53 52 46 32 j 5: S5 01 5-23 2243 55 748 17.4 320 63.0 42.3 60.8 61.9 71* 62 59 55 53 52 53 49 48 29 Cf SS Pt 5-24 0002 54 808 13.6 322 59.3 58.0 57.3 59.2 63 59 54 50 49 48 47 50 37 30 j SS Q1 5-24 0010 54 80s 13.5 318 58.8 57.8 57.5 57.9 55 53 53 49 47 48 48 46 36 2v l $5 R1 5-24 0017 54 80s 23.5 318 60.0 59.5 59.0 60.2 60 58 54 51 53 53 51 49 39 28 l i SS St 5-24 0027 54 Bos 13.6 321 58.3 57.3 57.0 57.4 63 55 53 50 48 49 46 44 37 32 i i 55 12 5-24 0033 54 804 13.6 321 55.5 54.0 53.5 54.7 54 56 51 49 49 47 47 43 34 2e 1 SL 11 5-24 0143 53 Gas 10.7 328 55.5 53.8 52.5 54.4 54 52 51 45 47 47 45 44 34 22 j 55 ul 5-24 0151 53 See 10.7 328 56.0 52.8 52.0 53.9 55 55 50 48 51 48 47 45 37 28 i SS V1 5-24 0157 53 868 10.6 325 53.3 52.0 51.0 52.8 63 54 53 48 50 49 48 46 38 27 j SS WI 5-24 0208 53 938 8.6 322 55.3 53.5 51.5 53.5 58 58 55 48 46 45 43 40 33 26

1. s.uT 55 At 5-24 0215 53 936 8.6 322 54.3 53.3 51.3 53.1 40 53 52 47 46 44 43 to 32 22 4

((f 6' S Y1 5-24 0655 54 96: 4.3 324 52.3 50.0 49.0 50.7 54 48 45 38 38 40 43 43 35 32 g}g}j SS Z1 5-24 0/04 54 890 4.3 324 50.0 48.8 48.3 50.6 55 50 46 42 39 39 48 42 32 25 4 4 3 S5 A2 5-24 1142 63e See 5.y 225 47.0 43.0 43.5 44.2 57 53 48 37 37 36 32 32 28 23 '3> SS D2 5-24 1851 438 56 5.9 225 49.8 45.8 43.8 46.7 54 50 48 38 35 34 33 28 20 16 i j Il S5 C2 5-24 1200 67s 620 7.9 241 53.5 46.5 42.3 49.5 55 53 50 38 37 37 32 32 28 17 l C) S5 D2 5-24 2330 628 544 5.4 193 49.3 47.3 46.3 47.5 55 50 49 44 44 43 40 32 23 17 1 C: SS E2 5-25 1051 568 87 9.4s 243s 56.3 54.3 53.0 55.1 60 53 50 44 46 46 45 44 38 28 ()__ i, r --I IQ s obtanned from hourtw averase meteorolostral data j I) + uriavail at le because of euuiement c a l i b r a t s or. hh I +6 unreliable value because of counement calibration 5 1 a-C) r-C) C) 4 4 j i LC I f) i. m-

Table XIV: Flesults of the Full Load Operational Noise Survey of the Dawls-Desse Nucleaf Power Station at Sensitive Location S1 (Ottawa National Wildlif e Flef uge). :As.y 23-25, 1983. s eess eels es oc es.aoi e. oetese e ad anesw een H ee. Wand (dBA) (68) Temp Hum. $ peed W 6e d tosselon 1.D. Dato fame (deg F) (s) tmon)

Dir, LIO SO 190 to g 32 63 e2$ 250 S00 en 2n 4K eK e6s E

51 al 5-23 0910 62 79e 14.4 255 St.e 50.5 49.5 50.7 59 56 52 44 44 45 43 41 34 20 St bl 5-23 1105 64 6Yo +t ++ $8.0 54.5 52.5 55.5 49 52 48 43 45 45 41 40 36 2C 31 Lt 5-23 1250 66 65e $8.3 56.8 56.3 57.4 62 56 53 46 44 45 44 41 33 23 S3 D1 5-23 1351 66 59s 16.0 272 57.8 57.0 56.5 55.1 53 55 52 48 to 45 45 45 35 29 Si tt 5-23 143/ e/ Ste 19.8 J71 56.5 53.0 53.0 54.6 65 53 52 51 4c 46 43 42 37 29 Sa fI 5-23 1530 46e 4be 20.4 ??g 59.B $7.5 57.0 57.7 61 56 54 50 51 53 49 4' 38 28 St G1 5-23 1543 46e 4He 20.0 273 59.! 50.0 57.3 58.2 40 c5 60 52 53 55 52 51 38 28 St H1 5-23 164W oo 's0 s 21,0 2HO 60.3 58.5 57.0 50.8 61 55 54 47 48 4e is 45 35 11 hl Il 5-23 1652 66 50e 21.0 28a 60.3 59.8 58.0 50.0 63 52 51 45 45 41 45 43 35 2.' St Ji 5-23 1922 SY 64e 10.5 297 61.0 60.0 59.5 60.2 54 ta 57 53 52 51 52 4? 40 28 Si h3 5-23 1930 58 64s nL." '89 62.5 60.0 59.5 60.6 57 55 55 53 51 52 49 is 3e 2/ Si

t. !

5-23 210b 57 69s 18.9 315 59.0 58.0 57.0 58.1 53 54 53 52 51 52 49 45 37 24 St M1 5-23 2115 57 696 18.9 315 59.3 57.3 56.0 57.7 59 55 54 53 53 51 50 49 41 32 I I St N1 5-23 2122 5/ 69e 10.9 315 58.J 56.8 55.3 59.0 53 55 55 53 51 50 47 43 36 27 42 51 08 5-23 2141 Le 69e 19.9 322 59.3 57.8 56.0 57.0 50 55 54 54 53 53 52 49 41 28 'f St F1 5-23 2303 55 77e 17.4 320 75.5 60.0 57.0 49.5 58 57 55 52 52 52 50 49 42 3? SI 01 5-23 2310 55 77e 15.4 321 41.8 60.3 59.5 40.4 59 54 53 53 52 52 L2 50 47 3L St At 5-23 2324 54 77e 14.4 319 60.3 59.3 58.3 59.7 37 55 55 53 53 51 48 47 40 29 S1 S1 5-23 2331 54 77e 14.4 319 58.3 57.0 55.0 57.3 70 S4 53 52 50 51 49 45 39 35 Si ft 5-23 2330 54 77s 14.0 320 60.3 50.8 57.5 50.8 56 55 54 52 52 51 50 49 39 26 S1 ul 5-24 0053 54 80s 11.0 321 58.3 56.5 55.3 56.9 57 55 55 53 50 50 49 47 36 20 S1 Vt 5-24 0050 54 80s 18.8 321 59.8 50.8 57.3 59.9 65 50 55 54 52 50 51 49 39 ?? Si W1 5-24 0110 54 86e 13.0 324 56.5 54.8 54.0 56.0 54 57 55 54 53 50 45 45 42 30 g#' t St x1 5-24 0116 54 86s 13.0 324 58.0 57.0 55.8 56.9 54 54 55 52 50 49 50 46 41 30 {fl l[ 51 Y1 5-24 0129 53 86s .2.8 330 57.3 55.8 55.0 55.8 60 56 54 53 51 50 48 44 38 27 51 21 5-24 0615 54 96e 7.4 351 55.0 54.0 53.3 54.3 65 54 51 51 47 48 47 44 37 24 g(;_; 4 St A2 5-24 0622 54 968 7.4 351 54.3 53.5 53.0 53.4 65 58 54 50 48 48 48 45 38 27

• -24 1051 59s 64e 3.7 348 47.5 44.0 45.3 44.3 56 53 50 45 42 39 3P 37 29 10 51 b2 y,

s $1 C2 5-24 1058 59e e4s 3.9 152 47.8 46.0 45.0 46.5 56 54 49 44 41 36 35 25 27 17 g) St D2 5-24 1107 a3e See 3.9 152 47.5 45.8 45.0 46.1 56 55 50 45 40 38 38 35 2: 21 () St E2 5-24 1024 56e e/* 9.4s 243s 49.0 4a.3 47.5 4a.1 58 56 53 43 42 42 39 35 26 is C: 5 -1 e obtaar.ed from hourts averase e<eteorolodscal date pq 6 uraave t t able because of wou t p oerit calabratios. g ][ ++ ut.reltable value because of c ou s e m er.t c a l i b r a t t or. ZOr-O O

T u

O.

