ML20151A503
| ML20151A503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1988 |
| From: | Jonas S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6726 OL-1, NUDOCS 8807200020 | |
| Download: ML20151A503 (28) | |
Text
VT i;] o, _
- s , {
RED 6Y0 C98Rf.SPpp,DMSg f
00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 10 J115 PS :33 Before Administrative Judges: OFRCE U :Ua ms .e -
Sheldon-J. Wolfe, Chairman 00CKETun; 4 hr,1vict Emmeth A. Luebke 3RANC" Dr. Jerry Harbour
)
In.the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )- Docket No.(s)
NEW HAMP.4 IRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) On-site EP
) July 12, 1988
)
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDED CONTENTION ON NOTIFICATION SYSTEM GENERAL _ OBJECTION The Massachusetts Attorney General [ hereinafter "Mass AG"]
objects to those interrogatories which request the Mass AG to state the "opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources" which support an answer and to explain how they support the answer. The information sought constitutes nondiscoverable attorney mental impressions, legal theories and work product.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740b, the Mass AG responds to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories regarding the Amended Contention on Notification System as follows:
8807200020 000712 PDR ADOCK 05000443 C PDR
, .g y, .
a l' . . .With respect to the Mass. AG's answers to each of the interrogatories 6 - 46 that follow, is that answer based upon reference to or knowledge of the existence of one or more documents? If so, please:
(a) Identify each such document on which the answer is based.
'(b) Identify the information in each document on which the answer is based.
(c) Identify all documents possessed by or known to exist by the Mass AG which deal with the same subject matter.
(d) produce all identified documents.
RESPONSE 1: The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as overly broad and seeking material not relevant to the subject matter of these proceedings. Without waiving this objection, the Mass AG will produce all relevant, discoverable and non-privileged documents on which the answers to the interrogatories are based.
~
- 2. With respect to the Mass AG's answers to each of the interrogatories 6 - 46 that follow, is that answer based upon any type of study, calculation, procedure, method, instruction, assumption, conclusion, recommendation or analysis? If so, please:
(a) Describe the nature of the study, calculation, procedure, method, instruction, assumption, conclusion, recommendation or analysis.
(b) Identify and produce any documents that constitute, discuss or describe it.
(c) Identify the person (s) who performed it, including the institutional affiliation and professional qualifications, if any, of the person (s).
(d) State when and where it was prepared or performed.
(e) . Describe in detail the information or data that was examined.
(f) Describe the results.
(g) Explain how it provides a basis for the answer.
~
- o RESPONSE 2
- The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 2'as overly broad, duplicative of other, non-objectionable interrogatories and seeking information not relevant to the subject matter of these proceedings and protected trial
-preparation materials under 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(2).
- 3. With respect to the Mass. AG's answers to each of the interrogatories 6 - 46 that follow, is that answer based upon conversations, consultations, correspondence or any other type of communication with one or more individuals or entities? If so, please:
(a) Identify each such individual or entity.
(b) State the educational and professional background of each such individual, including occupation and institutional affiliates.
(c) Describe the nature of each communication with each such individual or entity, when it occurred, and identify all other individuals or entities involved.
(d) Describe in detail the information received from each such individual or entity, and explain how it provides a basis for the answer.
(e) Identify and produce each letter, memorandum, contract, tape, note or other document related to each conversation, correspondence, or other communication with such individual or entity.
RESPONSE 3: The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 3 as overly broad, seeking information not relevant to the subject
, matter of these proceedings and protected trial preparation
! materials under 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(2) and duplicative of l other requests. Without waiving this objection, the Mass AG states that it has had communications with a representative of National Crane in Waverly, Nebraska concerning the crane, Whelan Engineering concerning the siren, Stet Hydraulics l i l
._m. -. . _ - .
. i.
't concerning the stabilizers, Rodman Ford concerning the VANS prototyta truck, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and Wiggen Aircraft concerning the Helicopter, and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc., 327 F Boston post Road, Sudbury, MA on various acoustic issues.
- 4. Does the Mass AG intend to offer the testimony of any expert witness _with respect to the Amended Contention on Notification System? If so, please:
(a) Identify each expert witness whom the Mass AG intends to present with respect to this contention.
(b) State the substance of the facts to which each expert witness is expected to testify.
(c)' State the substance of the opinion or opinions to which each expert witness is expected tc testify.
