ML20245J327
| ML20245J327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1989 |
| From: | Eldred K KEN ELDRED ENGINEERING, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8524 OL-1, NUDOCS 8905040098 | |
| Download: ML20245J327 (36) | |
Text
_
i C
KELATID CORRESPONDgg I9%I[J
]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'89 APR 26 PJ :28 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W" '
\\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01
/
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF S0-444 OL-01 NEWHAMPSHIRE,e_tal.
)
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF KENNETH M. ELDRED REGARDING BASIS A.1 0F MASSACHUSETTS ATTCRNEY EENERAL'S AMENDED ALERT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM CONTENTION Q1: Please state your full name, employer, and occupation.
A1:
My name is Kenneth Eldred.
I am an acoustics consultant and the proprietor of the firm Ken Eldred Engineering.
I am also the Standards Director for the Acoustical Society, a member of the Executive Standu ds Council of the American National Standards Institute, and a
member of other standards developing and professional organizations, including the National Academy of Engineering.
In my present job capacity I direct the activities of the firm and manage a wide variety of projects for government and commercial clients.
I am currently involved in a number of projects including:
Participating in the development of a noise regulation for the Paine Department of Environmental Protection site permitting process; Overseeing the technical direction of the acoustical aspects of an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate relative noise impact on the population residing in alternative airplane departure patterns from one of the runways at Lagan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts; 8905040098 s90426 ADOCK 0500g3
[
y, s.
' Overseeing the technical direction of a project to evaluate existing technology and to design noise control measures into U.S. Army small arms firing ranges to reduce the noise impact in residential neighborhoods; Developing technical specifications and design concepts for an airport noise abatement monitoring system for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Directing a FAR Part 150 noise study at the Hyannis Airport
- ponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration; Developing acoustic criterion for the selection of candidate homes for sound proofing in the vicinity of Logan Internation Airport.
Q2: Mr. Eldred, please provide a brief description of your background and professional experience and qualifications.
A2:
I have been involved in the acoustics field for more than 35 years.
I graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1950 with a B.S. in General Engineering.
In 1952 I was placed in charge of the Vibration and Sound Laboratory at the Boston Naval Shipyard and sent back to MIT for additional educational training in this area.
In the mid-1950's I was stationed in the U.S. Air Force at the Aero Medical Laboratory at Wright Field.
I later became the chief of the Physical Acoustics Section and was involved in the development of criteria for hearing conservation and annoyance; measurement of aircraft noise, rockets and experimental sirens; i
research on long range acoustic propagation, jet and aerodynamic noise; acoustic treatments for test cells; and developmer. of methods for displaying contours of noise around airbases.
4 After leaving the U.S. Air Force I spent six,
directing a wide variety of consulting and research projects at the Western Electric Acoustic Laboratory.
In 1963, I was made Director of Research for Wyle Laboratories and participated in assembling the A-
- company's research staff in acoustics and dynamics.
In the 1960's I was heavily involved in supporting the vibration and acoustic aspects of the rocket boosters used by NASA in its moon landing program.
1 This included developing high intensity noise facilities to duplicate l
i the noise experienced by a space vehicle during launch, as well as j
i devising means to control the noise and vibration responses to
{
improve reliability.
In the early 1970's, I became significantly involved with the i
development of environmental noise criteria for people and the application of those criterion to environmental regulations. As part of this work I participated in the drafting of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Levels Document,1/ and the National Research Council's guidelines for preparation of environmental impact statements regarding noise.
In 1973 I became a Vice President of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (BBN) in charge of its Environmental Acoustics Division.
I worked at BBN in several assignments for 8 years before leaving to start my own firm in 1981. Since 1973 most of my work has involved issues related to noise and people, including noise criteria, noise measurement and i
prediction, and noise control.
Q3:
Mr. Eldred, have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?
-1/
Information On Levels Of Noise Requisite To Protect Public Health And Welfare WiU. An Adequate Margin Of Safety - EPA 550/9-74-004 (March 1974).
r
-i 4-A3:
Yes, a statement of my professional qualifications is attached to this testimony.
Q4: Mr. Eldred, what is the purpose of your testimony?