120 / 480 240 360 '00 720 967.5-Ql V ~ / ~ __________,so f--____......._.. y .i 90 - --- / ~ 100 750 a g en 80 - ~ _a O W o 70 - 8 C. o t' D Do 4 $. 60 - 4 9 o 1 m [g 50 - [9 O Y D C 40 -

• 4

t "

D g) f 30 - 2500 20 0 100 200300400 500600 700 8009001000 FREQUENCY (Hz) FIGURE 1: FREQUENCY SPECTRUM AS A FUNCTION OF DIST ANCE FROM TRANSFORMER. l l l (g AccusTic TECHNOLOGY INC.

E3 lin i I I I I la i W [ l[f ,, D ~ [ I -10 O / / l /B / -20 racevcucy acsec~scs g / roa seu acicarino cnaaacicasics C / 1 i -30 w /A -40 J l 1 m -50 C O O O O O M 3 X X X N to O O O T-N LO O O v-N to v-N FREQUENCY (HZ) FIGURE 2: FREQUENCY-RESPONSE CH A R ACTERISTICS IN THE AME RIC A N N ATION AL STANDARDS SPECIFIC ATION FOR SOUND-LEVEL METERS, A N S I-S 1. 4 - 19 71. sc, '?) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. g,

R E F E R EN ': E S C1] Bassiouni, M.R.: Outdoor Laund Propagation over Ground with Several Impedance Discontinuities" presented at the 104th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of

America, Orlando, Florida, November 1982.

[2] Bassiouni, M.R., et al.: Prediction and Experimental Verification of Far-field Sound Propagation over Varying Ground Surfaces," Inter-Noise '83, 1983. t C3] Bassiouni, M.R. and Sugumele, D.J.: " Prompt Notification Siren System Design, Power Engineering, 87-3 March 1983. . C6]

Capano, G.A.

and

Bradley, W.E.,

" Noise Prediction i Techniques for Sitting Large natural Draft and Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers", Stone Webster Engineering Corporation, Presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 1976. f C5]

Gordon, C.G.,

A Method for Predicting the Audible Noise i Emissions from Large Outdoors Power Transformers", Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc., Presented at the IEEE/ASME/ASCE L Joint Power Generating Conference, September 1978. i - 5 2-AccusTic TECHNO'.OGY INC. e-------vm=tv. -r,---m-e ~,,t..-.-e,-,m<..m,.m- - - - ---.-,..--wi -.,.---m - - ~ ~. ---,,~, -. > - - - - --, +. *,. - - -. - - - + - - - -

l i 1 4 e REFERENCES (Cont'd) l C6] Edison Electric Institute, " Electric Power Plant Environmental ~ Noise Guide," Volume 1, Prepared by Bolt i Beranek and Newman Inc., 1978, pp. 4.1-4.101. l C7] American National Standards Institute, Measurement of i Community Noise, ANSI S3-W-50, November 11, 1969. n [8] U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, " Noise Abatement and ' Control, Department Policy, Implementation Responsibilities, and Standards," i .[ Circular 1390.2 (July 16, 1971). t [9] Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on the Development of i Environmental Noise Requirements to Protect Public Health and Welfare with l an Adequate Margin of Safety," EPA 550/9-74-004 (March 1974). [10] Stevens, K.N., W. A. Rosenblith, and R. H. Bolt, "A Community's Reaction to i l Noise, Can It Be Forecasted?", Noise Control, Vol. 1, No.1, pp 63-71 l (January 1955). l s l r I, - 5 3-l@) AccusTic TECHNCLOGY INC. q;>- l [ o_,,

E z e z o w a J z e 2.A o 0 E

• d o<

2 O 2 0,24 O< 2 p o, ZU e o;w ei >W o e wasz 3 g

m 4O 430 O

,6

1. a C

2 CW m0. -d E g W 2W 3 wr>

><.w. " 3 EN o

o> o y ce> e z p; g =<a fO w f i z Gp f m Ew3 40 # e g l o m < a o b =* # I ase .as zoo C'Z E / l m =w a o o,oo o a e e o

• • I I

i co~z 8 / \\ a o e _)_ / I m z.c w a = 1 ,--,f.g; }g m.$* >r ,'R ee c.y Qane o 7-p----4 m e ;; h ! = = er.- .d_M h !,E I i

-- M

.f-^ _Jp q wlh, s J ' Ez< \\ h~ <o o ~ i y.v. ; 2 s.: 3 w. % (,,7(; 7i-o ^ \\\\ xe g ' I, , b ju / -y \\ I ,A' - w s-I - y '{t..- c.- r n g F 1,.) N., b-h : t 6 8 an, ~

• g.

'l ( h O b",4 // P1 A n a 6 t- ' --- -, { - a )M x -p 6 i. 3 ]@ ., g;^@ 1 n t- - #( e e af % M< - r .~' 'c"Ff5 a 9 A j^N~~ ( Y1'b ' h n 7 9G y. s '~ r d,--_---_ ii-_. --- I . [. ' ~ r, ,i A' '\\ f .- )t - j-s -- g hy--- --gf 9 -] gy-lAj,_M--- [ Ey ( ~ g 3 + g g $ g e b) x. A +'--- ,- g w);ee m m =, Nb )s V e " s--- l &{ @, 7 ~T u mpUsM9- [1

• -- t 1-

-h7-m.,.; v i j ..-J,------.- a N ? g-j g g - ( l 3 I-d jg lL.", )l ~. 1 E. s\\ \\ 'il _ ~~ i g / -( [

N ::f ~ --

M e 8 w " hh :!b' j!,%

1. l M)

L = l w N $g.- s .: =:: -n i g-T ~

• 'ij

. :.[UTE iy. 9-7 __.,) h "I ) g -- p. [,.7 i lj~ :::. - / v\\ g \\ . Ji:: / & }'""*-- J 'i "I 1a. q =,j{

5

'i r -a i / .h.. ~ o i / ig Rl.,4 n f. i \\A \\ \\% I O\\ \\ \\ h3b Igi .).' , !. - - 9. ! ' v. _kO _ =l h C ii / k I['h j C l. r J1 l / ?T sI d a ( ,i \\,,T /. A, s (x.. 9w?;- i iu *.'a . 3 *\\ a \\ i. I I -e -v.3 g ) I -, \\W' [/

• I hl.

d c; e p -. )' p c: "2 % -.. 7 ~ s. T P% f = + 2 i s / f" 1 1,\\ "_v a_f L. V s N

t,.,i MEASURED OPER A TION AL l A-WEIGHT ED L CONTOUR 60 d.;7 ( ~~ ~ ~ j MAP IN THE VICINIT Y OF THE ' '"?"' l i D AVIS-BESSE NUCLE AR o l 'g"'. Mk. A. POWER STATION (.] [, - ,._,7 t,.,, tw,,1 K A at 6:A I -Q:.,) d>~~ij? pi(p*ffk}'M__._ }g% l l r. 's } TOLEDO EDISON COMP ANY J,6 %.. N s. im n j l 3 r a ca l

.~..~.

>~ , r, as c ~ a Y cf/h,.! t b a 4.. (....

s. j.. U, "j O G ! '

W.,>v h..% )r" " N.!P '. _ m...m. b 11 3 6 p-

r. x

' x. 6%N W - Up.),( t r-g1 .q \\. s r y.g-:a, y .y . )...-..j ^,;3_.. t, w n ~

h...

~ j gf.g.