(d) Provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion to which each expert witness is expected to testify.
(e) State whether the facts and opinions listed in response to the foregoing are contained in any written report, memoranda, calculation, analysis or other transcript, and, if so, whether the Mass AG is willing to produce the same without the necessity of a notice to produce.
(f) State whether the opinion of any expert witness is based in whole or in part on any scientific rule or principle, and, if so, set forth such rule er principle.
(g) State whether the opinion of any expert witness is based in whole or in part on any code or regulation, governmental or otherwise, and, if so, identify each such code or regulation and the specific section or portion
( thereof relied upon.
l l
(h) State whether the opinion of any expert witness is based in whole or in part upon any scientific or engineering book or other publication, and, if so, identify the book or publication.
RERERHSE_A: Witnesses have not yet been selected.
S. Does the Mass AG intend to offer the testimony of any non-expert witness with respect to the Amended Contention on Notification System? If so, please:
-4 -
t (a) Identify each non-expert witness whom the Mass AG intends to present with respect to this contention.
(b) State the substance of the facts to which each nonexpert witness is expected to testify.
(c) State the substance of the opinion or opinions to which each non-expert witness is expected to testify.
(d) provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion to which each non-expert witness is expected to testify.
(e) State whether the facts and opinions listed in response to the foregoing are contained in any written report, memoranda, or other transcript, and, if so, whether the Mass AG is willing to produce the same without the necessity of a request to produce.
(f) State whether the opinion of any non-expert witness is '
based in whole or in part on any scientific rule or principle, and, if so, set forth such rule or principle.
(g) State whether the opinion of any non-expert witness is based in whole or in part on any code or regulation, governmental or otherwise, and, if so, identify each such code or regulation and 'he c specific section or portion thereof relied upon.
(h) State whether the opinion of any non-expert witness is based in whole or in part upon any scientific or engineering book or other publication, and, if so, identify the book or publication.
RESPONSE 5: Witnesses have not yet been selected.
- 6. Has any representative of or person employed by the Department of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth been in contact with any selectman, civil defense director or other official of Amesbury, Merrimack, Newbury, West Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury or Haverhill concerning any actual or proposed siren warning system for Seabrook Station? If so, please:
(a) Identify each selectman, civil defense director or other official who was contacted, and the official, representative, or employee who contacted them.
(b) Describe in detail the date, time, manner, place, and substance of the communication, c) Identify and produce every document that reflects, refers to, or relates in any way to any such contact.
7 . '.
d RESEQNSE_S: The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 6 because, in light of ALAB-883 and the scope of the Mass AG Amended Contention on Notification System, the interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding.
- 7. Has any other official, representative, or employee of the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts been in contact with any selectman, civil defense director or other official of Amesbury, Merrimack, Newbury, West Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury or Haverhill concerning any actual or proposed siren warning system for Seabrook Station? If so, please:
(a) Identify each selectman, civil defense director or other official who was contacted, and the official, representative, or employee who contacted them.
(b) Describe in detail the date, time, manner, place, and substance of the communication, (c) Identify and produce every document that reflects, refers to, or relates in any way to any such contact.
RESPONSE 7.: The Mass AG objects to Interrogatory No. 7 because, in light of ALAB-883 and the scope of the Mass AG Amended Contention on notification system, the interrogatory seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding.
- 8. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the '
Mass AG's assertion that "the VANS and the New Hampshire fixed sirens because of their locations, height, acoustic range and l
number, do not provide tone or message coverage for essentially i 100 percent of the population in the Massachusetts plume i
exposure pathway EpZ at the sound pressure levels required in NUREG-0654 and FEMA-rep-10," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
4
! RESP 0NSE_H: The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that the Applicants have consistently and without basis refused 4
l t
to disclose the preselected acoustic locations for the VANS system sirens. That refusal precludes precise analyses of the coverage within the Massachusetts plume exposure pathway EPZ.
Without waiving this objection, the Mass AG states that a combination of factors including the locatione, height, acoustic range and number of VANS and New Hampshire fixed sirens determine the extent of tone or message coverage within the Massachusetts EPZ. In addition, the Design Report at 2-3
.r.-
to 2-5 identifies several areas for which the requisite coverage is not provided. In fact, those uncovered aceas are larger than indicated in the Design Report when calculated using sound outputs at acceptable levels.
