ML20212F835
| ML20212F835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1987 |
| From: | Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2666 OL-1, NUDOCS 8703050173 | |
| Download: ML20212F835 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- 9 s2bd .
- s kr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOW87 WR -4 All 35 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ..
- 1. -
l' ( Before Administrative Judges: _ Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman
' .Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1
) 50-444-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (On-Site Emergency PlanHIhg OF NSW HAMPSHIRE et al. ) And Safety Issues)
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
) March 3, 1987 MOTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON TO RECONSIDER LATE-FILED CONTENTION WITH REVISED BASIS AND TO REOPEN THE RECORD Att may General James M. Shannon hereby moves that the Board reconsider its Memorandum and Order of February 6, 1987, denying his motion of January 12, 1987, requesting that the Board admit a late-filed contention and reopen the record in the on-site emergency planning phase of this proceeding.
i In seeking this reconsideration of his late-filed contention, the Attorney General submits a revised basis for admitting the contention. The contention and the revised basis are as follows: 8703050173 B70303 PDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR G
')b
Contention: Applicants have failed to comply with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(5) and Part 50, Appendix E, SIV(D)(1) and (3), because no administrative or physical means have been established to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway located within the Town of Merrimac, Massachusetts. Basis: In some populated areas of Merrimac (specifically along Bear Hill Road, in Merrimacport, and in Merrimac Terrace) the Applicants' alert and notification siren system fails to meet either of the alternative NRC/ FEMA sound level acceptance criteria for providing reasonable assurance that the populace will hear the sirens during an emergency. See NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 3, SSC.3e and f, at pp. 10-11; FEMA-REP-10, SE.6.2.1, SE.6.2.1 (Fixed Sirens). Compliance with these criteria requires a showing that either: (1) the expected sound level coverage is at least 60 dBC; or (2) the expected sound pressure level exceeds the average measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels by 10 dB. Id. Applicants admit that the first standard is not met in these areas because the expected siren sound pressure level in these areas is below 60 dBC, falling between 50-60 dBC. See Affidavit of James A. MacDonald, dated 1/22/87, accompany Applicants' Response *.o Attorney General's contention "A," Letter (hereinafter "MacDonald Affidavit"] at Attachment of HMM Associates, dated July 7, 1986 [ attached hereto as Exhibit "A"]. The alternative standard is not met either, because Applicants have not submitted reliable ambient background sound measurements, as required by NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10, to show that the expected sound pressure level generally exceeds the average summer daytime ambient background noise levels in these areas of Merrimac by at least 10 dB. (Because the expected pressure levels fall between 50-60 dBC, and therefore could be as low as 50 dBC, the ambient background noise levels must not exceed 40 dB to meet this "10 dB above background" standard.) Background dB measurements taken by Applicants to document compliance with the "10 dB above background" standard were taken in the wrong octave band, not "in a band about the siren signal frequency," as required by FEMA. See NUREG-0654, App. 3, SC.3.f. Applicants' measurements were taken in the 1000 Hz octave band. See MacDonald Affidavit at Attachment "B," Letter of HMM Associates, dated January 20, 1987 [ attached hereto as Exhibit "B"]. The 1000 Hz octave band has a band width of 708Hz to 1410 Hz. The frequency signal of the warning sirens in Merrimac are 680 Hz, and are thus not within the 1000 Hz octave band. See Affidavit of Brian Koning, attached hereto, at 15. Background dB measuremets taken in the 1000 Hz band l will produce readings " roughly 3 dB" lower than those taken in the 500 Hz octave band (band width of 355 Hz to 708Hz), which should have been used for the measurements. Koning Affidavit l l l l l l
