ML20204B620
| ML20204B620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1987 |
| From: | Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2858 OL-1, NUDOCS 8703250112 | |
| Download: ML20204B620 (19) | |
Text
vc 1
S,1 S.
')fj; i.
90CMETED USNRC-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5
23 N0i42 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFT!CE G# I,ts ' -
Before Administrative Judges:
00tW{Q,1 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson-Emmeth'A. Luebke Jerry Harbour 1
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
).
Docket Nos.
)
50-443/444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(On-Site EP and
)
safety issues)
)
March 20, 1987 HOTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON TO FILE A LIMITED REPLY TO APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
-Attorney General James M. Shannon hereby moves the Licensing Board pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.730(a) and (c) for permission to file a limited reply to Applicants' Answer to Motion of Attorney General James M. Shannon to Reconsider Late-Filed Contention with Revised Basis and to Reopen the Record, dated March 13, 1987, in order that the Attorney General may apprise the Board of two apparent misrepre-sentations in Applicants' pleading.
The reply the Attorney General seeks to make is attached hereto as " Exhibit A."
As basis for this motion Attorney General Shannon states that Applicants have,made two misrepresentations in their 0703250112 870320 PDR ADOCK 05000443 yo3 0
PDn
.q$
a, 3
T.
pleading'in response to the Attorney General's motion..In order that-this issue to reopen the record may be fairly decided the Board should be apprised of such misrepresentations and a11' facts relevant thereto.
Therefore the Attorney General seeks permission to file this limited reply.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M.
SHANNON Attorney General By:
b-Carol S. Sneider Donald S. Bronstein
. Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated:
March 20, 1987 N
n t
W Exhibit "A"'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative. Judges:
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour
)
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC-SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket Nos.
HAMPSHIRE,-ET AL.
)
50-443/444-OL-1
-(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(On-Site EP and
)
safety issues)
)
March 20, 1987 ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S REPLY TO APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER Attorney General James M. Shannon hereby files this limited reply to Applicants' Answer to Motion of Attorney General James M. Shannon to Reconsider Late-Filed Contention with Revised Basis and to Reopen the Record, dated March 13, 1987 The Attorney General files this reply to apprise the Board of two apparent misrepresentations in Applicants' pleading.
The two misrepresentations and the Attorney General's response thereto are as follows:
1.
Applicants state at page 3 of their pleading, that
" utilization of the appropriate 1/3 octave band is the correct procedure."
Repeating this conclusion, the Callendrello
r
..k Affidavit submitted in support of Applicants' Answer states that' FEMA guidance specifies that " background noise level should be measured in th(e) one-third octave band.
Calendrello Affidavit at p.
2, citing Standard Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification for Nuclear Power Plants, FEMA-43, dated September, 1983.
Applicants' pleadings thus imply that measurements taken in the full octave band are inappropriate and not in accord with the FEMA guidance.
In fact, FEMA made clear when publishing the more recent guidance, Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, FEMA-REP-10, dated November, 1985, that background sound measurements can be taken in either the one-third or the full octave band.
See 50 Fed. Reg. 43084, 43085 [" Attachment A" hereto].
It is clear, then, that background sound measurements taken by both the Attorney General and the Applicants were performed in appropriate octave band widths and that a material dispute a
to fact exists concerning whether the siren system in Merrimac indeed " exceeds the average measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels by 10 dB" as required by FEMA.
See FEMA-REP-10, at E-8, E-9.
In fact, HMM Associates, upon whom Applicants rely for their current measurements, stated in the Seabrook Station Public Alert and Notification System Final Design Report, dated January 1984, [ Final Design Report], that sound levels observed at each of the Seabrook sites " typically s_
k span a range of 30 dB or more."
Final Design Report at p.
12
[" Attachment B" hereto).
It is not surprising, therefore, that the measurements submitted by the Attorney General and the Applicants vary somewhat.
Taken as they were on different times for short periods of time, they serve to prove only that winter background noise varies a great deal, probably due to the variation in background noise generated by traffic and wind bluster.
This raises the question of how one goes about measuring the " average summer daytime" background noise, as FEMA-REP-10 requires.
Logic and common sense suggest that such an " average" can be computed only from a series of measurements over a number of days with differing wind, weather, and traffic conditions.
Furthermore, it would be more appropriate to take these measurements using the LSO level, not the L90 level.