- 9. Please state whether the Mass AG contends that Applicants are required to "provide tone or message coverage for essentially 100 percent of the population in the Massachusetts plume exposure pathway EPZ," and state in detail
. all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources l underlying that answer, explaining in each case hou the fact, opinion, ruling, regulation or other material supports that answer.
RESEQHSE_2: Yes, sen 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(b)(5), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, FEMA-REP-10, Appendix 3, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-i REP-1 Rev. 1, and the Design Report at 2-2.
- 10. Please identify.every segment of the population in the Massachusetts plume exposure pathway EPZ which the Mass AG contends would not receive tone or message coverage at the l sound pressure levels specified in NUREG-0654 and FEMA-rep-10 from the VANS and the New Hampshire fired sirens, state how many people are involvrsd in each instance, and state what sound pressure levels those segments of the population would receive.
RESPONSE _10: Egg Reaponse to Interrogatory No. 8.
- 11. Please identify every local ordinance which the Mass AG contends wcali prohibit the Applicants from operating their
{
E L- s' s
staging areas and from operating their VANS vehicles at the pre-selected' acoustic locations, utating in each case exactly how each' ordinance acts to prohibit the operation.
RESPONSE 11: The Mase
- objects to this interrogatory in that the Applicants have ccat t^n ly and withoutTbasis refused to disclose the staging areas er .eselected acouctic
' locations for the VANS system. Without waiving this objection, the Mass.AG states that tne Amesbury Coning By-Law concerning environmental performance standards sets forth maximum permissible sound pressure levels which would be exceeded by the VANS sirens.
- 12. Please state in c' tail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that 'the fourteen VANS locations are physically inaccessible to the VANS equipment", define precisely what is meant by "physically inaccessible," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 12: The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that the' Applicants have consistently and without basis refused to disclose the staging areas and preselected acoustic locations for the VANS system. Without waiving this objection, the Mass AG states that "physically inaccessible" refers to the inability of fully loaded VANS trucks and equipment to drive into and set up at the acoustic locations preselected for them.
- 13. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "the IVANS] vehicles cannot withstand and will not operate properly with the weights, amount and nature of equipment intended to be carried by the vehicles,"
and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE _11: As the Applicants themselves acknowledge in their response to Mass AG's Interroge. tory No. 7, the VANS fleet
6 has not even been constructed. Therefore, the Applicants can provide no assurance, and only speculation, that the VANS vehicles.will not fail in the fashion described ir. paragraph A(4) of the Mass AG Amended Contention on Notification System for Massachusetts.
- 14. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "the weight distribution with the siren fully extended will cause the equipment to fall and/or the lifting mechanism to bend or break under heavy wind or precipitation conditions," define precisely what is meant by "heavy wind and "heavy . . . precipitation", and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 14: As the Applicants themselves acknowledge in their response to Mass AG's Interrogatory No. 7, the VANS fleet has not even been constructed. Therefore, the Applicants can provide no assurance, and only speculation, that the VANS vehicles will not fail in the fashion described in paragraph A(4) of the Mass AG Amended Contention on Notification System for Massachusetts.
- 15. Please state in detail.all the 'f acts underlying the Mass AG's a'ssertion thac "the telescopic crane will'not reliably lift the siren to its fully extended positirn because ,
of the weight of the siren and the capacity of the crane",
I define exactly what is meant by "reliably", and explain erectly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 15: As the Applicants themselves acknowledge in L .
! their response to Mass AG's Interrcgatory No. 7, the VANS fleet l has not even been constructed. Therefore, the Applicants can provide no assurance, and only speculation, that the VANS vehicles will not fail in the fashion described in paragraph L
i A(4) of the Mass AG Amended Contention on Notification System for Massachusetts.
_g -
u ,
l
, 1
- i 1
- 16. Please state in detail every_ fact, nat' discussed in a l previous _ answer, underlying lthe Mtss AG's' assertion that "the VANS vehicles are inadequate for their intended use", and explain exactly how these facts support the assertion.
RESPQHSE 16: Egg Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 13, 14, 15.
- 17. Please state in detail what the Mass AG contends are the-appropriate criteria for determining VANS vehicle adequacy, and state in detail all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations, and other sources underlying that answer, explaining in each case how the fact, opinion, ruling, regulation, or other material supports that answer.