at 15. In addition, Applicants' sound measurements were taken on'an inappropriate, non-representative day, a federal and state holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr., Day), when both commuter and commercial traffic would be diminished and background noise level presumably lowered. Background measurements taken in Merrimac in the proper frequency and on a more representative day indeed indicate that the "10 dB above background" standard is not met in at least three separate locations in Merrimac. See Koning Affidavit at 16. Furthermore, applicants have not complied with the FEMA requirement, contained in FEMA-REP-10, that the documentation submitted to support a claim that the "10 dB above background" standard is met include all of the following: A description of how the average summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels were determined, including survey locations and the rationale for their selection; Identification of actual measurements including frequency rango, time span, and location; Any assumptions used to determine the measured ambient along with rationale for those assumptions; Relationships of population density to measured ambient levels; Effects of major transportation routes; and Effects of any commercial activities in the area. See FEMA-REP-10, Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, November, 1985, at E-8,9. Only the second of the items listed above was described in the HMM letter of January 20, 1987 attached hereto as Exhibit "B."] The failure of this siren system to comply with either of NUREG 0654's sound level criteria is a serious deficiency such that there is currently no assurance that all persons in Merrimac will hear the sirens. While Applicants could attempt to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (b)(5) and Part 50, Appendix E SIV(D)(1) and (3), either by enhancing the capability of the siren system or by providing other' alerting methods to these areas in Merrimac, Applicants have not done so. While many of the issues relevant to the adequacy of the Applicants' Alert and Notification System will be addressed in the off-site emergency planning phase of this licensing hearing,1/ the Commission has determined that the means to notify the population within the plume exposure EPZ must be in place prior to low power operation. See Statement of Consideration, 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, 30234 (July 13, 1982) 1/ In light of Applicants' Response to the original late-filed contention submitted by the Attorney General, which establishes that two sirens in Merrimac will be operated by battery-power, Attorney General Shannon omits from the basis set forth in this revised contention the allegation that there are no operable sirens in Merrimac. However, the Attorney General reserves the right to litigate at the off-site phase of this licenseing proceeding the issue of whether batteries will, in the event of a radiological emergency, reliably provide sufficient power for sufficient time to enable the use of the speaker system to instruct the populace in Merrimac.
(Commission Response to Issue 6). See also, Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), 15 NRC 61, 191-195 (1982) (affirming the need to provide means to notify the off-site public and response organizations during low power operation.) In light of this, no decision authorizing the issuance of a low-power license should issue until the Applicants have demonstrated the means to notify and instruct the populace in the Town of Merrimac in the event of a radiological emergency. Iz The Attorney General Had Good Cause For Not Filing This Contention, With This Revised Basis, At An Earlier Date. In its Memorandum and Order of February 6, 1987, the Board found that the Attorney General "has not shown good cause for failing to file its contention in a timely manner" as required by 10 C.F.R. S2.714(a)(1). This ruling is based on the reasoning that, As of May 22, 1986, Massachusetts knew or should have known that the Town had refused to permit the electrical hooking up of sirens. Moreover, as of June 2, 1986, it knew or should have known that the Town had ordered immediate cessation of all work on sirens. Memorandum and Order of February 6, 1987 at p. 4. The Board has attributed too much significance to these votes. Although the Attorney General was informed last July that the design number of notificaticn sirens were not in place in L
the Town of Merrimac, he was not aware of the reasons. The Attorney General is not responsible for monitoring resolutions of Massachusetts towns and was not aware until recently of the actions taken by the Merrimac Town Meeting on May 6, 1986, and by the Board of Selectmen on June 2, 1986. Even if the Board were correct, however, that the Attorney General "should have known" as of May 22 that the Town had voted not to allow further hook-up of sirens, the Attorney General could not have known at that time what the Applicants' response to these votes would be. Applicants have never acknowledged being legally bound by the Selectmen's resolution of June 2, 1986. In fact, Applicants have consistently disregarded that resolution insofar as it also required the removal of sirens and the cessation of "all work" on siren " operation." Applicants have not removed the two existing sirens in Merrimac nor have they ceased "all work" which keeps them operable. See Mcdonald Affidavit (acknowledging that the Applicants replace the batteries in the sirens and perform an " operability test" every two weeks). Furthermore, Applicants have not conceded that this resolution imposes a legal barrier to the installation of battery-operated sirens. Moreover, although the actions of the Town impose a legal impediment to the installation of a third siren in Merrimac, Applicants have remained free to take compensatory measures to ensure that the entire populace of Merrimac receives early