This, in fact, is what Applicants' experts at HMM recommended in the Final Design Report they conducted (see " Attachment B " ).-
In this report HMM stated that in determining the
" average daytime level," as required by FEMA, sound measurements should be provided in the L50 level, that is the sound level that is exceeded 50% of the time, rather than in the L90 level (the level used by Applicants to indicate compliance with the FEMA standard), which only indicates the sound level exceeded 90% of the time.
It is clear from all this that a reopening of the record is therefore warranted to determine whether sirens in Merrimac do meet the FEMA standard 3-
w
-' : w '
- (
and, thus, whether there exists reasonable assurance that the notification sirens'in Merrimac~will be heard by that entire populace.
2.
Applicants state at page 5 of their Answer, as if it were relevant, that, "At a time when the siren system had yet to'be designed and constructed, Massachusetts showed no interest at all in raising a contention about the sirens of any kind."
In fact Massachusetts twice filed contentions related to 'he lack of a siren system prior to the design and t
construction of such system.
See Commonwealth of Massachusetts i
Supplement to Petition to Intervene, dated April 20, 1982, Contention 4; Contentions of Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti-Relative to Emergency Planning for thg State of New Hampshire, dated June 23, 1983, contention III.
When the siren system was later designed, it called for six sirens to be located in Merrimac, see Final Design Report, dated January, 1984, at p.
18.
Those six sirens were then reduced to three, see, e.g.,
State of New Hampshire RERP Rev.
1, Vol. 1, p.
2.1-11, dated June 1986, and it is only now that Applicants have indicated that they intend to install only two of those three sirens.
It is only now, therefore, that the Attorney General has cause to once again raise this issue of siren coverage.
The Attorney General strongly resents Applicants' attempts to call into question the motives of the Attorney General in raising this motion; such name-calling as e
g'.
o L
Applicants stoop to at page 5 of their Answer should have no place in this litigation.
If Applicants had last summer determined average background noise levels for Merrimac in accordance with the FEMA guidance, of which they were well aware, there would, perhaps, never have been a need for the Attorney General to file these motions to ensure adequate siren-coverage.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON Attorney General db By:
Carol S. Sneider Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, Room 1902 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated:
March 20, 1987 4
Attachment "A"
t E N 1ses l
l l
l e
i l
l l
l Pari lli l
Federal Emergency i
Management Agenc).
Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants; Notice of Availability e
1 l
l e
v,
- - - ~
43084 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 205 / Wednesday. October 23. 1985 / Notices FEDERAL ERAERGENCY Specific coausents were provided by six two of the local government agencies, ifANAGEnfENT AGENCY state government agencies, four all four utilities, and two of the utility indmdual ut lities; three utility ledustry industry groups took exception to Culde for the Evaluation of Alert and groups, two local government NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1.
Notification Systems for Nuclear organizations, and one Nuclear guidance quoted in FBIA-83. Finally.
Power Plante Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff the NRC staff member noted that member.These comments and FEMA *a NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1. is Aossocy: Federal Emergency resp nse to them are summarized as currently undersomg review and hianagement Agency (FEMA).
follows:
revision and therefore, conforming AcTioss: Notice of availability of a final Content ofSubmittals--One-half of chan " to FEMA-43 ma be rc uired.
guidance document for the evaluation of I
h ded 8
u81 no a ap pu ca nuclea po p nt and s ary of ut ies, two o e uti ity in ustrF FIhtA-43, approval of state plans under comments on interim edition-groups, and two of the states, expressed 44 CFR part 350 was conditioned upon some concern about the level of detail an evaluation, which could not be suasesAny:FBIA is issuing FEMA-REP-
- 10. Guide for the Ei aluation of Alert and required by FEhlA-43 for alert and completed at that time on the adequa:y naufication system design reporta.
of alert and notification eystems.Those Notification Systems for Nuclear Pow er These comments addressed the overall portions of such plans responsive to P/ ants, incorporatirg public comments en the intenm use draft, previously scope of the guide as well as specific alert and not:fication requirements published as FEMA-43. Copies will be aspects of the recommended format for would be subject to review under avallable for pubtle distribution on subrnitials (Appendix 1) and the FEMA-REP-10, and a final finding November 1.1985. Copies will be requirements for mm.m. case by-case would be issued to grant full approval. if distributed for information and use to aaa!ysas of institutional alerting warranted. However. FEMA does not
. tate and local governments with systems, presentation of the rationale intend that FEMA-REP-10 require states nuclear power plants operating, for broadcast sptem selection, and to restructure or resubmit previously planned. or under coastruct.on: utilities; das..ription of the administrative means submitted plans (or even plans already other affected federal agencies: and of afarting the public, prepared for submittal). In such cases.
interested industry persons affected by in response to these commenta. FEMA en attachment to the plan may be re-evaluated its map requirements and prepared addressing only the alert and nuclear power. Copies are available at eliminated the requirements for case-by-notification system and referencing the addresa listed below.