R2SPONSE 17: The appropriate criteria for determining VANS system adequacy are contained in 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(5), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, FEMA-REP-10, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and the Commission's case law on notification means.
- 18. Please state in detail all the facts, analyses and estimates underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "the time needed for driver alert, dispatch, route transit, setup and activation in accordance with NRC regulations will exceed 15 minutas for many of the VANS vehicles in optimum weather conditions," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 18: The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in ,
that the Applicants have consistently and without basis refused to disclose the staging areas and preselected acoustic l
locations for the VANL ./ stem. That refusal precludes a precise analysis of the route times for the various VANS routes. Without waiving this objection, the Mass AG states as follows:
I a) The Design Report itself at 2-5 to 2-6 identifies l one such VANS location (VL-16S).
1 l
l
i, . a c ,
-t ' f ,
b) The VANS route times listed by the Applicants at Table 2-2 of the Design Report .snd indicating that 15 of 16 Jrcations satisfy the fifteen minute requirement are themselves inaccurate'and in reality the times are much longer. -First, the Applicants assume an. unrealistically short dispatch tima, essentially ignoring the time taken for the Seabrook Station Short-Term Emergency Director to contact-the NHY Offsite Pesponse EOC contact and for the latter to contact the VANS operators themselves. Secon3, the dispatch time assumptions of Applicants ignore the period of time required for the t
operators, sfter notification, to get'to their vehicles, start them, warm them up (in cold weather) and actually leave the staging area. Third, the Applicants calculated the route times using different' tracks than would be used in and without the equipment to be-used for the real VANS system.
c) Given the time required to pack the vehicle, extend the stabilizers and extend the crane, one-minute is an unrealistically low set-up time.
d) NRC and FEMA guidance require that the system hdve "capability for providing both an alert signal and an informational or inst,ructional message" within 15 minutes. The VANS system route times do not factor in the required message
-mode canability.
- 19. Please state in detail wil the facts and estimates underlying the .. ass AG's assertion that "in poor weather, heavy traffic, and nighttime conditions the times needed to accomplish these tasks wil.1 increase," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESEQHSE_19: Egg Response to Interrogatory No. 18. ~ Poor weather wi'11 cause an increase in the amount of. time-needed for dispatch, transit and setup.- Heavy traffic will increase the amount of time needed for transit. Assuming realistic deployment times and either of these conditions, deployment times for VL-01, VL-08, VL-09, VL-10, VL-ll, VL-12 and VL-13 cot'd well be greater then twelve minutes.
- 20. Please state in detail how long the Mass AG contends it will require to perform each of the following functions, for (1) optimum weather conditions and (2) poor weather, heavy traffic, or nighttime conditions, and state in detail all the facts underlying each answer and how those facts support the answer:
(a) notification of VANS driver; (b) -VANS driver proceeds to vehicle; (c) VANS driver checks out vehicle and equipment; (d) VANS driver starts vehicle and leaves staging area; (e) VANS vehicle proceeds to acoustic location; (f) setup and activation of siren at acoustic location.
RESPONSE 20: Egg Responses to Interrogatories No. 18 and 19. The Mass AG further states, to the extent it is able given the unreasoi.able withholding of information by the Applicants, that it believes, based in part on information from the June 28 and 29, 1988 SpMC exercise, that notification (a) will take at least 2 minutes; pr'ceeding o to the vehicles (b) will take at least 3O seconds; checking out the ve.hicle and l
l equipment (c) will take at least one minute; vehicle startup l
and leaving of staging area (d) will take at least 30 seconds; and setup and activation of the siren (f) will take at least 5 minutes.
r i r .
l 21. Please state whether the Mass AG contends that the VANS are required to activate "both alert signal and message capability within the 15 minute period",.and state in detail all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources underlying.that answer, explaining in each case how the fact, opinion, ruling, regulation or other material supports that answer.
RESPONSE 21: FEMA-REP-10 and NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev'. 1 both require that the system have the "capability for providing both an alert signal and an informational or instructional message to the population on an area wide basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, within 15 minutes."
- 22. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the
, Mass AG's assertion that "snow, icy and extreme cold weather L conditions will impede extension of the sirens to their operational position, rotation and oscillation of the sirens during the tone and message modes and operation of the sirens themselves," define exactly what is meant by "oscillation of l the sirens", and explain exactly how those facts support the assertica.