2&_.._

i U 'N .a.. 2 a., J z. ,f. 7_.w,_m x., A N ,. f ,9 p i ), \\ y l s u .l "9'" l p7

1. j,

i ' s ,z \\ l ) ..f r l h ~'8: = e:. j;;p - ~ ](J p0 f Q'o _ Q___._.._. I . t(- ~ -6 uer r I A( 3 R:9... ,,i en \\ x t q., 7.. N 'I pr /' g[f . V- ~*r4 0

3 k

7 'u. e g. o c ,s ' T -. a'jr; s ,i t ITil. A < mm.'j$ y, uy .t ~

2) {

T

• • (t' %

g I r - E S }{ L__ > D ll'.l I; :- I. so N

}

1 40 {J r,, r

10, y l }{

• #(

) , '4 0, R '. _V. rn i j Q l' \\' ~l llI '. -- te ?- ? ,. r '- ~'~

]'tQ

N ) v. 'V .?.+- J t / .Lb ~ i L l M1 {Q ils

• ~ '

( f, i fx_ c=5 ' C p-3,.. I ->g ' j) ,,~,.,,..y, , '} 4o t .=v. f. ~ ~ Q.y.t A,i d ok> I, _8; J. _ j.,..... ]l_2..I l ' m.; <l ..,L sc p -, i

J 0 AMBIENT NO!SE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION C1 ( See Table XI for relevant m e t.e o r ol o gic al inf orma tion) 90 T O d E D O E'D I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey N E 80 Z 70 o. O w i C 60 cc V 50 L V/. w W .aw h w^ w' w '~ 3> D o cn c w 30 a-5 a -1 O m z 9 3 20 z O o cn 5 Tested By: g Acoustic Technolo gy, Inc. 10 p o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION G1A* (*See Table XI for relevant meteorological inf orma tion) 100 T O L E D O E!D I S O N C O M P k N Y Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station m Environmental Noise Survey N E 90 z 96 7.5 80 g 9 c; i g I 70 f" i m i u i l 190 5 'If I i: 4 z 1 _r 29.02 5 60 g gtill lf'I'1]4 ff I n I 3 s. l {dpl j

q_r 3 8.7 0 gg g

R a N1);u g io so i s i t J!g 4837. 5 ht 1-40 %A;; O Z I 3 30 8 o o Tested By: Q Acoustic Technology, Inc. 20 7o o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

U AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION G1B (U S e e Table XI for relevant meteorological inf orma tion) 100 TOLEDO FDISON COMP ANY Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station N Environmental Noise Survey E 90 z 967.5 0 o [ j j 80 l; O 190 5 i !I l 1 m 70 I, i [ cn IY ", i i [{ j q- ,, t u fl (.l z t t ) 29-02.5 60 j d g(, {u i J p i 1 p V 387 0 47 h( l (g$ j U.g3g% d{'y., 50 i 3 At AI! ! 7( 5 i 48 i< AAar j ' !! l 8 ggp 34 y W 40 o a N O o z I 3 30 Tested By: Acoustic Technology, Inc. 5 20 P o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

O AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION T1 A ("See Table XI f or relevant meteorological inf ormation) 100 T O b E D O E',D I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey N E go Z "o 120 S 80 0 o Ld* 70 240 360 ? ll ) W 967.5 60 soo [h.f hf I 720 J 960 Lu 1 b ~ 50 p-p" g i y W 40 6 a -l O m z i 9 D 30 z O Tested By: Acoustic Technology, Inc. o 20 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 000 1000 f FREQUENCY (Hz)

~ 0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION T18 (*See Table XI f or relevant -met eorological inf ormation) TO BED O El DIS O N CO MPk N Y Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey N E 90 3 120 8 8 80 g O. l 240 I uj i C 70 p uuu 4eo 720 967.6 CD 840 V Z { y 6 00 l 'u, 60 --I f c ) uJ I I = I 'l @y 6o ) 1 yVgJ 8 t u 7 w _")

• 4eL3c(

4 li_ _ 3- -i oj g 4o s' e 9 D 30 z O p m Tested Byi g Acoustic Technolqgy. Inc. 1 20 pj o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

O AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION T2 A ("See Table XI for relevant meteorological inf ormation) 80 TObEDO bDISON COMPkNY Davis-Beise Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey N Z 120 8 60 9 o ui 240 967.5 [ san 50 i V ) l P z l, 48 0 6 00 c g! i-720 840 40 n I ' N M dJ n_ _m 4. a0 4 -yy, y upg (ih) w 's a o en y W 20 5 a-O m h y 10 t o en Tested By: o ( Q Acoustic Technolo gy, Inc. 5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

O AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION T2B (*See Table "I f or relevant meteorological inf ormation) TO[EDO dDISON COMPkNY 80 Davis-Bosse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey Z 120 o o 60 - 967.5 l U 240 ,/) 1 50 y m { 360 I D 1 480 720 ? j 6 00 l g ( 340 1 30 d- / i g ww#4 tu 20 g o a. I g ] 10 i o to Tusted By: o Q Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. 0 = o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

U AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION T3B (* See Table XI for relevant meteorological l'n f o r m a t i o n ) T O b E D O d,D I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Behse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey m N E 70 Z o 60 l\\ d W 120 l C 50 m V e z 40 480 967.5 J I 360 j %i 30 wwwvg,Q ( i w D o w o w y l W 20 5 a. 0 m 9 3 10 z O h Tested By: g Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 f FREQUENCY (Hz)

O AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION.T3D (U See Table XI for relevant moteorological inf ormation) TObEDO dDISON COMPkNY Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station E Environmental Noise Survey E 60 z j 120 h o 50 O M "p 40 i i 240 360 u 067.5 ,,g 30 t AN'* %L 4 -4 M WNX {'-[<[3, 20 g tu g i k 5 0 10 c 5 a-O m O S h Tested By: Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. o -10 y li o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION TSE* (* See Table XI for relevant meteorological i nf ormation) T O L E D O ElD I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Bosso Nuclear Power Station m N Environmental Noise Survey E 60 Z m O 120 g o 50 o W 360 967.5 [ 40 y.. 400 m A u h l Z b C 6 00 3" - #W-m %LAA4a g w s _j p;)a 20 mx 3 a en a cn W 1 0' c i a a. -1 O m Z 9 3 0 z O o cn g Tested By: Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. o -10 5, o '100-200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 e! FREQUENCY (Hz) TN' s._ s

m t 3 t s ( \\ N 2N s j: Y _x \\ 5$ coo > j) 8_ Qo OzrS - \\ i ,a g~ -'3 1 ~x >.r N. 2 \\ b i wODZo a.mmwmD m u v

o. w Em. o oooojZsE"m g

s e,' i s s, 5 6 7 1 1 g 3 4 0 0 0 o 0 9 Q 0 0 A 0 M B ~ I ( V3

• E 1

0 S N 1 { 2 e T 0 e 0 N I 2 - ?,? TO ,1I a I 0 b S 0 l E e 2 G 'xlN'. X F \\ 3 1 R 0 6. I E 0 3 f oQ \\ ~ N r U i r E 4 ~ F 0 eN l R 0 e C E ta,Y t Q ED T U n n a O, S E 5 t vv L,. P N 0

iiE, C

0 rs ,m E o-6 e C Y s - \\. nB 0 t me s ;1 ( s H 6 Ei oR e s *D z 0 i O ~ r ns ) o,M 0 I te a S lo NO g F l 7 AT Nu N i c e O 0 d,c c _n o s C a R l 0 t is o u e l O s sd e a L rM i t n O s i ) cB t S P f r ',o. N. 'r A uP Aj o 8 y 0 T: e 0 vw h c T Y i h h ee a 1 I n v ~ yr O t o i 9 7 S

o N l

0 q 4 t n g 0 T a ) y t 4 io In 1 c n 0 0 0

- u a-o ?' f f ~^ AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR:. LOCATION S2B" ~ 80 Table Xil f o r r e l e v a n t' .t a t e c t.o l o g i c a l ' i n f o r m a t i o n ), ~ (*S e e ~T~ ~ i ~~ -r i p - T O f.iic o. EDI S O N C O M P A N Y m ( ', D a'ris-B e s se -N u clea r P ow e r-S t a tio n E r viro n m e n tal M ol; o' S'u r v e y { 70 l Z [, ~- j m - 4/ oo >J o 60 - - - ~ -i ,i o, ' ' + o T -{ m r C 50 g I. w u ? z 4 l w 40 'T W% l m _J

• AM 30

(,, 3 o w w w 20 9. m o a. --I o Z o I D 10 z Ow o Tested By: Q Acoustic Technology, Inc. h o 200 400 GOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

O AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENGy SPECTRUM i OR LOCATION S2C (*See Table Xll for relevant meteoroiogical inf ormation) 70 TOLEDO F]DISON COMP ANY Davic-Bosce Nuclear Power Station N Environmental Noiso Survey E 60 Z N \\ l S 50 i: -t-O b ( g u bhjY llf Ld l wy rg4 p Od/g J v ,.pjk 20 r - (w) g a D l 0 m W 10 i 8 m g 5 E I I -i a Z l 3 0 f 0 )- Tested Byi o Q Acoustic Technology, Inc. -10 y 5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION S38 0 (*See Table Xil for relevant m e t e o r olo tilc al in f o r m a t i o n) 70 T O L, E D O E,D : S O N C O M P A N Y DavlG-Bossa Nuclear Power Sta tion m l Environmental Noise Survey E 60 g- - Z moo o 50' b f f ui i cc 40 i- .I ( co \\' ? Z I If {' 30 k / h4 I Gj 1 20 - L b ? (6 g \\l fNQ o w o y) y w 10 5 a. O l m 9 3 0 = O F o u> Tdsted By: o Q Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc: -10 8 o' 100 200 300 400 S00 600 /00 800 900 1000 FREQUP.NCY CHz)

m ONI ADO'lONHO31 O!.!SnOOyl'.fl m g t..g 2 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (IN dB RE. 0.00002 N/m ) i i to 4 A to CJ A U1 C) O O O O O O O O O O co E

• m cn 2

~ O ~ O o _4 0 Z - ~# -4 O p to n O z g m m O w O m X T1 ~m o m O oo C D ,A A 71 O 5 ez AO I <k iO O F m O -4 m c / om o a o p= m a - < < r- -g Z O hO f EE A 3m

1. ~~

!a5 l I, e., i O. m - x-o i =. e z e m .w-O ,C o ) [ se u o r l

1. C O E

~ D U zO o 1 m >H i ,e z o z n -O v O._o T _ N R3 F ~2 5 s5 c m,r -o O O ,o o g oy <g< gd o a 7 gm a .-. O o (o Z y) O __o C O G U I Q v n ca 0 O 5 o p O O O

,f'+y_ 'ONl ADO iONHO3,L O!.LSDOOV(i.l9 l g 9t'Y 2 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL ClN dB RE. 0.00002 N/m ) \\ J M C) O O O l o O O O O O O O O I ~) 5 o / m "r ,_*m [ a U) Z o o -i O o Z O m e, a U) o o o m X T =m 8 m o O Oc m a T C i o Z 33 r,h 1 O g o m < =< D mC H m C ooO o (n m cn I"- ,y -Z o b-m O O 3 A a '"o O o 4-O g 4 3 g,.s O ~- -d a** O O *)) m I l 0:O - Q-io O C l N O oo j o g e*o ~o o l o -2O O l } c zg x_

1 O'O 33 03

-( o o u o O Co go $a g f) o t CD e r -o a ,0 o y <$g o o O B o@ I f m ~O o Ch -Z I (o l o O O - O U l O o l I n b \\ O m 1 I D a 3 4 o O O

AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION S4C O (U See Table Xil for relevant meteorological inf ormation) 3 i 60 T O L, E D O ED I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey m N E 50 Z No S 40 3 f o. O l ui C 30 ~ I ( mv ? z l n 20 3D r gl %AW+ %.Nk '0 NJ c 3 0 C tu O c 5 a -l O m Z h -10 c Tested By: l Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. o -20 8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR I.OCATION S5B1 ("See Table Xill for relevant meteorological inf ormation) T ObEDO dDISON COMP ANY Davis-Besse Nuctoar Power Station E Environmental Noise Survey E 70 z OJ o a 60 .o tb c 50 cou 5 120 5 40 t .J W 4y w

• Nv-dk%%g gg)

{ 3o w D 1 n en 0 en c w 20 O c 5 a. J -4 o in z h 10 9 m b Tasted By: Q Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. 0 fi o 100 200 300 400 500 GOO 700 800 000 1000 FREQUENCY CHz)

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION SSH1 (U See Tab!e Xill for relevant meteorological inf ormation) 80 TObEDO dDISON COMP ANY Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey m N E 70 z CNo S 60 I o 2 o ai E 50 120 u ? b 40 'Q g Wwsw%m tu J 30 [4g tu j w 3 w o w c tu 20 [ 6 -1 O m Z o D 10 O* ,9 Tested By: O Acoustic Technology. Inc. 4 I I 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 ZO FREQUENCY (Hz)

AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION S5J1 0 (*See Table Xill for relevant meteorological inf ormation) TObEDO IIDISON COMPkNY Davis-Besso Nuclear Power Station E Environmental Noise Survey E 70 Z oo 60 o o td C 50 ( cn l V ? E a 40 bo V": 44 30 (t. h' [ w C u N A a en C W 20 C 5 1 --I O m Z 9 3 10 O 7.o en 5 Tested Byi Acoustic Technology, Inc. Q h o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION S5T1 (O S e e T able Xill. f or relevant meteorological inf ormation) 80 T O b E D O E',D I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Bobse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey m "g 7g 2 mooo 60 o r l W [ 50 cou i z y C l ( 120 40 g _Jw < ~ M, e% ,g ,W Yuwwo tyg n%% w a o w w u w 20 b [ o o_ -1 o Z z D 10 b b Tested Byi o Q Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. 0 o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY CHz)

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION SS A2 (*See Table Xill for relevant meteorological inf orma tion) 70 TO bE D O IdDIS O N' O O MP A N Y Davis-Bo5so Nuclear Power Station m 0 60 Z o o 50 O I 120 tb 40 %} q- [ k z b 30 tu 1 V f 967.5 f V k\\/ ~ 20 4 Qu H w p a v tu 10 E a e O D 0 E O* P Tested By: 8 Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. y_ -10 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION SSE2 0 (U Sce Table Xill for relevant meteoroloG cal inf ormation) i TO bE D O IdDIS O N' C O M P A N Y Davis-Bosso Nuclear Power Station W Environmental Noise Survey E 70 Z No o 60 o.o LLb [ 50 k cou 120 j Z h2 40 240 967.5 Y Od'.) ~4 %w% yg 3 o e o cn C m 20 i uj g 5 1 _4 o 'o o en 5 T6sted By: Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. [5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (H z)

oo (3 O d l c N C D O c N Q C p 2. Q O w> c o .C Q Q H E a g> o z o m 5 Q O o. m me O.c "; u Q c a O m O m0 0e 50 0.o o c o-0 n 2 a z r< s 1 OZ-o 2 ~o O o OE w C o N D I, U [ O Ld' (o E g o O Oc Oo 8 O >d a 0 0 W E w 3 "; O Z c 0. si >> y O W c4 WC occ h H CW W 0 Ge 1 0 1 Z* i W m D 00 k o W- .5. o x e y LL _x o @ 0 o ~E M O e F o o N - H e [ O Z o g& -o m-s o o o o o o o o 0 m s o D 4 O N (gw/N 20000'O 'BU BP NI) 7BABl BunSSBud GNDOS A.24 es ~ Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. , u/

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION S1H1 'O See Table XIV for relevant me t e o r olo gical inf ormation) 80 T O b E D O E.D I S O N C O M P A N Y Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Environmental Noise Survey m N E 70 z o 60 - I O. 1 o k 120 mu h ? E O 40 4 m 4 30 s9 m 3 0c tu 20' m 6 o- -1 O m z 9 D 10 z O k l Tusted By: Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. o O' 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 o FRECUENCY (Hz)

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION S1K1 ("S e e T able XIV for relevant meteorological inf ormation)- TO[EDO dDISON' COMP ANY Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station m E 70 Z m oo 60 o o 50 i e i \\ i2o WL r n f M 40 d %,u % iNw~ m J 30 m 3 o m C uJ 20 m 5 a N O O 5 R Tested Byi 8 Acoustic Technol gy, Inc. 1 I o 0 100 200 300 400 SCC GOO 700 800 900 1000 5, FREQUENCY (Hz)

/ 0 0 0 0 ~ I 1 n c 1 n U o i 1 t S )n y a 0 g t o o 0 ~ Ni S 9 lo Ot n a ry h e e ITm Y c wv 0 e Ar N r

T 0

o o Cf A u ~ y 8 P n P S Bc Oi i Mr t d L a e s O e u 1 t. e s 0 ts o R Cl i 0 o c c e c ~- Oi 7 N uN TA g F ONl o S a l Mo et 0 ,~- I ) sn 0 z U r D Ro kse3 6 H e em ( T Q Bn t Ce - o Y D 0 C E m sr E ii-0 N P E vv 5 E t S n Oan U a T DE Q Y v E 0 Ce D 0 F Nl A 4 e Er U r Qo 0 Ef 0 3 R V FI X E 0 Se 0 l b I 2 b Oa NT 0 0 T e 2 0 1 Ne t 1 S E B *( k I M !j 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 1 ,Ea.Qz3O)u E z NOS9O hLa m" 5 a 3 ug u "m L t E" l fe. a55 - m9zo5o ,0 /:d