c. O notification of an emergency at the Seabrook nuclear plant. For example, perhaps the siren system could have been enhanced outside of Merrimac to ensure that greater sound pressure levels reached those portions of the town which otherwise would be inadequately covered, or perhaps alternative notification methods could have been implemented within Merrimac. Thus, the actions taken by the Town in May and June did not clearly put the Applicants in a position of unremediable non-compliance. It was not unreasonable to expect that in the last nine months Applicants would resolve this siren problem prior to low-power operation. Indeed, the Applicants announced publicly throughout the summer and fall of 1986 that the " sirens will be operational" prior to initial criticality. See letters from John DeVincentis to Vincent Noonan, dated May 6 and October 16, 1986, attached to the Attorney General's original motion to admit this late-filed contention, dated January 12, 1987. - These letters certainly implied that the NRC staff was addressing this important safety issue. Only in January, when issuance of the low-power license seemed imminent and, despite applicants' representations to NRC, there had still been no measures taken to compensate for the lack of a third siren in Merrimac did it become necessary to file a late-filed contention to ensure that the public in Merrimac would be notified in the event of an emergency at Seabrook. Only now, as a result of the papers filed by the Applicants and the NRC staff in response to the Attorney General's motion, has it become apparent that the Applicants were attempting to compensate for the lack of the third siren by demonstrating compliance with the "10 dB above background" standard.2/ In addition, it has now become clear, for the first time, that the manner in which the NRC Senior Resident Inspector for Seabrook addressed this issue was totally inadequate and in complete disregard of the requirements of NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10. In his affidavit, attached to the NRC Staff Response to Massachusetts' Motion To Admit Late Filed Contention, the NRC Senior Resident Inspector states that he " met with Seabrook personnel on a number of occasions during the summer of 1986 to discuss, among other things, the operability of the sirens in Merrimac." Affidavit of Antone C. Cerne at 13 (attached hereto as Exhibit "D"). Regarding the adequacy of having two sirens in Merrimac, he states as follows:
- 6. During the meetings last summer, the licensee indicated that they were encountering difficulties in installing the planned third siren in Merrimac.
The licensee at that time submitted an analysis 2/ It is also only as a result of these pleadings of Applicants and Staff which attempt, for the first time, to demonstrate compliance with the "10 dB above background" standard, that the Attorney General has had cause to hire an acoustics expert to take sound measurements in Merrimac. Applicants did not take their own background measurements until January 19, 1987. Thus, tha Attorney General could not have asserted earlier that the Applicants' measurements were in error and that the siren system does not meet the "10 dB above background" standard. r a
performed by HMM Associates to demonstrate that this third siren is not needed in order to provide notification to any part of the town. The analysis concluded that the two remaining sirens would produce noi;e levels of at least 10 decibels above normal in all areas of Merrimac. The standard of 10 decibels above normal has been accepted by the NRC and FEMA. Nevertheless, we now know, from the two HMM letters (attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B") submitted with the Applicant's Response of January 22, 1987, that the analysis HMM submitted to NRC last summer did not include any background noise measurements. Instead, HMM's conclusion that two sirens in Merrimac would be adequate was: based in large part upon our judgment that an ambient sound level survey there would reveal background noise levels of less that 40 dBC, and thus the siren coverage would comply with FEMA's "10 dB above background" criterion specified in Section 3.c.f. of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. Letter from HMM to James A. Mcdonald, PSNH, dated July 7, 1986, at p. 1 (attached as Exhibit "A") (emphasis supplied). Indeed, HMM stressed in that letter that they "ha(d] made no background noise measurements to confirm this (judgment]." Id. at p. 2. The NRC Senior Resident Inspector, for reasons not explained in his affidavit, accepted HMM's " judgment"1! despite the requirements of NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10 that the "10 dB above i 3/ One cannot help but wonder how many other safety requirements were similarly checked by NRC, without regard to the regulatory requirements, by asking Applicants for their
" judgment" whether the requirements were met.