RESPONSE 22: Snow and ice will gather under extreme L
weather conditions in the sections of the crane through which its extension takes place and in the mechanism designed to rotate and oscillate the siren (age Design Report at 2-12, 2-14, 2-16 for definition of those .erms). Once that occurs i the mechanisms will not function in the manner designed by the l
Applicants.
l
- 23. Please state exactly how much each level of snow, of icy weather, and of cold weather will impede each of (i) the l extension of the sirens to their operational position, (ii) the
! rotation and oscil'1ation of the sirens during the tone and j message modes, (iii) the operation of the sirens themselves,
- .and state in detail all the facts underlying the answer for each level and function.
RESPONSE 23: Egg Response to Interrogatory No. 22.
l
~ 13 -
r
- 24. Please stato in detail all the facts and assumptions (including time duration assumptions) underlying the Mass AG's asse.: ion that "at a sound level of 134 DBC anyone within 100
~
feet of the siren during its operation will suffer severe hearing damage," define exactly what-is meant by "severe hearing damage" and explain exactly how those facts support
'the assertion.
RESPONSE 24: paragraph A(7) of the Mass AG's Amended Contention is based on Appendix 3 (at 3-8) of NUREG-0654, FEMA-
-REP-1, Rev. 1 which states "maximum sound levels received by any member of the public should be lower than 123 db, the level which may cause discomfort to individuals."
- 25. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "because of the large size of the intended dispersion angle (60 degrees), sound irregularities will occur within the coverage angles including gaps in sound coverage for certain areas," define exactly what is meant by "sound irregularities", "dispersion angle", "coverage angles" and "gaps in sound coverage", and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
Response 25: "Sound irregularities" refers to the destructive interference with fidelity and/or the total elimination of intelligibility that results from variances in acoustic output. A "dispersion angle" or "coverage angle" is a boundary of sound or a range of acoustic output generated in a certain direction. "Gaps in sound coverage", also known as "nulls" are irregularities where the sound emitted from one speaker effectively cancels out the sound emitted from another speaker.
Loudspeakers do not generate sound at constant levels. A dispersion angle of 60 degrees is no guarantee of uniform cr even intelligible sound. Indeed, with a multiple speaker l
l I
a
~
e
- l l
4 system, like the multi-cellular device to be implemented by the
~
Applicents, acoustical interference among the various speakers will' result.in a high degree of sound irregularity. The likelihood of an acoustic null, where there is a total absence of output to the listener, is greater where two loudspeakers are used, such.as the Whelan Dual WS-4000 system proposed'for the VANS vehicles. Heightened irregularity and increases in the scope of sound gaps arise where the dispersion angles are cast in a 360 radius due to rotating speakers.
- 26. Is it the assertion of-the Mass AG that a "large"
- "dispersion angle" would cause more "sound irregularities" than a smaller "dispersion angle"?
(a) If so, please:
(i) state all the facts underlying this assertion, and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion; (ii) identify all persons with whom the Mass AG consulted in developing the assertion, and state the substance of each person's input on the assertion; (iii) identify and produce all documents consulted or relied upon by the Mass hu, or by persons consulted by-the Mass AG, in developing the assertion.
(b) If nc', please:
(i) state all the facts underlying this answer, and explain exactly how those facts support the answer; i
! (ii) identify all persons with whom the Mass AG consulted in developing the answer, and state the substance of each person's input on the answer; l.
(iii) identify and produce all documents consulted or relied upon by the Mass AG, or by persons consulted by the Mass AG, in developing the answer.
l.
l
(
l L
y . --
I e i
- s. l E '
Response 21: The Mass AG makes no comparative analysis of
.large and small dispersion angles. The assert:.on at issue concerns the degree of. irregularities resulting in unintelligibility and gaps, which will arise where a multi-cellular device with an intended dispersion area of 60 degrees is intended to project intelligible output.
- 27. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "the oscillation of the speaker assembly will cause gaps in coverage when the siren is used in its tone alert mode", define exactly what is meant by "oscillation of the speaker assembly" and "gaps in coverage",
and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
Response 27: The Mass AG withdraws the assertion that "the oscillation of the speaker assembly will cause gaps in coverage when the siren is uced in its tone alert mode.