0 AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOC ATION S1B2 (*See Table XIV for relevant met eorolo0 ca; inf ormation) 70 3 i i TOLCDO EDISON COMP ANY D a vis-E e s se Naclear Power Station o7 Envitenmental Noisc Survey E 60 z mo i oo 50 - o o I i w T 120 ._..Q ..l_ 49 l i y ? z VJ V 30 W I Y)Dw**t2+sw% j 887 5 j (msg 3 20 w D o w o cn c w 10 O m 5 a. --I o S Z g ] O o e Tested By: o Acoustic Technology, Inc. Q l I -10 ii o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 FREQUENCY (Hz)

O AMBIENT NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM FOR LOCATION S1E2 ( *S e e 'T a ble XIV for relevant meteorological inf ormation) i 1 70 T O b E D O Id,D I S O N C O M P A N Y Davia-Bocco Nuclear Power Station Envlionments! Noise Survey "W E 60 1 z ~o o 50 j l W - -i- ---l - - ~- [ 40 l t l CDu I i z l l 967.5 h C 30 h j

• bh lW L p--aw A

I hj%V 20 @a m %;) x 1 3 o cn o cn c W 10 c 5 o-H Q m z 9 3 0 z O o cn Tested Byi o Q Acoustic Technolqgy, Inc. -10 o o 100 200 300 400 500 000 700 800 900 1000 F REQU tiNCY (Hz)

Appendix B: Sta:!stical Dis ta ibu tica H i s t o g r a r.1 s for S cie c t Gperational M e a r. u r e m e n t Loca tions 9 H::. ) Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. 'Q%r

Statistical Distribution Histogram ct Noise ' Level Values. 50 -- r r h

7

- r ; ; ; q,, % 4f % of total 40

d. rnp_r-. n--

~ T t._ g l%_!__ samples wh. h . _.__Erzi._dz.- e 'r

z. _32

-..a ic ~ .- h Q

_r -}--

-. -f !+ ~~~4 Ef%-- f H w. h.in each 30 it -~ ~. ~- 4 :p 'UZW A 2 dBA interval ~W L- ~ i

_i_)T5 r,

20 M' pr.; ;. l m.__ _:r t.g __ c - -I. ^ -i ='L_._.._d_q_-_l-- E. rr_'. m r-r 10 r m.Q%gr-- - r .~ G.a y

==- y + 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

00 110 dBA

? Noise' Level (dB A) Histogram Values &y T Measurement Location: S181 Dn40.008-000 o D.X0.00B=004.2?. R 1. tu,.2. 0 D B = 0 0 1. 2 % 0642 000=00n o Number of Samples: 4 6 9 0044.00P=009.u:. 0 0 0 1. 0 D B = 0 0 0. 0 7-g 5 Average: 53.8 dBA 3046.00B=000.0:. 0066.00B=000.0: 0049.00B=000.0% D068.00B=000.0: --i Standard Deviation: 2.49 dB D050.ODB,008.1% D070.ODB=000.07 y Otib2.ODB-035.3% 0072.ODB=000.O' E 0054 00C=U32.6.% 0074.ODB=000.01 o r-D 0'36 000=01 DC6.ODB=000.0*. o 005 S. UDisc on 0 01' :. O D B = 0 0 0. 0 % z O. --m. Ac mm -e w

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values - - H '_ _i t---._;,"._. _t _ i-tr ' prd ---t.t y ;r-Q _ i 75 -p,_ % Of 10181 i i .t.- 60 l l = -f k ra.. samples wh. h 'ri. ---t-T; r :-- Ir ic r r _... J -. i @ I I-- 45 c' ._jr -- u..h s _, f all w. thin each i 30 - J-~r~.-22 2'Z P -42m}r~t't; I__ _}r$ : 21~-E 2 dBA interval - r,I : :,r

.-- ;c

an rl-

- ~:::.. 8 ~~T - f-2.~ r ~?~ ~~:j:'. ..~ % ~~ ^ -~ -~ '~ 's i

.irr'. )'. -

~ ~ ~- .i r- - -rtr_r.,b_g- -t .._-}-- 'i ~' > i o 30 40 50 60 'O B0 CO 10 0 110 dBA P Noiso~ Lovel (dBA) ~ r 4% Histogr am Values (Mage %d Measuromont Location: S1H1 ODB=000.07 0046 ODB=00C O D648 009=006 c ODB=000.0. O y Number of Samples: 1019 0050.uDe=000.0% Du/u.0,DB=000.0% DOW.00B=u00.0% D072.0DB=000.0% o Average: 57.4 dBA 0004.ODB=000.0% D074.00B=000.0% --I Standard Deviat. ion-1.41 dB Dudt.OnBcu34.3% D076.00B=000.u% mo 0038.0DD=VS2.0% 0078.00B=000.0% I 6 D060.OnB"O11 4% 0080.ODB=000.0. D0tM.0DB=000 6-n082 ODB=000.0% o Dh64.OD8,000 io*1 00B=000.0% Q Eo = y -y,--.,

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values 75 j,y p-r---q p r-1P rg q--- _i_J--_r~ % of' total _.-ig.

4

._n t ~ " ~ " ' _.g__,. _ __.__ . A.._ _W,. g. ___ samples wh. h m _ ~ '_ p.a:- 60 = 4 ic 45 9-t Pr rpng-f all within each x-2 :.}c - :$: :N=-{_.. ~2 ~ 2 dBA interval ~ d-30 ^ = =y==j=p ._._._=9gg._.-

== ' =:; y=

== ~- g __g.yj 3 __4___._ _ --g - ,s--.- _ m-F..,,_ q-. 3..- 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 10 0 110 dBA to Noiso' Lovel (dBA) w Hlatogram Valiios m. S:jg, Measuromont Location: S1K1 004 :. u08:-00:

6 ODB=000. 3.

p, 8 0048 ODD"001

8.ODB=000.0%

c Numt;or of Samplos: 754 03'50 ODP=000.m. . >0.0DB=000.0:. O U052.0uB=000 0% D072.ODB=000.0% g Average: 59.3 dBA Ud54.00B=G00.OP. 0074.ODB=000.0. _i Standard Deviat. ion: 1.57 dB nObt..OD,J=000.0 D07t.ODB=000.u_% m 0053 OUB=054.7% D078.ODB=000.0% Qz D 0 6 0, OD U.= O 2 7. 7 % D080.ODB=000.0% o 0062.09T=016 1~ 0082.00B=000.0% rO D O G 4. 00 Br-O O O. Y !tuu4.ODB=000.0% o Z O.

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values 1--7 75 ___p p q_- % ol' total . 12 ~~ ZT~ ~ ZZ2T----- -- -- w_'___.__ samples wh,ich 60-5 - y_ -a-t--- p ^422TZ~~~~~ ~~- 45 iall within each 4 _ ___zl ri tr:222 crrc. -~ 2 dBA. terval p I _,[_.-__ .4_._ in 30 g c _J' _.. __ - _ + __._ . _-q_--- 3 . _.t._. g_.__...,. ___,___a. _._ s _.,, + _,._ n, _4 _4. __ 15 l ___ _g _m _., _... y q 3 __._ _y_ _p .__A .1y..._{ L r.gq_;=l::1_ a._ = ~a _n== 0 fgy :, -s - 30 40 50 60 70 E0 C 100 110 dBA Noise ~ 1.avel (dBA) n 141stogram Values (fn%$ G Moasuromont Location: S1U1 00B=053 3% 00 3i.. 00er000 N o o c ::P. O D B:- 0 9 t i U.s

.ODB=012.C.

g Number of Samples: 947 n040.eDer0m ui. ue60.0DB=002.11 5 Average: 55.8 dBA h042.000=Ouu.0% 0062.0DB=000.8% 3044 Oupcou 0% 0064.00B=000.01 -1 Standard Deviation: 1.54 dB G46.ODB-0GO 0% D066.ODB=000.0% g ou4e.ODB-000.0% D068.ODB=000.01 Iz 0C.50. OD0%:no m D070.ODB=000.0% o c-D3fd O D B = G O..' : :. UO.>P.ODB=000.0% o Q Dn54. OPS =0 3-c' . OD B =-0 00. 0% Z O. iF ^ er y