background" standard can only be met through the submission of properly-taken measurements of the background sound levels. Even the standard cited in the Cerne Affidavit to demonstrate the acceptability of Applicants' siren system is inaccurate. The standard is not 10 decibels above normal as cited, Cerne affidavit at 16, but 10 dB (or more) above "the average measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels." FEMA-REP-10, SE.6.2.1. at p. E-8 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, the standard itself requires that measurements be taken. In summary, the Attorney General has good cause for failing to file this contention, with this revised basis, at an earlier point in these proceedings. The motion to reopen the record is
" timely" for the same reasons.
II. Other Standards For Late-Filed Contentions And Motions To Reopen The Record Are Met The Attorney General has raised an exceptionally grave safety issue: portions of the populated areas of Merrimac will not receive early notification of an emergency at Seabrook. Through the testimony of the Attorney General's acoustics experts from Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, the Attorney General's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. See 10 C.F.R. S2.714(a)(1)(iii). The substance of their testimony is contained in Mr. Koning's
affidavit attached hereto. The proceedings will be broadened and delayed minimally, see 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1)(v), but for good and important safety reasons. A short discovery period and a one-day hearing is all that would be required to resolve this contention. The filing of proposed findings and conclusions could occur within two weeks thereafter. Indeed, the Attorny General still maintains that this contention could easily be resolved by summary disposition even with this revised basis. Given that the low-power license is currently being stayed by the Commission, a reopening of the record at this time should not result in any undue delay in issuance of a low-power license decision. Moreover, even a short delay in low power operation will not affect the commencement of full power operation, if any, since issuance of a full power operating license is at least one year away. Furthermore, a reopening of the record is required in order to ensure the correction of a previously unrecognized serious safety flaw that the NRC staff has not addressed in exercising its safety oversight responsibilities. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the Attorney General's previous motion of January 12, the motion to reopen the record meets all the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S2.734(a)(1). Therefore, the Board should reconsider its Order of February 6, 1987 and admit the Attorney General's contention with its revised basis. Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL n h e-{ ?5 . .Dh.C , ct ( s , Carol S. Sneider Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Rm. 1902 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 617-727-2265 DATED: March 3, 1987 J s e--- -
.-,.-.,m,, _ . . , . ... , . , , . . , ,,,.,.,,,.,.,,,,,___,,,,,,,.v_,,,,.-,.v . - , , , , , , . , - , ,
l F 7 m ,e - ass ember Avenus osme e d,nesseestemene o m e p14 an im HMM Ref. No. 979 July 7,1986 Mr. James A. Mcdonald Radiological Assessment Manager PSMH - Saabrook Station P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 , SU6 JECT: Seabrook Station Alert and Motification System Analysis of Coverage Without Siren MM-3
Dear Mr. Mcdonald:
As directed by Mr. James Robinson, HMM Associates has undertaken a brief analysis of the adequacy-of-coverage of the Seabrook Alert and Motification System in the event that the Merrimac Siren MM-3 cannot be installed as planned. Our anclysis suggests that, even with Siren MM-3 removed the Seabrooksirensystemwouldstillsatisfytheguide1I.nesof Section C.3.f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. A draft copy of a revised siren system coverage esp, without
- Siren MM-3's contribution, is enclosed.