- 28. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "listeners in areas where there is an overlap in sound coverage from 2 or more sirens . . . will experience severe echo conditions, rendering any voice message unintelligible", define exactly what is meant by "an overlap in sound coverage"", ""unintelligible" and "severe echo conditions', and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RasRanse 28: A problematic "overlap in sound coverage" occurs whenever a listener is not precicely equidistant from two or more sirens. Differing distances between a listener and two sirens will result in a delay between arriving signals.
The effect of this delay is an echo. These echoes result from the finite speed of sound through the atmosphere. Depending on the listener's proximity to the "echoing siren," the delayed message will be of varying loudness. Intelligibility, which is
s x ,
the capacity to be- understood, is lessened or destroyed due to the diminished clarity of.the non-simultaneous arrivals of announcements.
.The Applicants propose that the VANS sirens be positioned in the'affected Massachusetts areas. Each may sound its own message-in varying directions simultaneously and with considerable loudness. .inyone in an overlapping area who is not exactly between 2 vehicles (assuming simultaneous broadcast) or who is not very close to one and very far from the other will experience echo problems and, to a large extent, will hear only unintelligible sounds.
In addition, the ability of consonant and vowel sounds to carry over distances varies greatly due to differences in frequency and the resulting atmospheric absorption of consonant sounds. The effect of this is that speech'from the more distant sirens which is heard by the listener will be of diminished clarity or unintelligible. This adds to the already severe effects of echo conditions.
- 29. Please state in detail what are the orientation and location conditions of sirens and listeners for which the Mass AG asserts that "severe acho conditions" would occur.
BESPONSE 29: The Mass AG does not understand the phrase "orientation and location conditions" and objects to the interrogatory in that the Applicants have consistently and without basis refused to disclose the preselected acoustic locations and staging areas for the VANS system. Without
t waiving this objection, the Mass AG refers the Applicants to their own Design Report, which discusses overlapping coverage, and to Figure 6-1 (Data Date 4-1-88), which depicts such coverage.
- 30. Please identify all areas in which the Mass AG contends "there is an overlap in sound coverage from 2 or more sirens", and' state in detail all the facts underlying the answer.
RESPONSE 30: Egg Response to Interrogatory No. 29.
- 31. Please identify all circumstances when the Mass AG contends it would be required for message mode to be used by the primary alerting system, and state in detail all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources underlying the answer, explaining in each case excctly how the fact, opinion, ruling, regulation or other material supports that answer.
RESEORSE_11: FEMA-REP-10 and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 require that the Applicants have the capability to sound a siren and issue a message both within 15 minutes. As indicated in the Design Report, the message mode must be used along the public beaches in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
- 32. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "sufficient drivers and backup drivers will not be stationed at the six staging areas to ensure 24-hour availability of the system," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 32: The Applicants presently plan to have the staging areas manned with only one person per VANS vehicle.
Given the fifteen minute requirement, the route times demonstrated at the SPMC June 28 and 29 exercise which occurred in unrealistic, optimum circumstances and the fact that it is impossible to ensure that every driver will be ready to be
, I
I
'a 1 1.
i dispatched on a moment's notice, a single driver system will encounter a substantial failure rate.
- 33. Please state how many drivers and backup drivers the Mass AG contends would be "sufficient. . . to ensure 24-hour availability of the system," and state in detail all the facts underlying that answer.
RESPONEE_11: Two for each VANS vehicle. Egg Response to Interrogatory No. 32.
- 34. Please state in detail all the facts underlying the >
Mass AG's assertion that "the system will work reliably. . .
only when each vehicle is manned by at least two people," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 34: Egg Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 32 and 33.
- 35. Please define exactly what the Mass AG means by "adequate fidelity to ensure intelligibility", including specific values, and state in detail all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources underlying that definition, explaining in each case how the fact, opinion, i tuling, regulation or other material supports that definition.
Response 35: "Fidelity" is the degree to which an electronic system accurately reproduces the sound of its input signal. A sound is intelligible if it is understood. The more accurate the reproducticn, the more intelligible the sound.
Criteria used in evaluating fidelity and intelligibility 1 include the loudness of the sound or signal and the loudness of the noise that is obscuring the sound or signal. Echoing, nulls and inconsistencies in consonant and vocalic sounds are obscurants. These facts have been discussed in preceding esponses and as such, are incorporated here by reference.