A4: My testimony addresses those issues relating to Basis A.1 of the Massachusetts Attorney General's amended alert notification siren contention which the Licensing Board found to be in dispute in its March 3,1989 order (Lp R9-09) which granted in part and danied in part Applicants' motion for summary disposition of the attorney General's contention.
05: Mr. Eldred, are you familiar with Basis A.1 of the Attorney General's amended alert notification system contention?
A5: Yes, I am.
Basis A.I of the Attorney General's contention states:
The VANS and the New Hampshire fixed sirens because of their locations, height, acoustic range and number, do not provide tone or message coverage for essentially 100 percent of the population in the Massachusetts plume exposure pathway EPZ at the sound pressure levels required in NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10.
Q6: Please identity the issues relating to Basis A.1 of the Attorney General's contention which your testimony addresses.
A6:
The four issues relating to Basis A.1 which the Board found to be in df spute are listed on page 37 of the Board's March 3,1989 order. The issues are:
1.
Whether sound levels in excess of 123 dBC cause enough discomfort so that the Board should not approve the use of sirens at a higher level of sound.
2.
The amount of increased sound level in excess of 123 dBC, if any, which the Board should approve.
3.
Whether Applicants' sirens can provide adequate coverage if used at sound levels that are not unduly uncomfortable.
I 4.
Whether Applicants' position on the sound level resulting from their sirens is an underestimate because of sound reflection from buildings.
l
- Mr. Eldred, are familiar with Applicants' Vehicular Alert 07:
Notification (VANS)yousystem?
A7: Yes I am.
Q8: What is the VANS 7 A8:
My understanding of VANS is based on my review of the Seabrook FEMA-REP-10 Design Repcrt submitted by Applicants on April 30, 1988 and amended in October 1988.
VANS' primary means of providing notification to the populace within the Mas.sachusetts portion of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is the deployment of vehicles containing warning sirens to 16 pre-determined sites.
Each vehicle contains a telescoping crane capable of raising the centerline of a Dual Whelen WS-4000 siren to a height of 51 feet. The siren is capable of functioning either as a siren or as a public address system.
In the public address mode, voice messages received over radio are amplified and broadcast over the siren 5 peakers.
In the siren mode the output of a tone generator is amplified and broadcast over the siren speakers.
The Dual Whelen WS-4000 electro-acoustic transducer used in the VANS is operated at a frequency of 550 hertz (CPS) and produces C-weighted Sound Pressure level of 134 dBC at a distance of 100 feet along its axis of symmetry.
The majority of its sound power is focused within a sound beam that is centered on the axis of symmetry.
The horizontal width of this sound beam is in the order of 60 which is about one-sixth of a circle. The vertical dispersion is much less so that most of the sound is transmitted horizontally where it can fulfill its intended use rather than be wasted by being transmitted l
l up into. space or down into the earth.
Because of this beaming
l characteristic and the fact that the siren is mounted on a tall boom, the sound levels near the ground within a few hundred feet of the siren are much lower than they are on the stren's axis of symmetry.
4 The siren rotates its beam through a 360 degree circle, oscillating from 0 to 360 degrees and returns at a rate of about 21 times per minute.
Thus, the strongest part of its sound beam, the beam width on axis of about 60 degrees, is only pointed at a specific object for about 10 seconds per minute, or equivalently 4 seconds per oscillation.
After the siren vehicles are deployed the sirens may be activated from a central station and will automatically run for 3 minutes, before shutting themselves off, unless they are controlled manually.
The siting plan for the VANS sirens was developed using a comprehensive computer program designed by Wyle Laboratories for this purpose. It considers all quantifiable sound propagation attenuation mechanisms and is designed to be conservative.
In other words, it is designed to underpredict the level to be received from the siren at a distant location so as to minimize the possibility of inadequate siren coverage.
Siren Sound Pressure Levels 09: Mr. Eldred, on April 3,1989, Applicants filed their written direct testimony regarding the issues which you identified in your response to Question 6.
Have you had an opportunity to review Applicants' testimony?
A9: Yes I have.
l Q10: Mr. Eldred, NUREG-0654 provides, among other things, that "[t he maximum [ siren] sound levels received by any member of the public 1
j
- should be lower than 173 d9, the level which may cause discomfort to i
individuals..."