8 existing documents to the extent FOR FUftTNGR 196FOAAAATION CONTACT-.
Cr:iig S. Wingo. Chlef. Field Operations h'i,,n de$
"adcas selecth practical. FEMA also notes that the
's planning and preparedness standards Branch. Technological Hazards Division, g EMA-REP-10 summarizes the map and related enteria contamed in Federal Emergency Management requirements in Appendix 2. which NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev. t. are Agency. Washington. DC 20472 (Telephone 202-646-3026).
f,#(j p$cativ incorporated in 44 CFR 350.5 diree.tly q
t no anon and by reference. Comments concerning supetsaraxTAny neronssAT10se:On on map (s) and to indicate that any NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1. are September 15.1983. FEMA published in ma (s)willbe acceptableif they clearly not appropriam to FEMA 43 and hum the Federal Register a notice of the an accurately depict required have been provided in response to the availability of FEMA-43. an interim information. FEMA has also revised publication or public comment of the guidance document titled Standard Appendix t in FEMA-REP-10 to proposed 44 CFR 350. Fina!!y. FEMA Cuidefor the Evaluation of Alert and eliminate prescriptive format Notification Systems for Nuclect Power requirementa and to make it more useful agrees that criteria affecting alert and notification systems as well as other l
Plants, for public comment and use as an aid for ensuring completeness in parts of 44 CFR 350 may change if pending the issuance of a hnal edition the preparation of alert and notification NUREG-0654/FDIA-REP-1. Rev.1. is 143 FR 41516).This document was system sections of existing plana and for modified at some future date.
developed to elaborate upon the state and local personnel developing a requirements of 44 CFR Part 350 related plan for the first time. However, apart IE%fA-'3 ACCePtonce C.-iterio-to alert and notification systems and to from those changes, editorial Twe:ve of those who provided provide guidance regarding the clarifications, and modifications made comments raised issues related to evaluation of these systems. FBtA-43 in responsa to other comments. FEMA acceptance critaria for specific alert and intended to:(1) Assist state and local believes that the level of detail required notificat'on system components. One of those who commented felt that, overati.
l planners and utilities in understanding previously by FEMA-43 and now by l
the acceptance criteria that FEMA will FEMA-REP-10 is necessary and FEMA-43 emphasized the required use to assess the adequacy of alert and appropriate. In particular, the content of the design report at the notification systems; and (2) to assist information required in describing the expense of presidmg specific criteria for FEMA personnelin uniformly means of alertirg is consonant with that reviewers to use in evaluating interpreting and applying the applicable specified in Appendix 3 of NUREG-submittals. Addressina stren system planning standards and criteria from 0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1.
criteria, one utility and a unlity indwg N1) REG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1.
Relationship ofTEMA-4J to Existing group recommended that field survev during actual evaluations of the alert Plans and Cuidance-Fourteen of the ambient sound level measurements and notification systems.
fcommenters raised issues concerning include the full (rather than the one-the relationship of FEMA-43 to existing third) octave band in which the PuMc Conunents plans and guidance. Two of the state eredominant stren sound occurs. One The notice of availability of FEMA-43 government agencies, one utility. and local government group also un pub lIshed in the Federal Register on the NRC staff member expressed recommended that stren systems be September 15.1983 with a comment concerns about the effect of FEMA-43 required to have backup power.
period thrnugh December 1.1983.
on existing plans. Four of the state and Concernmg tone alert radios. two
)
Federal Register / V 1. 50. No. 205 / Wednesdry. Oct:ber 23,1965 / N: tic:s 43005 utilities and a utility industry group identified any concems about of overall emergency response contended that the development and distribution of instructional materials.
capability.
maintenance of a tone alert radio Should such concems be identified PublicSur eys-Six of those who address register was overly burdensome during the public surveys conducted as provided comments addressed the and should be required only if public a part of these reviews. FEhtA will public survey techniques that FEMA-4 surveys indicate a problem with tone address them on a case.by-case basis.
specifies for use dunng the alert and alert radio distnbution.These groups The recommended minimum netification system demonstration.