In addition, self generated noise, endemic to all electronic devices, will be amplified by the loudspeakers in 19 -
the VANS system and will sum with extant community noise to cause'the sound / noise ratio described above to tip towards unintelligibility. Moreover, transient noise, which is abrupt noise of considerable strength momentarily. transmitted through reproductive systems, adds to the level of unintelligibility.
The likelihood of interference from transients is significant where'the VANS system includes radio transmission techniques as an integral part of the signal chain.
Beccuse, as the Applicants have acknowledged, the VANS remote control system is only partially in place they cannot demonstrate that the equipment has adequate fidelity to ensure intelligibility.
- 36. please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "poor weather. . . is equally or more debilitating or (sic] the usa of a helicopter," and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
hdSPONSE 36: Ege Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 22 and 37.
- 37. please state exactly what degrees of high wind, heavy rain, snow, icy conditions, and/or extreme cold conditions-the l
Mass AG contends would be "equally or more debilitating or l (sic] the use of a helicopter," and state in detail all the i facts underlying that answer.
l Response 37: Winds in excess of 40-50 mph make helicopter flight virtually impractical. Thunderstorms pose a certain l
danger due to lightening and updraft and thus a pilot will rarely fly in those conditions. Although rain per se will not prevent flight, a continuous torrential downpour will make 1
l
flight impractical. A pilot will never fly in' freezing rain.
because of the ice build-up that occurs on control surfaces.
Likewise, a pilot will not fly in heavy snow. In addition to possible ice build-up, the pilot would have severe. visibility problems.
- 38. please state in detail all the facts underlying the Mass AG's assertion that "a steady 3 to 5 minute tone alert capable of repetition cannot be accomplished with the airborne system for siqnificant numbers of people even within the covered aret c.ause the speed necessary to provide that duration of a tone is too slow for extended-operation of the aircraft," define exactly what is meant by "significant numbers of people", "covered area" and "too slow", and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
RESPONSE 3&: The Mass AG has not determined how many people constitute "significant numbers" in this context because there is no pre-planned alerting route for the helicopter. The statement is otherwise largely self-explanatory. However,-an illustration of the deficiency appears in he Design Report Appendix B at 4-8 to 4-13.
- 39. Please state whether the Mass AG contends that Applicants are required to provide "a steady 3 to 5 minute tone alert" with their airborne backup system, and state in detail all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources underlying that answer, explaining in each case how the fact, opinion, ruling, regulation or other material supports that answer.
RESPONSE 39: Yes, 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b)(5), 10 C.F.R. Part 50 App. E., FEMA-rep-10, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-rep 1, Rev. 1 and NRC case law cite 6 in the parties' briefs on the Mass AG's Amended Contention.
- 40. Please state in detail all the facts underlying th.
Mass AG's assertion that "any attempted informational messages for the airborne siren will be garbled and unintelligible
s because of the' strength and size of the speaker array and amplifier system, the height of the aircraft and the effect of
'the helicopter's rotary blades," define exactly what is meant by "garbled and unintelligible", and explain exactly how those facts support the assertion.
ResDonse 40: "Garbled" means to be so distorted as to be uninFelligible. Unintelligible means unable to be understood or lacking the capacity to be understood. The informational meusages of the airborne siren will be garbled and innintelligible because, among other tPings, the rotary action of the helicopter blades will cause air to flow past tne speakers in a pulse. This results in a modulated, and thus, distorted sound. In addition, the background noise of the helicopter itself will result in further distortion.
- 41. please identify all circumstances when the Mass AG contends it would be required for informational messages to be broadcast by the airborne backup system, and state in detail all the facts, opinions, rulings, regulations and other sources underlying that answer, explaining in each case exactly how the fact, opinion, ruling, regulation or other material supports that answer.
RESPOMSE 41: Informational messages must be broadcast by the airborne system when VANS trucks fail, for whatever reason, to provide the tone alert in the required time period or where the VANS trucks intended to cover the beach areas do not do so in the required time period with tone alert and/or message l
coverage. San Response to Interrogatory 39.
- 42. Please list and produce all documents possessed by the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any l department, agency, office, commission, authority, official, l employee or representative thereof that reflect, refer to, or l
relate in any way to any emergency warning sirens installed or contemplated within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, other than sirens installed by Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
1 i
i
-e a
?
RESPONSE 42: The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory as seeking information not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding. Without waiving this objection the Mass AG states.
that no emergency warning sirens in the Commonwealth are installed or contemplated for use in an emergency at Seabrook Station.