Do you have an opinion as to whether the sound pressure emitted by the sirens which Applicants contemplate using will exceed this level?
A10:
Yes, I do.
It is my opinion that the sound pressure of the l
sirens which Applicants plan to use in connection with the VANS 1
I l
system will not exceed 123 dBC in normal operstion.
However, as Applicants' witne:ses acknowledge, if a VANS siren is activated when it is at a 25 foot height in the process of being raised to 51 feet, i
the sound level on the ground could, momentarily, exceed 123 dBC.
Mr. Louis Sutherland testified in support of Applicants' motion for j
summary disposition that in this situation the maximum value of sound level received 5 feet above the ground (earth level) may be as much as 131 dBC at a location 90 feet from the base of the siren.
If a person were standing at this noisiest spot when the siren was activated, the duration o' the exposure would be very short -- on the order of a few seconds -- before the oscillation of the siren sweeps its sound beam past the person.
When the siren again points towards that person the siren would be higher above the ground and the sound level at that person's height would be less.
Appifcants have stated that at 45 feet above the ground, the sound pressure level received by a person on the ground at this position will be less than 123 dBC during this second exposure.
I agree.
The probability that a person will be standing at this exact location where the maximum sound would occur in the rare instance of start up at a 25 foot height is rather low in my view.
But if this scenario were to occur, I would expect that the person would be very aware that the siren was operating with the intent to notify and
l1 8-1 alert people, and would proceed in accordance with the notification.
Certainly, I would not expect harm to result from such a brief encounter with a very loud sound.
Q11: Mr. Eldred are there any other bases for your opinion that the sound pressure levels received by members of the public from the VANS sirens will not exceed 123 dBC?
l All:
Yes.
First, the results from the data fit both the facts, the intent of the design of the siren, and the configuration of the siren l
as described.
I have already discussed the resulting beaming of the siren, but let me review the effect of sound beaming using the illustration in Figure 1 which is attached to my testimony.
This figure shows a set of hypothetical contours of equal sound level radiated from a loud speaker in a fairly narrow beam with loud speaker high above the ground.
Figure 2 shows the same loud speaker lowered to a mounting location at 51 feet above the ground and contains a dashed line representing potential ear level listening positions, 5 feet above the ground.
Sound level pressure at this listening height is less than 126 dB.
Figure 3 shows the same loud speaker lowered further to a mounting location at 25 feet above the earth.
The sound levels at the 5 foot listening height are higher than those in Figure 2 because the axis of the loud speaker and the center of its sound beam have moved closer to the listening height.
In Figure 1 the hypothetical sound levels at several possible positions are noted.
Second, it is clear from Figure 1 that for a given directional pattern of sound contours there vill be a direct relationship between the sound level on the siru. axis and the sound level at the
listening height.
Consequently, if the volume control is turned up in a system that is operated with a constant frequency, and in the configuration of Figure 2 or Figure 3, the sound at a listening height position will increase in proportion to the amount of increase of the sound at positions along the axis at the same distance from the siren, but the sound level always will remain less than that measured in axis.
Finally, the addition of oscillating rotation of the beam reduces the time that its maximum strength is directed at any single object along the axis to about one-sixth of the total time.
The proportion of total time experienced in the beam at listening height would be expected to be even less than one-sixth of the total time.
Q12: Mr. Eldred, the Attorney General has claimed that the sound pressure level of Applicants' sirens is understated by as much as 3 dBC because of a siren reflection effect from nearby buildings.
(See Affidavit of Thomas Bouliane, p.8)
Please address this subject.
A12:
As a general matter, Mr. Bouliane essentially is correct However, as I will explain in this response, it is not a significant safety concern in this case.
The conventional procedures for specifying and measuring outdoor sounds from specific sounds with respect to effects on humans define sound at a free field microphone location that is usually 4-5 feet above the ground.
The requirement of a free field is to assure that the measured sound is not distorted by the presence of reflection from nearby surfaces other than the ground.
The height of 4-5 feet is derived from consideration of typical listening heights.