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values 75 - 99 -H W % Ol' 101a1 r- -r_- ~~- crn__ 60 o samples which n ..nff=__ _:r ' ^ 45 ~~~'= ~. f all within each ~ _ _---~ _._g o - c; i cr.~r--~ 2 dBA interval 30 __ i_.{ -r ~~ 55 '~ l, V, -= ...L-tr= --- _- = 1 55 ~. -- --r 15 'u r e &w +{ Q. __ _ rT --. ~~Cr Cr: T_ _W_. lC-l _a o L-- > m-30 40 50 60 70 8^ 90 10 0 110 dBA ca Noiso Lovel (dBA) Histogram Values Measuromont Location: 318p PU30 008:-000 0B=002.1% N O 0032 00D2000. 0B=001.01 y Number of Samples.: 700 0034 geg;_oog c, 0054, cog = coo,og 5 Averoge: 45.0 dBA onac. ode:.uco. u. 0056.ODC=000.0% D03. 0 0 B = 0 c 0. N. 0 05a. O D B = 0 00. 0;. -1 Standard Deviation:

1. G 2 dB DG40.000=000.0%

D060.ODB=000.0% g D 0 4 2. [10 8-0 0 0. 0 % 0062.ODB=000.0% 3 D044.ODB':062 tw 00C1.ODB=000.0% o D046.OD3sn?- 110 6 6. 0 0 B = 0 0 0. 0 ". o 0010.nDB"OOi JP' ,ODB=000.0% z9 .m

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values _y_m-T- j-~ _c_ 75 60 -~- CZZE- '~~~ ~~'- % ol' total u ((_ Samples which l r- ~ ~ 2 ~ -~ ~ 45 - 9' r-- f all within each l e ~7 -~~~ JIr22-' 2 dBA interval ~ 30 -- + 7 _ z _ _-ngp p-.22?2=2= ( h: - H-I~~ 2N '_l7_ _? 12 15 i _!rr!- g -- ng g_4 __,- pi j 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 110 dBA l Noiso~ Lovel (dSC) co e Histogram Values Monsuromont Location: S1E2 3> . 0 0 8 -:0 0.. 1.ODB=00( oo .000 061 .-.ODB=000 c Number of Samplos: 1178 ,s....OUPS000.o-. 0054.UDB=UOu.v. 5 Average: 47.0 dBA D036. ODis a ua0. 0% 0056. 00B = 00 0. 0:: l j Standard Deviation: 1.02 dB 0030 u06-009.07: DOS 8.00B=000.0% 0040.90B=0G0 0 *. 0060.ODB=000.0% o I 3042.00B=nOO 07 n062.ODB=000.O*: f z ^* D044.ODDr000.0*. 0064.ODB=00P JU46. 0DP=049 n9r 6. ODB=00-8 s5048.CDBeO4s +'M A. 0DB=006-5E P

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values 50 r b ~ 40 e i samples wh. h E .I LL.fi..;r ic E 1~T l'~ ~~ . b. &_-~ ~ TC' _C;t-R Q, :cr;-- f all within each 30 222 _ ~ t-_. &+:~.t:r. W i 2 dBA. terval /-h-in 20 ~ ~i.-_ ~C ZZZTZ': ~_t-Zr } ~ '-I ~- d_$,'___ g -] y _. l_ p.. 10 , _4 - l_ 7_.. ?L T W~ ~~~ ^ ' ~f C 0 30 40 50 60 M 80 90 100 110 dBA co Noise' Levo! (dB10 Histogram Values h$$e Measuromont Location: S SB 1 wg D J 4 2. O D B.= 0 0 r 62.ODB=000.55 O De44.OnD=00.. 64.ODB=000.01 Number of Samples: 868 004c.00B=000.0% D066.00B=000.0% g Average: 52.9 dBA 0043.ODS=60e.0% 0068.00B=000.0% -1 Standard Deviation: 1.03 dB 0050.00n=05s e;. 0070 00B=000.0% tJ 0 5 2. 0 0 8 :0 R;' 3% 0072.ODB=000.01 DOS 4.OuB=04?.9% D074.00B=000.01 5 DOS 6.ODB=nu3.4% 0076.ODB=000.0% O r-0008. OiiB =000 W '8.00B=000.0% 0O 0060.ODB=000 0.ODB=000.0% E P

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values -l qqr pgp._4., 3 75 . - _ _. t]- r-_g~' '~ ~ ~~~ % of total ^~ .,4 ! j..__p._.7-;- r- ~*p q W % '- - ~ ~ ~1 A - 60 -Q.r _ ir __ g- ..4_ 4

-H- -t p- ---- -4 samples wh,ch i

- m 4.- y._

---

21--

.._,-d r-. Iall w.th.in each ,65 -%_. v _ i _. m. g._. _ r.,_ -. T2 ~ w-_ . y.., -3_- ~j. 1 _ _r- " _IF 1 >4 22_'-~ 2 dBA interval -'-~T 30 J. ___-- 9.;3 - q__.. +y.- ! -~ ~ m- ~.. ~ 15 ~

-- - e

.w .a -.t o... I- ..4-..4-__- N'~ ~I~.I ZZ ' L-4 1.D 7 - i "- 0 30 40 50 GO 70 80 90 10 0 110 dBA i m Noiso~ Lovel (dBA) m i k t i s 1 Histocram Vctuos h$),% i h Moasuromont Locstion: SSH 1 D 0 4 o.. 0. U 3 = u i >i.

00g = 0 01. 0:,

p 0 0 4 3. O u E..' O f ODBuGOO. S;. g '"MO N"N- " ' 00B'=000 0% C' Number of Samplos: 580 405E: 000=000.OS; D072.ODB=000.05 5 Average: 61.7 dBA DOS 4.O h 000.0:. D074.ODB=000.0% p Standard Deviation: 1.32 dB t.0 06.0 00f006.0% D076.00p=000.0% 9056 00B=000~0% D078.0D8=000.0% OI DOGO.003=027 5% 0080.ODB=000.0% z 0 0 G 0. C D B =_0 6 i am.:J 2. O D B = 0 0 0. 0 % 0064.00Br-Ou ... :4. ODB=000 0% -zO 6 1

er 9 Statisti$a'l Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values ,~ 75 ' ...---i r-c rf . __b. _p p.;-- %o tQta i i _- -g n c. . s_ 7, 4-- __ _,.. -...- p t L... _--,:, vL_..l.K.~; ~~',3..-. 4 >. r..' _. a. ~ 60 n.n I _4-bk h hh . _.q-c-+ -- 45 - 3 q, p ___ s y( L:;_ g-- f aH witNo each s .. r_, .-..,c._._ q .4._ 30 _: --- -t

22 g___pI_

__ 4__ --W. _p _p~._.y!!2-u._ _.2I. - _____4._ 2 dBA interval 3 .a _,_ w _.. _ _. t__! ,-t. ~~ ..,.. ~. _._._.-__e,_.- - --y--.. _ -_.t_-- m 1 ~, 15

i. -

_\\-._ r .E y .__j-_.p. c... N x.T e st + - -. __q' r-m t t~ 1 T .s. 'g \\ 30 40 50 fs0 70-80 90 109 110 dBA m Noise' Level (dBA) m. s ~ \\ re Histogram Values - !$h w Moasuromont Location: SSJ1 40B=000.8% 0046 000=0! 0043. GOD =0st ' D B = 0 0 0. 8 ?. oc Number of Samples: 686 0050.OSD=00u.U. uu/u.uoB=000.8:. Og Average: 58.0 dBA DOS 2.00s=000.0% 0072.ODB=000.u% 0 0G4. OD D = 0 0 0. 0;. D074.ODB=000.O!. Standard Dev.iat. ion: 2 04 MB 005._o.UDGrudo 5% 007o_.UDB=000.0<. m 9 00'50. ODW 0?2. b% D078.ODB=000.0% z E80 6 0. O D C = 0 0, i-0 0 '3 0. 0 0 8 =. 0 0 0. O '. O r 0062 008:00i ( i 32.ODB=000. 0% oO D064. 5'DD=00 14. 00 B = 0 0 0. 0 :: ZO

l Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values n_ 75 I % of total ~ sq 60 ~ r Z samples which H i j ] f all within each [y 45 -h_ = r ] 2 dBA interval rr y m c rr_ _ r -. z _._ '^ -^