- 43. Please identify, by statir.g the name, institutional affiliation and professional qualifications, if any, all individuals who assisted the Mass AG in preparing the Amended Contention on Notification System, and describe in detail the nature and substance of their assistance.
Response 43: Gregory C. Tocci; and Thomas G. Bouliane, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc., located at 327 F Boston Post Road, Sudbury, MA, are acoustic consultants. Their assistance 1
l was engaged for the purpose of reviewing and assisting the Mass AG in reviewing the NHY alternativa notification proposals.
- 44. Please identify and produce all documents consulted or relied upon by the Mass AG, or by any individuals assisting the Mass AG, in preparing the Amended Contention on Notification System.
RESPONSE 44: The Mass AG will produce all relevant, discoverable and non-privileged documents within the scope of this request. The Mass AG will not produce the numerous documents on which it consulted or relied that either were l prepared by the Applicants or are within their possession as l part of the docket of this proceeding.
- 45. Pleaue list, identify the source (including preparer's name, institutional affiliation and professional l qualifications, if any) of, and produce, all studies, tests
! analyses, procedures, methods, instructions, conclusions, recommendations, computer runs or similar scientific reviews, prepared for or possessed by the Mass AG, and all assumptions j and data used therein, relating to:
1
(a) siren and/or voice mode emergency notification systems; (b) . sound and/or ambient noise levels in any areas where emergency planning for Seabrook Station is required; (c) acoustic range models or analyses;
~
(d) road blockage or traffic interruption in connection with the VANS system; (e) meteorological conditions, including but not limited to wind speeds, temperature and precipitation, in connection with the VANS system.
RESPONSE 45: Een Response to Interrogatory No. 44.
- 46. Please identify all studies, analyses or other work l
which Mass AG currently intends to perform or have performed in L
connection with any matter raised by his Amended Contention on-l Notification System or bases thereunder.
RESPONSE 46: The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of permissible discovery under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL
/ -.
- gi 'D ,$f St6 phen h( Jonas Deputy Chief Public protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 617-727-2200 Date: July 32, 1988 l
p, 1 *n f
00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U1NPC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 Ja_15 P5 :33
) 0FFICE OF HME M In the. Matter of ) 00CKli E 4 3.E N Cf BRANCn
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) . Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, et al. )
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen A. Jonas, hereby certify that on July 12, 1988, I made service of the within Massachusetts Attorney General's Response to First Set of-Interrogatories Regarding the Massach'isetts Attorney General's Amended Contention on Notification System, by mailing copies-thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail, to:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 5500 Friendship Boulevard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Apartment 1923N Commission Chevy Chase, MD 20815 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission 1717 H Street
! East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20555
! 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Stephen E. Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbae Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General l Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W. 25 Capitol Street i Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301 l
l l
l l
l' t E
V Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC. 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C. Pevear Ms. Diana P. Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town'of Hampton Falls. Seabrook, NH- 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board. Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Mr. J. P. Nadeau Shaines & McEachern Board of Selectmen 25 Maplewood Avenue 10 Central Road P.O. Box 360 Rye, NH 03870 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Mr. Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street E, Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angelo Machiros, Chairman U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn
- Tom Burack) Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Edward Molin 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall I
(Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick Mr. William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913
/
1 l
I l
. .o \
i! e i
Brentwood-Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Ellyn Weiss, Esq.
Assistant' Attorney. General Harmon & Weiss Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333' Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
R.K. Gad III, Esq. Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 35 Pleasant Street 225. Franklin Street- Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02110 Beverly Hollingworth Ashad A. Ashod, Esq.
209 Winnacunnet Road 376 Main Street Hampton, NH 03842 Haverhill, MA 01830 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board.of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing
~own o f 3ren'.No')d Board Panel 20 Fraanlin dtreet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20555 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Old Post Office Square & McGuire 100 Main Street -79 State Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Newburyport, MA 01950 i
~'
-. . j ..; t -
.s R. Scott Hill-Whilton,.Esq. Barbara A. St. Andre, Esq.
'Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton' Kopelman &.Paige~, P.C.
& McGuire. 77 Franklin Street 79 State Street Boston, MA 02110 Newburyport, MA. 01950 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
McKay, Murphi* & Graham Old Post Office Square 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913
~
fiteph(n h..Jpefds Assistant Attorney General Public Protection Bureau (617)-727-2200 Dated: July 12, 1988
,