There are many voluntary national and international standards and government regulations which contain these requirements; for example,
]
1
- those for measurement of sound of automobiles, trucks, and airplanes.
Also, free field requirements are recomended for most loud speaker El component tests prescribed by the Audio Engineering Society.
The reason that free field conditions are usually specified for outdoor measurements is that the presence of nearby reflectina surfaces may affect the measured level of the sound in an unpredictable fashion, leading to increased uncertainty about the amount of sound radiated from the source.
The effects of reflective surfaces are difficult to calculate with any certainty due to a number of factors, including:
the size and shape of the reflecting surface (s);
the distance and direction of the measurement point from the surface; the angle of incidence of the sound from the source with the reflective surface; the frequency characteristics of the source; and the location of the ground plane with respect to the above geometries and its sound reflective and/or absorbing characteristics.
In general, the effect on sound measurements taken close to a small building (say within 5-10 feet) or a building's exterior wall which is exposed to both incident and reflected sound waves from a specific sound source may be as much as 3 dB.
However, there also will be
-2/
ANSI 54.26-1981, "AES Recommended Practice Specifications Of Loud Speaker Components Used In Professional Acoustic And Sound Reinforcement," attached to October 11, 1988 Affidavit of Thomas G.
Bouliane.
l
locatfor.s where the interference from the sound waves would cause the sound level to fall below its free field values.
I do not believe that these reflection effects have any specific significance in the interpretation of the measured sound pressure with respect to humans.
Rather, they are simply part of the uncertainty that is expected to be present when specifying the outdoor acoustic environment.
For the specification of the sound output of installed warning sirens with respect to people outdoors and near the siren, I would recommend defining a specific microphone height for measurements to be made in a free field without reflecting suafaces.
The procedures used in this application appear consistent witi, this recommendation.
Hearing Discomfort Q13: Mr. Eldred, NUREG-0654 states that 123 dBC is the level that may cause hearing " discomfort" to individuals.
Is the term " discomfort" a term of art in your field?
(
A13: I am unaware of any standard, code, reguition, specification, etc.
l that the word " discomfort" has any particular and specific meaning in l
acoustics.
Q14: Mr. Eldred, do you agree or disagree with Applicants that one must consider CPG 1-17 in order to understand the reason for the 123 dBC limit specified in NUREG-0654?
A14: I do.
I have read the FEMA publication CPG-1-17, the applicable parts of NUREG-0654, and the testimony of David Keast and Karl Kryter.
From this information I understand the following:
1)
David Keast is the source of the 123 dBC limit in CPG 1-17; l
2)
NUREG-0654 picked up much of its language directly l
from CPG 1-17; 3)
Mr. Keast calculated the 123 dBC as a limit "to assure that no person is likely to be subject to a sound level great enough to cause hearing damage";
4)
Mr. Keast made the calculation from Figure 3 of the WG46 chaired by Karl Kryter gi Research Council CHABA report prepared by the Natio
- and 5)
Mr. Keast chose the limit to apply to "an almost daily exposure over about 10 years to 1 to 11 minutes of a 1000 Hertz pure tone."
Moreover, in 1980 FEMA confirmed that the 123 dBC limit in CPG-1-17 was intended to be used in NUREG-0654. O Q15: Mr. Eldred, Applicants assert (p.18) that "the limit for disco;nfort should be equal to the threshold for hearing damage risk" which they suggest should be expressed "in the terms of sound level, frequency and time duration, specifically TTS2." Do you agree?
A15:
Yes, I do.
It is appropriate to state this limit in terms of a
" threshold risk of hearing damage." The purpose of the VANS warning system is to alert and notify people in the event of an emergency.
To achieve this purpose with efficient coverage, the VANS sirens should be as loud as possible without causing permanent harm to any person hearing the siren.
It is clear from this record that Mr.
Keast applied this guideline in deriving the 123 dBC limit.
The phrase "the level which may cause discomfort to individuals" in NUREG-0654 is somewhat misleading because the choice of the
" level" was not predicated on consideration of any feelings or
-3/
NRC - CHABA WG46, " Hazardous Exposure To Intermittent And Steady -
j State Noise," (January 1965)
{
4/
FEMA Guidance Memorandum #13 (June 17, 1980).
l i
reactions of people when they are hearing the sound, but rather on consideration of its possible long term physical effect.