61so thought the requirement for annual broadcast interval has not been changed Three utilities and a utility industry written instructions was excessive.
because FEMA believes that frequent group recommended that the guide make However, a local govemrnent broadcasts are necessary to be certain it clear that the public survey will be commented that more frequent written that the public remains adequately conducted only for initial system instructions were required and that inforrr.ed durir g an emergency.
approval and will not be repeated increased training was needed for However }T.HA notes that this unless significant system design changes institutional tone alert radio users.
broadcast intervalis recommended are made. One local govemmeat Addressing the Emergency Broadcast rather than required and that. if no organization suggested that the survey System (EBS). three state govemment significant new information has include a determination of what the egencies, all four utilities, and two developed during the 15-minute interval, respondent in fact knows about the utility industry groups commented on it would be appropriate to rebroadcast meatung of the alerting signal and what the reccmmendation that the broadcast the preceding message.
he or she was instructed to do on of EBS messages at least every 15 prij/s ond Exercise-The comments perceiving the signal. Finally, one state minutes during a general emergency was addressed four areas on the ccnduct and govemment agency suggested that the esecss:ve. particutarly if a rtifferent evaluation of dnlls and exercises. Four suney sample size be re examined message had to be prepared fur each utilities and two utility industry groups in response to these comments, the broadcast. One utthty mdustry group commented that the purpose of discussion of survey sample size in a!so noted that smce individual red.o communication dnlls was to test the I EMA-REP-10 has been clanfied. The station participat:en in the EDS is equipment and system rather than to survey sample size is determmed using soh.ntary. it rnas not be posa.ble to determ.ne that srecific ind:viduals were accepted standard statistical techmques obtain the fctmal participation availcble for a dn!!. One state agency discussed in numerous texts covenng agreements required in FEMA-41 commented that the maintenance of drill samphng theory. The specific denvation in re ponse to these comrnents. FM records for at least 3 years seemed for this appbcatien is presented in he mcdified the Feld survev ambient excessis ely burdensome. One state Appendix 3 of FEMA-REP-10. Howes e.
- ound measurerr.cet recemmendations aFency. four utilities, and two i.tility FEMA his decided that once an alert te eermit use cf the full cctave bardin industry groups disagreed with the and notification system has been u hich the t-cdominant etrr sound lesel excluston of individuals with direct er officially approved under the FEMA-Laus, end replaced the recuirement fcr supervisory responsibility for plar.- ng REP-10 process. future public surses s wntten agreements tFat individual or operation of the alert aad notifat:on wi!! not be required unless one of the broadcasting statiens wi.1 participate m systern from the exercise critique, fo!!owing conditiens is encountered.
the EBS with a requirement for evaluation process. Finally. one sta'e
-there is significant change in the dccumentation indicating that they are agency took exception to consideration cmergency planning zone populaton able to participate in the EBS.
of Flanning Standard N in FEMA-43 around the nuclear pow er plant:
FEMA has not inch.ded a specific since NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1. Rev'
-there is sigmficant modification to the requirernent that backup power be
- 1. makes no directmention of its physicalcomponents of the alert and provided for siren systems for the apphcability to alert and cctification notification system: or following reasong. Due to electric power systems.
-there is a ser:ous probier i identifrd in gnd inten.onnections, the loss of normal la response to those comments. FEStA
' "' "8E# 0 81'" '"d power to a siamficant number of strens included r od.fiestions in FEMA-REP-would most likely occur coincident with to to indicate that decision makers need
" 'II C " ' Y "' *'
a power octage covering the entire EFZ.
not participate in commur ! cation dnits.
FD!A also notes that the Office of Sach large power losses are infrequent to eliminate the 5 year retention Management and Budget,in approung and are usually caused by adserse requirement for exercise and drill the public survey program, stated that weather conditions. Since nuclear power records and to permit indisiduals with FEMA should not be expected to make p! ant general emergencies are estremely direct and supervisory responsibility for certam that the public has read or unlikely. the likelihood that these two planmng or operation of the alert and understands the alert and net;fication events will occur simultaneously is notif. cation system to partic:pate in the information prouded to it.
estraordinarily small. A power cutage exercise critens evaluation process.
