ML20235R530

Submits Atty General Serious Objection to Acceptability of Methodology Employed Re 870730 Appeal Board Order & Results Reached by Applicants in Recent Test of Average Summer Daytime Ambient Sound Pressure Levels in Certain Areas

ML20235R530
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/02/1987
From:	Fierce A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Edles G, Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20235R461	List: ML20235R460 ML20235R484 ML20235R501 ML20235R509 ML20235R530 ML20235R562
References
OL, NUDOCS 8710080090
Download: ML20235R530 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4

).I V

b THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ASS ACHUSETTS 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL '

DOCKETED JOHN W. McCORM ACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING ONE ASHBURTON PLACE BOSTON 021o8-1698

'87 OCT -5 P3 :41 JAMES M. SHANNoN

^ * """ *'"'"^'

e RRANCH October 2, 1987 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gary J. Edles, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket 50-443, 50-444 Off-site Emergency Planning Your Honors:

Pursuant to this Appeal Board's Order of July 30, 1987, the Attorney General hereby submits his serious objection to the acceptability of the methodology employed and the results reached by the Applicants in their recent test of the average summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels in certain areas of Merrimac, Massachusetts.

In this Board's Order of July 30, 1987, the Board noted that at the oral argument it had been informed by Applicants that they intended to obtain a set of ambient sound pressure measurements in Merrimac the following month. The Board Order then issued the following instructions:

I I

87100B0090 871002 3 DR ADDCK 0500 l

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.

Howard A. Wilber Gary J. Edles, Esq.

Page Two Accordingly, once those measurements have been acquired, the applicants are to furnish them forthwith to both the other parties and this Board, together with a full description of the method employed in taking the measurements. Upon receipt of this information, the NRC staff shall (and any other party may) file comments with us addressed to the acceptability of the methodology employed and the results reached. (footnote omitted) These comments shall be placed in the mail no later than the fifteenth day following the date upon which the applicants file and serve this information.

On August 19 and 20, 1987, Applicants sent representatives from Wyle Laboratories to Merrimac to conduct ambient sound measurements.- On September 11, 1987, almost a month later (but hardly " forthwith") Applicants' counsel mailed to the Board and parties a report from Wyle Laboratories describing the methods employed and the results obtained. We received this report on September 18, 1987.

Upon examination of this report, we were astounded to read that this long awaited study of " average" summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels consisted of a single 15-minute-long collection of ambient sound at each location tested. We also noted that the measurements were taken in the L90 sound pressure level (the sound pressure level exceeded 90%

of the time) rather than the L50 level (the median sound level, or that which is exceeded 50% of the time), a level we believe to be the best measure of " average" sound pressure levels.

Immediately thereafter, we sought the expert assistance of

! Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustics consulting firm, to review the study. Gregory C. Tocci of that firm examined the Wyle Laboratories report carefully and agreed that the l

methodology employed -- a single 15 minute reading at each site

-- was deficient. In his attached Affidavit he notes that

"[t]his brief sampling period does not account for the usual variation of ambient sound through the course of a day.

Moreover, a single 15 minute sample on one day does not exhibit day-to-day (or] weekday-to-weekend . . . Variations in ambient sound level." Affidavit of Gregory C. Tocci (attached), at 5.

Mr. Tocci also notes tht the L50 level appears to be the more appropriate level to measure the average ambient levels and l

- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . I

<t l E. ,

Alan S. .Rosenthal, Esq.

Howard-A. Wilber-Gary J. .Edles, Esq.

-Page Three that in the Seabrook. Station Public Alert and Notification System Final Design Report (HMM Associates, January,'1984), use=

of the L50 level was recommended. Affidavit of Gregory C.

Tocci, at 9.  !

Upon receipt of confirmation from'Cavanaugh Tocci Associates that the Wyle Laboratories study was deficient, we directed Cavanaugh Tocci to conduct a model study of the i j

! " average summer daytime ambient" in the disputed. areas in o Merrimac,-areas'in which Applicants' sound contour maps display siren sound levels falling as low as 50dBC. It is for these areas that NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10 (" Guide for the Evaluation of Alert and Notification Systems for Nuclear Power Plants") require that the average measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure levels-be at least 10dB below the expected siren sound pressure level (here 50dBC). In other words, the question is whether in these areas of Merrimac the average' measured summer daytime ambient sound pressure level is 40dB or higher. If it is, then the standard is not met.

The preliminary results form the Cavanaugh Tocci study are contained in the attached affidavit at page 11. As can be

~

seen, the' standard is not met in two areas of Merrimac: (1) the South Pleasant Street /High Street area; and (2) the River Road area.

Because of the due date for these comments, a full report on all the measurements, and a statistical analysis, have yet to be completed by Cavanaugh Tocci. We hereby ask leave to submit the full report within 21 days.

In summary, it is now apparent that the late filed contention regarding the Merrimac sirens had enough substantive merit to warrant litigation. Furthermore, as with our comments on the late filed SAPL contention submitted herewith, it now appears that the events of the past few months demonstrate that the procedural objections raised to the admission of this contention have dissipated substantially. The tests Applicant &

have now, for the first time, conducted during the summer are methodologically deficient and, coupled with the results of our ,

Cavanaugh Tocci tests, give the Attorney General " good cause" '

to file a separate late filed contention at this time. If the  :

Board determines our existing contention to be inadmissible, we will re-file it now based on the recent tests. This, however,

.- -_ __-- _ _ _ _ - _ A

Y Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.

Howard A. Wilber Gary J. Edles, Esq.

Page Four needlessly elevates form over substance. Furthermore, now that this Board has issued ALAB-875, remanding other on-site issues to the licensing board, the admission of this contention now will not necessarily delay the on-site proceedings to any significant degree. This issue can easily be handled along with those which have been remanded.

Significant safety issues are at stake here. Residents in certain areas of Merrimac may not receive the notification the sirens will be giving to other residents of the EPZ. This too, unfortunately, is another safety issue which the NRC staff has not taken seriously; its resolution requires the oversight of an interested intervenor with expert assistance.

The Appeals Board should admit this contention and remand it it the Licensing Board for appropriate proceedings.

Very truly yours, Allan R. Fierce Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit (617) 727-2220 ARF /ccd cc: Service List Enclosure