The deletion of Siren MM-3 would result in a reduction in the design siren sound coverage throughout much of northern and central Merrimac, MA, and portions of Amesbury, MA and Newton and South Hampton, NM. Most of this area will still be covered by a siren sound level of at loinst 60 d8C, osintaining compliance with the FEMA criterion specified in Section C.3.s of Appendix 3 of NUREG-OdS4/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. In several small areas, however, the design siren sound coverage will be reduced beloe 60 deC, to between 50 and 60 deC; less than a total of one-quarter of a square mile will be so affacted. Our conclusion that adequate siren coverage will be maintained throughout these areas is based in large part upon our judgment that an ambient sound level survey there would reves1 background noise levels of less than 40 d8C, and thus the siren coverage would comply with FEMA's "10 d8 above background
- criterion specified in Section 3.c.f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-Od54/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.
r 4 l 1 l
. .= .
Although not densely populated, people do live within the areas where siren coverage will be reduced to between 50 and 60 08C. Examination of USG5 topographical maps of these areas shows houses located along Bear Hill Road in Merriesc, MA; along Asesbury Road in Newton, NH; and along the shores of Tuxbury Pond in South Hampton, NM and Amesbury, MA. Hence, FEMA would not consider siren coverage to be adequate unless it can be shown that the sound levels of the siren tone in these areas exceed the esisting background level by 10 dB or more; FEMA normally requires ambient noise level sessurements for this
- purpose. Again, it is our judgment that the ambient noise levels in these areas would be found to be sufficiently low that the "10 dG above background
- criterion can be met; however, we have made no background noise esasurements to confire this.
Should you decide to subeit a formal seendment to the FEMA-REP-10 report documenting the deletion of Siren MM-3, we recommend that background measurements be ende in those areas where coverage has been reduced to between 50 and 40 d8C. Such sessurements would take about one day to complete. Please let us know if you want us to proceed with an ambient noise level survey in these areas. Very truly yours, j i Robert S. Berens l RS8: Idg 05Dlw cc: John Robinson John DeVincentis
r , m g hm ; M amor Avenue Ceness Messmenuseets 01M2 einsn.sent HMM Ref. No. 979/3378f January 20, 1987 Mr. James A. MacDonald New Hampshire Yankee Seabrook Station P.O. 8cx 300 Saabrook, New Hampshire 03874
)
RE: Background Noise Measurements in Merrimac, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. MacDonald:
As indicated in our letter to you of July 7, 1986, most of the town of Merrimac, Massachusetts is covered by a siren design sound level of 60 dBC or more from the existing two sirens in that town or from sirens in adjacent communities. A siren design coverage of 60 d8C or more is considered acceptable for lightly-populated areas such as Merrimac under Section C, 3, e of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1, Revision 1. There are, however, five small areas in Merrimac where the siren design sound level coverage is between 50 and 60 dBC. Two of these areas are unpopulated and appear inaccessible by road. The other three areas contain residences. These are along a portion of Bear Hill Road part of Merrimacport, and in Merriesc Terrace. On January 19, 1987, HMM conducted background noise measurements in these populated areas. The background noise measurements were conducted in accordance with Section C, 3, f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654 and with FEMA REP-10/ FEMA-43. Data were observed continuously for a period of 30 minutes at each location in the standard 1000 Hz octave band and were subject to a statistical analysis. The L90 levels (i.e., the levels exceeded 90 percent of the time during the seasurement period at each location) are reported below: Location L90 Bear Hill Road 26 de Merrimacport 40 de Merrimac Terrace (no.) 34 og l Merrimac Terrace (sc.) 34 dB
- e k ;
- ~
These measured levels are all 40 de or less. Hence, a siren design sound level of 50 dBC or more provides adequate coverage in these areas, in accordance with Section C, 3,-f of Appendix 3 of NUREG-0654/ FEMA REP-1. Yours trulyf f l / v David N. Kaast
'iL DNK/jf
e l l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al ) 50-444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (On-Site EP and and 2 ) Safety Issues)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF BRION KONING I, Brion Koning, do depose and say as follows:
- 1. I am employed as a Staff Consultant with Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc., Consultants In Acoustics, 327 F Boston Post Road, Sudbury, MA, 01776. I have been employed by this firm in my present capacity, and previously as a sound and vibration measurement technician, since March 10, 1979.