== = - rr ----- .- -- 'r t t" 30 40 50 GG 70 80 90 10 0 110 dBA o Noise' Lovel (dBA) w -~ c Histogram Values C% gg/) Measuromont Location: S5T1 t ODB=OOO S ;. b 0040.ODB=OOO. ODB=001 17 N 0042.0DBrOOO., Number of Samplos: 693 gg4 4, ggg=ggg, g.

u. J ' 00 D = 0 0 0. 4 :.

o g 0046.00B=000.07: 0066.00B=000.05 5 Average: 52.0 dBA D04B.0DB=000.05 006B.0DB=000.0:. -1 Standard D e via tio n: 1.80 dB 0050.ODB=000.05 D070.00B=000.0:. 0052.ODB=067.9;; D072.ODB=000.0:. mg 0054.ODB=026.B*. 0074.ODB=000.0. g D OS 6. ODB = 0ft. i " 17 6. O D B = 0 0 0. 0 7. g 0058.ODB=00

.1 7 8. O D B = 0 0 0. 0 ?.

o< E9

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values 50 % of' total 1-- ~~- i 40 samples which 5 l I f all within each l i 30 - y 2 dBA interval 20 - --~- .;_I l g g -- '~ E~ {__. --d 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 110 dBA Noise' Lovel (dBA) to Histogram Values C Nw) 'O Measuromont Location: SSA2 0026 ODB=00 . ODB= U l l. 2. D028.ODB=0n .00B=005.07 O 0030.00B=000.u.. 0o;. 000 -0u0. 2. Number of Samplos: 811 g 0032.00B=000.00 "T52.0DD=0uu.0 5 Averagc: 42.6 dBA 3034.ODB=000.07 00b4.ODB=000.U: -1 Standard Dev.iat. ion: 2.28 dB 3036.00B-000.0. D 0 5 6. 0 0 0 2 0,1 0. 0 - 3 0 3 8. 0 0 B'= 0 0 0. 0 1 D058.ODB=000.U m 0040.00B=0*' onso. ODB=o00. O., 0046.ODB=0: u?;2.ODB=000.0;. 5 0044.ODB=0; U- ~4.ODB=u00.07 Q E9

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values ~ 50 % of' total j S samples which 4g fz-f all within each l 30 -- _ g -} 2 dBA interval 20 ~ [ i_ _~~_2 --c 2Z. ZZZ:- 2 12Z 22Z'---.Z _ __*p 10 --

== :=-

-== =. - [_ ^== = - -- Z - ~ 0 u _ 30 40 50 60 70 80 00 10 0 110 dBA Noise' Level (dBA) as C f - Histogr am V alu o t. 6.lwiy tt . 0 0 B = 0 0 0 3 '- / Moasuromont Location: SSE2 D040.00B=006_ ODB=00n 37 ".04a 0DD=00e o 'B~~000'E

044 00B=000 *-

Number of Samples: 1645 N i;046. ODD =000.0% DO66.00B=000.25 5 A v e r a g e: 53.3 dBA 2048.00B=000.0. D068. ODB- 000. l' -1 Standard Deviation: 1.85 dB 20 5 0. 0 0 B = 0 0 2. 9:. 0070 ODB"000.0 iiO52.00D=044.2. D072.ODB=000 O! I

iO54. ODB= 0 $it 0.

0074. ODD =00u.O' 5- .ODB"000 OI L10 5 6. O D B = 0 ! h D058.ODB=0C ' O D D - 0 0 0. O !- O< Z P

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values 50 % of' total 40 t, samples which -l I 30 - f all within each ~ ~ 2 dBA interval ._ b

==-

...= l 20 -^' * - = 10 .gg 0

c ir -

l - --=_.. 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 110 dBA co Noise' Level (dBA) w 1 i Histogram Values g a yE. " Moasuromont Location: S2C 903g,ogg=ggo 53 ogg=gg7 g :, N 0034.ODB=000. 51.ODB=uO1 57 0036. ODB=000. n:. ~.6. 0 D 8.= 0 0 9. m O Number oI Samplos: 1126 0033.ODB=OOO.0;. D058.ODB=004.9 g Average: 49.1 dBA D040.ODB=000.0:. 0060.ODB=000.7: i y Standard Deviatioa: 3.90 dB 0042.ODB=000.0:. 0062.ODB=000.0-0044.ODB=008 8 ". D061.ODB=000.O* j 0046. ODD =024.6:. 0066.00B=000.OI O 0048.ODB=025- '" ,p n 6 8. O D B = 0 0 0. 0 :. O D050.ODB=0IF Da70.ODB=OOO.0. O 5 P

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values _4 100 % of total ~- 80, Z- ~.- Z L samples which 60 e Iall stithin ea@ 7 .7-- 2 dBA interval j gg] g 0_ ,g _ p ~ 6; g L. 30 40 50 60 7C 80 00 10 0 110 dBA to Noise ~ Lovel (dBA) L a Histogram Values ((f7WN Measuromont Location: S3C 0026.00B=0n. ( - noii.0DB=000.37 r 0D8'000 07-D028.0D0=0'* O 0052.ODB=Uuu.[u'. 'OUU"U"O~ U030 ODB=000 Number of Samples: 1169 d 0032.ODB=OOO.07 0054.ODB=000.07 5 Ayerage: 34.3 dBA 9 9 3 4, g g g __ g g g, g, D056 ODB=000.0% -1 Standard D e via tio n: 1.28 dBA D036.00c=003 '. D058.ODB=UOO.07 0038.ODB=000.8% D 0 6 0. O D B -. 0 0 0. 0 7 I D040. ODB 000. 6 : D n t'. ? ODB=000.05 0042.ODB=0ne c-f' n 1 ODB:=000.0% D044. ODD =Onc 8.< Z9

Statistical Distribution Histogram of Noise Level Values I i 75, % of' total r 60 samples which y f all within each ~ ~ ~ '.T_T 2 dBA interval 30 - Z - x_

1.

._ c-xxx i. 15 r g. 2

1 _

0 I 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 d8A l w Noise' Level (dBA) Histogram Values ' fl ' (ins. i C Moasuromont Location: S'4 C 0032.0DD=0uu n:. On52.0DB=000.5". >o 0034.00B=000.I i;.; 4. O D D = 0 0 0. 1 7 o . 0 D e = 0 0 0. 0 ;. } Number of Samples: 1139 U c 3 6. 0 D B = 0 0 7. _,>. uv liO30. ODD =051 1. D058. O D D =-0 0 0. 0 5 5 Average: 38.8 dBA 0040.00B=037 4. 0060.00B=000.07 --I Standard Dev.iat. ion: 1.94 dB 0 0 4 2. O D D = u G O. 5 ;; 0062.0DD=000.US. m O D044.ODB=000_5:. 0064.ODB=000.0*. I D046.ODB=000.3. D066.ODB=000.01. DO48.ODB=00U Y. l*0 6 0. O D B = 0 0 0. 0 7: o DOSO:ODB=000 - D a ? O. 0 0 B = 0 0 0. 0". O E P

Appendix C: Cumulative Percent Distribution Curves From Histogram Values for Select Operational Measurement Locations ? ~ 't'j, Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. g

1 l ,1 j D E h 0 V c 8 i I h R E w 1 D 8 s 1 e E 0 Sl V p 7 R N m U O a CI s T N Af ) C C o A O ,0 ( Oe 6 B T L g d U a N B R t I I On R F e) L T cl ,0 E S S r e 5 V e v I E E D p e U L l L e TN Ah e E s S V t E 0 i I f o O C i 4 Mo n N R A E n n R P o e Gi v E Ot i a g VT i 0 t I 3 S n a T e I A H sd L e e UMr e mop ce 0 UR x r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 w 0 < H z m O E g n. g h)iOge"IaqRIgoOr9 j, k( l

f 1 l D E h 0 V c i 8 I i R h 1 E w H D 1 s E S e 0 l V p 7 R N m U O a I C s T ) N Af u A C o 0 O ( O I 6 B e T L d g U \\ a \\ N B R t On I I R F e) L T cl 0 E S S r e i 5 V E e v I E D p e U L l L i T e e E A h N s S Vt E i I 0 O C o f 4 Mo n N R A E R n n P o e Gi v E Ot i a g V T 0 t I 3 S n a T I e A H s d L e e i UMr e mop ce x 0 UR r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 g O < : w O E g c. oL m%#g 5 gRl oO 1P eh[% 1 l