S.ren Testing cnd Operebihty-Two may prompt many people to turn on However. FEMA regards communication utilit;es and two utihty industry groups their battery powered radios in an drills as more than mere tests of reccmmended that the guide be attempt to deterrame its cause. In light equipment. As stated in NUREG-0654/
modified to indicate that scheduled of those considerations. FDIA does not FEMA-REP-1. Rev.1. "a dr:ll is a testing programs diffenng from the one beheve it necessary to specifically supervised instruction penod aimed at spec:fied in FEMA-43 may be require backup power for siren systems.
testing, developing, and maintaining acceptable.
FEMA has not modified the guidance skills."The skills referred to are those of In response to these comments. FEMA concerning tone alert registers and the personnel responsible for operatmg has adopted a less presenptive instructions. Several electric utshties.-
the equipment. FEMA also believes that approach to evaluatmg routme siren hase already deseloped tone alert radio consideration of Planning Standard N in testing and operabihty that is desenbed registers without eny apparent FEMA-REP-101s appropnate smce in Appendix 4 of FEMA-REP-10 escessae burde.. FEMA reuew s of exercising the alert and notification FEMA-4J Scope-Three state vert and nntification systems hat e net system is an integral part of the esetere government agencies one local
J Attachment "B"
(contains cited portion of Final Design Report only)
SEABROOK STATION PUBLIC ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FINAL DESIGX REPORT l
I f
Prepared for PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE g
Manchester, New Hampshire January 1984 g
?
E HMM Associates, Inc.
Concord, Massachusetts g
_j TABLE OF CONTENTS gage 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Description 1
1.2 Design Basis 1
1.3 Summary 2
2 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SEABROOK STATION PLUME EXPOSURE EPZ 2.1 Topograpny 3
2.2 Climatology 3
2.3 Demography 4
2.4 Ambient Noise 6
2.4.1 Sackground 9
9 2.4.2 Design Basis 9
2.4.3 Measurement Locations 10 2.4.4 Measurement Equipment g
2.4.5 Measurement Sandwidth 10 2.4.6 Results 10 11 1
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALERTING SYSTEM 3.1 Design Criteria 15 3.2 Siren Locations 15 3.3 Description of Sirens 17 gl 19 3.4 Siren Coverage 21 3.4.1 Alert Tone 3.4.2 Voice 21 3.5 Siren Control 21 22 3.6 Emergency Alerting Radio Receivers 3.7 25 Public Notification and Instructions Via Emergency Broadcast 3.8 28 Siren Activition Sequence 29
!! l
rV-1 l11'.-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) 3.9 Siren System Tests 30 3.10 Provisions for Alerting System Improvements, if Required 31 4
ANALYSES OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 32 4.1 Activation Time 32 4.2 Siren Coverage 33 APPENDIX A AMBIENT BACKGROUNO NOISE LEVELS MEASURED IN THE SEABROOK EPZ A-1 APPENDIX B SIPEN SITES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE (TABLE 1)
AND, MASSACHUSETTS (TABLE 2) 8-1 APPENDIX C ORGANIZATIONS TO RECEIVE EMERGENCY ALERTING RADIO RECEIVERS C-1 APPENDIX 0 SIREP COMPUTATION PROCEDURES USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SIREN COVERAGE D-1
. t
t L
__,m
_..x
~_
m_m m
_m
___m The background noise that contrioutes to the masking of a siren sound is contained in a relatively narrow frequency cand centered on the frequency of the predominant siren tone This cand, sometimes called the " critical cand," is very narrow:
typically 1/6 to 1/10 of an octave wide.
Filters for measuring the Dackground noise in such a narrow cand are not readily availaole.
The sirens to be installed around Seaurook Station will produce tones at 700 Hz.
Hence, the measurements reported nere were made with an octave-band filter centered at 500 Hz (i.e., a filter spanning the range f rom 353 Hz to 707 Hz).
Because tne octave cand contains much more noise energy than the critical cand of interest, the measured data were converted to equivalent 1/3 octave band levels by subtracting 5 dB (i.e., 10 log (1/3)).
FEMA suggests the use of 1/3 octave cands for ambient noise measurements.b Of course, tne critical cand is even narrower tnan 1/3 octave, so the data reported herein are somewhat nigher tnan the actual bacxground noise of interest, and nence more conservative.
2.4.6 Results E
The data sheets from each of the seventeen measurement locations are given in Appendix A.