During this time I have had extensive experience with the measurement and analysis of environmental sound levels.
- 2. Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. has been retained by The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of the Attorney General, to conduct background L99 sound level' measurements in the standard 1000 Hz octave band at four specified measurement locations in Merrimac, Massachusetts. On February 11, 1987, I conducted L99 measurements at roadside locations adjacent the property addressees listed in the table below.
- 3. The measurement instrumentation consisted of a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2231 modular precision sound level meter outfitted with a Type 4145 one-inch condenser microphone, Type 1624 octave band filter set, and Type BZ 7101 statistical analysis module, mounted approximately 5 feet above grade atop a Type UA 0801 tripod. A type 4230 sound level calibrator was used to confirm instrumentation calibration immediately prior to, and following environmental sound level measurements. The statistical analysis module provides the system capability to automatically display octave band L90 levels, thereby eliminating any manual calculation methods. The com with instrumentation current American and measurement National Standards procedures Institute (ANSI) ply standard Sl.4 for Type 1 Precision Sound Measurement Instrumentation.
u .f _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ ~ _
Affidavit of Brion 1;oning Page 2 of 3
- 4. While sound measurements were being conducted, measured temperatures ranged from 34 -
36 , and estimated wind velocities ranged from 0-10, mph occasionally gusting to 15 mph, with the exception of Location #4 where winds ranged from 5-15 mph.with gusts to 25 mph. It is important to note that observed wind activity was intermittent, often
-exhibiting lulls between breezes. It is estimated, to a high level of confidence, that audible wind activity occurred less than 90% of the time, thereby rendering the measured L90 sound levels representative of background levels occuring on less windy days.
- 5. Appendix 3, Section (C3a) of NUREG-0654 indicates that large sirens emit sound energy in "... a predominately narrow band 300 to 800 Hz..." Section (C3f) states: " Background dB should be determined in a band about the siren signal frequency. Inclusion of background. noise energy from outside this band could be misleading." Although Section (C3f) does not specify the band band width (octave, 1/3 octave, 1/10 octave, etc.), it clearly indicates that background measurements should be conducted in a band that includes the siren signal frequency.
The standard 1000 Hz octave band (specified for these measurements) encompasses a frequency band width of 708 Hz to 1410 Hz. I have been advised that the siren design report submitted for the warning sirens subsequently installed in the Merrimac area, indicates design sound energy was to be generated at a fundamental frequency of 700 Hz. Furthermore, I have also been advised that the actual fundamental frequency of warning sirens installed in the Merrimac area is 680 Hz. Therefore, assuming band width of one octave to be sufficient, it may be more appropriate to measure background noise in the standard 500 Hz octave band (band width 355 Hz to 708 Hz) in connection with audibility studies for these sirens. 4 In addition, generally measured octave band background environmental sound levels are characterized by sound pressure levels at lower frequency bands that are roughly 3 decibels higher than adjacent higher frequency bands. Specifically, this 3 dB per octave " slope" indicates that background sound levels in the 500 Hz, octave band are most often roughly 3 dB higher than the adjacent 1000 Hz octave band. Accordingly, L90 (5 min.) measurements in the 500 Hz band were conducted to augment the specified L99 ( 30 min. ) measurements int eh 1000 Hz band. The measurement data indicates that background sound level in the 500 Hz octave band (encompassing the siren fundamental frequency) were higher than measured 1000 Hz octave band levels by 3 dB or more.
Affidavit of Brion'Koning Page 3 of 3
- 6. The mcasurement locations, octave band levels, and time intervals are as follows:
Time Interval Location ikHz L90(30 min.) 500 Hz L99(5 min.) (approx.)
#1 21 Pleasant St. 41 dB 46 dB ll:55am-12:30pm
#2 25 Merrimac St. 39 dB 42 dB 12:35am-1:15pm
#3 4 River Rd. 34 dB 40 dB 1:20pm-1:55pm
#4 64 Bear Hill Rd. 41 dB 47 dB ll:10am-ll:50am Signed under the penalties of perjury this 12th day of February, 1987.