1l Illl11l! l i D E h 0 V c , 8 I i R h 1 E w K D 1 s E S e 0 l V , 7 p R N m U O a CI s T N Af ) C o A O ,0 ( O 0 B I e T L g\\ d g \\ U \\ a N B R t O n I I R F e L T c )l 0 E S S r e 5 V E e v I E D p e L U l T L e E A N h e S V t s E I i ,0 O C f o 4 M N R o n A E R n n P G o e i v E Ot ia g VT ,0 t I 3 S n TI a e AH sd L e e U M r e MO p c 0 UR e x r - 2 CF e ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 wc 2m E g a. P '" 7 Neaa qRIg oO r9 c, l'

i1 D E h 0 V c 8 i I h R w E 1 D U s 1 e E Sl 0 V p 7 R N m U Oa C I s T N Af ) A C o m O ,0 ( Oe I 6 B T L g d U a N B Rt On I I R F e ) L T cl ,0 E r e S S 5 V e v I E E D p e U l L L e TN Ah e E s S Vt I E i ,0 O C o f 4 Mo n N R A E n n R P o e Gi v E Ot i a g V Tt ,0 I 3 S n a T I e AH s d L e e UMr e mop ce 0 UR x 1-r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 g 0 < F 2 w o E g c. nb l@wN89oy$rgoOr9 ,h ll

1 1 lll D E h 0 V c 8 i I h R 2 w E 8 D 1 s e E S l 0 V p . 7 R N m U O a I C s T Af , 6 B N ) A C o 0 O ( O I e T L g J' U a N B R t O n I I R F e L w,0 E T c )l S S r e 5 V I E v e E D p e U L l L e T E A h e N S V t s E i I 0 O C f o a 4 M on N R A E i n R r P oe Gi v E Ot i VT ag 0 t , 3 S n I T a e I AH sd L e e U Mr e MO p c e 0 UR x r 2 CF ( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 m 0 < F *' m 0 E g a. P Pw hwN8a5 52og<- , }? 1 ZP P h

D E h 0 V c 8 i I h R 2 w E E D 1 s E S e l 0 V p 7 R N m U Oa I C s T Af N ) A C o ,0 O ( Oe I 6 B T L g d U a s N B Rt On I I R F e L T c )l 0 E r S S e , 5 V e E v I E D p U e L l l\\ T L e 1 E Ah e N S E Vt s i I 0 O C f o , 4 Mo N R n A E n n R s P o e Gi v E Ot i a s 0 VTt g I 3 S n T a e I A H sd L e e UMr e mop c e 0 UR x r 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 g0<F:mOEga O.* g8a o y$1g6O rP

I

l

l l D E h ,0 V c 8 I i R h l E w B D 5 s E S e 0 l V 7 p R N m U O a I C T s A N ) f A C o O ,0 ( 0 D I O e T L d g U a N B R t O n I I R 7 F e) L T ,0 E cl \\ e S S r 5 V E e v I E D e U p l L L T e e E A h N s S E V t i I ,0 O C o f 4 Mon N R A E R n n P o e Gi v E Ot i a g VT ,0 t I 3 S n a T I e AH sd L e e U Mr e MO p ce 0 UR x r 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 G 5 4 3 2 1 1 4 ~ m0<&zmOCg1 oL sQtgoC$a y81g5O zP e h

] l l D h E c 0 V i 8 h I R w 1 E D H s S e l E S 0 p V m , 7 R N a U Os CI Tf A o N ) 0 O C A Oe ( 4 6 B I g T L d a U t N B R n Oe) I I R F cl L T r e 0 E S S e v < 5 V I E p e E D L U l i T L eh e E N A t s S E V i I 0 f o O C , 4 Mo n N R A E n n R o e P Gi v t E Oa i g V Tt i 0 3 S n I a T e I AH sd L e e i UMr e p M O'e c 0 UR x r

2 CF( e 0

0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 c 5 4 3 2 1 1 g o < > z m O [ n. o*m s >o8$ o yRxzo oO r9 4

,'6' D h E c ,0 V i 8 h I R '1 w E J D s 5 e E S l 0 p V , 7 R N m U O as I C T f A ) N o A C O 0 ( O e I L ,6 B T L g d U a lj } N B R t n O I I F e) R L T cl 0 E r e S S

5 V

e v I E p e E D U L l L e T E A h e N t s S V E i I ,0 O C o f 4 M o n N R A E n n R o e P Gi v t E O i a g VT t 0 3 S n I a T e I AH s d L e e UM r e MO p c e 0 UR x r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 9 8 7 0 5 4 3 2 1 1 m 0 < F z w O E g n. O'e >gO)S2$8" 5 q$x8 OO rP l ? fb( l

) D h E c ,0 i V 8 h I R' w E 1 s DT e S l E S p 0 V , 7 m R N a U O s I C T f N A o ) A C O ,0 Oe ( I 6 B g T L d a U N B Rt n I

O l

e R F c) L T l \\1 0 E r e SS e , 5 V v I E p E D e U L l L e T E Ah e N t s S E V i I ,0 O C o f 4 Mo n N R A E n n R P o e Gi v t E O i a g V T ,0 t 3 S n I a T I e AH sd L e e UM r e MO p c e 0 UR x r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 m 0 < > z m o E g n. Pg h'y >g8a 8Ig oO rP g j,y('q [t

,l D h E c 0 i V h 8 I R w E 2 D A se S l E S p 0 V m , 7 R N a U O s I C T f N A o ) A C O e ,0 ( O I 6 B g T L d a U t N B R n O e I I R F c) L T r l 0 E e SS e , 5 V v E p I E D e U L l e L T h e E A N t s S E V i I f 0 o O C k i 4 Mo n N R AR'n E n o P e Gi v t EO ai g VT t ,0 3 S n I a TI e AH sd L e e UMr e MO p c e - 0 UR x r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 mU<Vzm E m n. PO ,yQOg8a5gRxg5O zP g, g

1 D h E c 0 78 V i h I R w 2 E - s E D ~S e E Sl 0 p VR N m 7 U Oas I ( C T f A N o ) A C O ,. 0 ( Oe I 6 B T L g d U a N B Rt n O I I R e) F cl L T ,0 E r e S S e v 5 V S E p e I E D U l L T L e E A h e N t s S V E i I f o ,0 O C 4 Mo n N R A E n n R P o e Gi v t E O i a g VT t ,0 3 S n I a TI e AH sd L e e UMr e p MO c e j l 0 UR x r - 2 CF( e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 m 0 < i z w 0 E g c. PC )

d;>;y>o8 aa __$Ig oo< EP l,i g,${x l'l

D h E 0 c V 8 i I h R w E D C_ s 2 e E Sl 0 V p 7 R N m U Oa CI s T N Af ) o C A O ,0 ( Oe I 6 B T L g d U a i N B Rt On I I R e) F L T cl T i 0 E r e S S g 5 V e v g\\ E I E D p e U L l L e TN Ah e E s S Vt E i I 0 f o O C i 4 Mo n N R A E n n R i P o e Gi v t E O i a VTt g 0 i 3 S n I a T I e AH s d L e e i U Mr e mop c e 0 UR x r - 2 CF( e, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 g041 2 m O E g a. PC ,(fUg8Ll j; 8f5O rP

1 1I D h E 0 c V i 8 h I R w E D C s 3 e ES l 0 p VR N m , 7 UO as I C T f A N o ) A C O ,. 0 ( O e I 6 B T L g d U a N B R tn O I I R e) F cl L T ,. 0 E r e S S ev 5 V I E p e E D U l L L e T e E A h N s t S E V i I o ,0 O C f 4 Mo n N R A E n n R P oe Gi v t EOa i g q VTt ,0 3 S n a I T e I AH sd L e e UMr e MO p c e l 0 UR x r 2 CF( e 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 g 0 < l-z w O C W c. O.", ), , g? f e $ 8 $~o yRxzo oO z9 ij( ll l

h D h E c ,0 V i 8 h I R w E C s D 4 e E Sl 0 p VR N m , 7 a UO s I C T f A o N ) A C 0 O O e ( , 6 B I g T L d U a t N B R n O I I e R F c )l L T ,0 E r e SS e v 5 V I E p e E D L U l T L e E A h e N t s S V E i ,0 O C I f o 4 M o n N R A E n n R P o e Gi v t E O i a g VT ,C t 3 S n a e I TI e AH s d L e e UM r e p MO c e 0 UR x r - 2 CF e ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 m 0 < H z m O E g a. n; ,,f R8$6 q8 85' O z9 r A { ll! ll}}