Tne data are in tne form of "L-levels."
The L is the level that was exceeded 10% of 10 the time during the 1/2-hour sampling period; tne L50 was l
exceeded 50% of the time; tne L 90% of tne time; etc.
Tne 90, maximum and minimum momentary levels that were observed are ll also reported, along with tne equivalent level:
L The eq.
L is the level of a hypotnetical steady sound that would eq g
have had the same energy over the half-hour period as the actual, fluctuating noise.
Because sound is measured on a logarithmic scale, the L tends to be influenced by orief, 1
eq intense noises.
[7] FEMA-43, " Standard Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and l
Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants," September 1983 Section E.6.2.1, pp. E-6.
E g l
7
^
The data in Appendix A include the -5 d8 correction to 1/3-octave-band levels.
,The levels observed at each <fte tvnfen11v snan a ranga or 30 dB or more.
This raises the ouestion as to which level in that range should be used as the maskino level.
An estimate that is often used is the L level.
This is called the 90
" residual" level, and it generally characterizes the background in the absence of brief vehicles.b0 transient noise sources like passing For the purposes of this study a more conservative value, the L50, is used.
Tne L
's are tabulated on Table 2.3.
50 The L or median level, could be considered sn, reorasantativa of the " average daytime level" used by FEMA in FEMA-REP-1 and FEMA-43.
Fer sirens operating 15 minutes or longer, the L 50 would establish the nighest possible masking level.
For sirens operating less than 15 minutes, there would be some chance of masking at higher levels.
This enance would increase ~as the siren duration decreased.
Examination of the L levels on 50 Table 2.3 indicates that only one exceeds the 50 d8 " rural" design level provided by FEMA /NRC.
This is 53 dB at site #10 in downtown Portsmoutn.
The site is clearly in an urban area where FEMA /NRC's 60 d8 design background level applies.
Three otner sites are worth mentioning.
At site 3 in Salisbury, 50 d8 was observed and at Site 8 in Seabrook 48 dB was observed.
Both sites are close to Interstate 95 and receive relatively steady traffic noise from that source.
The siren system for these locations is designed for 60 dB (i.e.,
urban) background noise.
Finally, at site 16 in downtown Exeter, 48 dB was observed.
Siren coverage in that area is also designed for a 60 dB background.
At all other sites, the L
was 45 dB or less.
50 In conclusion, tne background noise measurements confirm that the FEMA /NRC design levels are suitable, and quite conservative.
g
[8] US EPA NTIO 300.3, " Community Noise," December 1971.
E _
00LKCTCO usHFC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1R HNt23 N022
)
0Ff I
In the Matter of
)
09C SRANCH
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
)
Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL-1 HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol S. Sneider, hereby certify that on March 20, 1987 I made service of the within document, by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, by first class mail, or as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express mail, to:
- Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building Tenth Floor 4350 East West Highway 7735 Old Georgetown Road Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Dethesda, MD 20814
- H.
Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Stephen E. Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301
--____-_j
VK i
,r y
- yj R[. -
f Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.
b[;.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of_the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112.
Washington, DC.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 f
I
~ Roberta C. Pevear Ms. Diana P. Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 M,
Drinkwater Road Hampton' Palls, NH 03844
' y ;'
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 Nashington, DC 20555 Paul McEachern, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 central Road y
25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 u
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
(\\ttn: Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor LConcord, NH 03301 City Hall
-( Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 M.r., 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 i t
I h.
o 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.
Diane Curran, 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 Edward A. Thomas 209 Winnacunnet Road Federal Emergency Management Hampton, NH 03842 Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 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 Of fice 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 Allen Lampert Helen F. Hoyte, Chairperson Civil Defense Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Town of Brentwood Board Panel 20 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Exeter, NH 03833 Washington, DC 20555 Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board McKay, Murphy & Graham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Old Post Office Square Commission 100 Main Street East West Towers Building Amesbury, MA 01913 4350 East West Highway Third Floor Mailroom Third Floor Mailroom Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Judith H.
Mizner, Esq.
Silvergate, Gertner, Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110
.s k
e Rep.. Edward J. Markey, Chairman U.S.~ House of Representatives Subcommittee;on Energy.
~"
Conservation =and Power Room H2-316-House Office Building
. Annex No. 2 Washington, DC_ 20515.
Attn: ' Linda Correia AMS.hck' Carol S. Sneider Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division-Dated:
March 20,'1987 0