/s/ d .
F Brion Koning l l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCT, EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Mos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC FERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 NEV.' HAMPSHIRE, et--
al. ) On-site Emergency Planning
) and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )
AFFIDAVIT OF ANTONE C. CERNE
- 1. I am the NRC Senior Resident Inspector for the Seabrook fccility. I have been a resident inspector at Seabrook for 6 years. Prior to joining the NRC in 1978, I was involved with heavy construction and project management and inspection with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. I hold a Masters Degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- 2. The purpose of this affidavit is to address the issue of the operability of emergency alert and notification sirens in the town of Merrimac, Massachusetts.
- 3. The question of the operability of alert and netification sirens for Seabrook first came to my attention in the spring of 1986 as a result of an inspection item raised during the NRC Region I Office's emergency preparedness implementation appraisal of Seabrook conducted at that time.
As a result, I met with Seabrook personnel on a number of occasions
I
-g-during the summer of 1986 to discrss, among other things, the operability of the sirens in ?!errimac.
- 4. The licensee had originally intended to have three sirens cover the town of P.!errimac. Licensee personnel have informed no that because of problems in hooking up to the electrical grid, the licensee was relying upon batteries to power two of the sirens in Merrimac. I was also informed that the betteries will be replaced every two weeks to assure a continuous power supply for the sirens.
- 5. As part of my review of the licensee's preoperatienal testing progran for Seabrook, I have reviewed copies of test reports that indicated that the two sirens in Merrimne have been tested and are operable. I have also reviewed the licensee's schedule for future testing to assure the continued operability of the sirens; the sirens at Pierrimac will be tested every two weeks to assure that they remain operable.
The Staff finds this cchedule to be acceptable.
- 6. During the meetings last summer, the licensee indicated that they were encountering difficulties in installing the planned third siren in Merrimac. The licensee at that time submitted an enalysis performed by HMM Associates to demonstrate that this third siren is not needed in order to provide notification to any part of the town. The analysis concluded that the two remaining sirens would produce noise levels of at least 10 decibels above normal in all areas of Merrimac. The standard of 10 decibels above normal has been accepted by the NRC and FEMA. The 4
/
/
/
/
3 adequacy of stren coverage is routinely examined as part of the emergency exercise held before full power Itcensing . The above statements are tena sad race e+
*a eh. 6... .e w and beltet. n
..t.de.
Antone C. Corne Subscribed this E th day of and sworn to before me
, 1987
s,' ;,;yysaryu l.4tc
&* N' 2 ~
~
... . , ( W T.'A. PERRINB, festery M5e
. .Wr Id wrien Two . Montaomery Co., PA t .
. ', y Ceramisson Egtres March 20,1983
'* e y
\ . 1 w r s v-5$#' h*
> s , [Y:.
Yh l's .
, ',4
%* ,R*
i
'j 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION [
'87 MAR All :55
)
In the Matter of ) y{l ; _ , p jdpIf[
) 1, s ra PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY.OiF-NEW' ) Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. _ )
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald S. Bronstein, hereby certify that on March 3, 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:
- Helen F..Hoyt', Chairperson *Gustave-A. Linenberger, 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 Bethesda, 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
m-
%f.
- i 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 Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH 03870 P.O. Box 360 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 Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Eagle Square, suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Donald E. Chick Mr. William Lord Town Manager Bc:rd of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 t
' 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. 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 Directot 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 Sheldon J. Walt'e, 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 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebkeer, Jr. Charles P. Graham, Esq. I 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 ff
;9.. e Rep. Edward J. tiarkey, 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
) =
/
'/h ~ l, fi.J O: l, Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Dated: March 3, 1987 l
- - - . _ , _ . _ , - . - - _ - . - - .. ._ , - - - _ _}}