A better phrase for describing this limit would be "a
evel which is protective of the hearing of individuals."
In my view the threshold for damage risk should be expressed in quantifiable terms which account for the combination of sound pressure level, frequency, duration, expected number of repetitions during a lifetime, and any other relevant physical characteristics of the sound.
These quantifiable terms should be capable of prediction during the design process, susceptible to outdoor measurement in the field with operating sirens, and directly related to the risk of hearing damage.
The determination of the quantities to be specified should begin with the definition of the threshold of risk in terms of the probability of incurring a specified small amount of damage (or a negligible amount to hearing acuity as a result of hearing warning sirens at a stated repetition rate during a stated period of a time).
For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was required by Congress to identify the " levels of environmental noise required to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety."
For hearing loss the EPA chose the annual average 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leg. (24) avg) as the appropriate descriptor.
It should be noted that this descriptor inherently accounts for frequency, duration, and repetition characteristics of the sound in its own sps i fic way.
The value of this descriptor was chosen to protect up to the I
96th percentile of the population against a loss of 5 dB hearing
sensitivity at 4000 H. (the frequency at which noise induced hearing loss is ordinarily first encountered).
It was adjusted for intermittency, a 365 day year exposure, and a margin of safety. The value of Leq(24) avg chosen on this basis is 70 dBA.
Excerpts from this report are attached to my testimony as Attachment 3.
A sound at the limit of 123 dBC for 3 minutes duration once per year and a frequency of 1000 hertz has an annual average 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> A-weighted equivalent sound level of 70.6 dB, remarkably close to the EPA value of 70 dB.
The correction made to the 123 dB 1evel to obtain the Leq(24) avg value of 70.6 dB was a duration correction (3 min to 1 year) of 52.4 dB.
However, if the exposure were only expected to be repeated once every 10 years, its annual average Leq (24) would. be reduced by 10 dB to 60.6 dB, well under the highly conservative EPA identified protective 70 dB level.
Once the threshold of risk has been defined it may be stated in l
terms of a set of one or more quantifiable descriptors as shown in j
l the EPA illustration and/or it may be stated in terms of temporary j
threshold shift.
Applicants have proposed using the temporary threshold shift measured 2 minutes after session of exposure (TTS2).
I agree that TTS2 is an accurate and precise way to measure potential adverse affects from alert notification sirens.
One advantage of i
I using TTS2 as a primary criterion is that it can be measured.
{
I Furthermore, the potential effects on risk of hearing damage for a j
warning system having unusual acoustical characteristics can be directly estimated from laboratory measurements of the TTS2 experienced by volunteer subjects after exposure to its sound.
l
=-
4 Q16: Mr. Eldred, does this complete your testimony?
l l
A16: Yes, it does.
s
.P en dred PO BOX 1037
- CONCORD
- MASS
- 01742
- USA g
gg TELEPHONE
- 617 371*0099 Principal:
Kenneth McK. Eldred, P.E.
Fellow, ASA, Member, INCE.
Services:
Consulting and research in:
. community noise and environmental impact assess-ment;
. development of human response criteria and noise prediction methodology;
. noise control design and specifications for buildings, offices, factories, industrial machinery, vehicles and other products;
. development of test simulation f acilities and pro-cedures for measurement and evaluation of environ-mental or source noise.
I Typical Projects:
Airports, aircraft, software development, surf ace transportation vehicles, buildings, industrial plants and machinery, regulatory analysis and development, courtroom testimony.
Typical Clients:
Airports, government agencies, industrial companies,
{
building owners, architects, engineering firms and l
l lawyers.
i General Data:
The firm was founded in 1981 and provides its services in the United States and abroad. Principal is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, past President of Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) (1976) and is very active in the development of voluntary standards in acoustics.
ATTACHMENT #1
,e RESUME KENNETH MCK. ELDRED, P.E., CONSULTING ENGINEER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Eldred's experience includes a wide variety of projects involving sound and vibration and its control. The nature of his involvement has encompassed direct individual consultation, serving as an expert witness, and directing consulting and research projects of all sizes ranging from a small project involving one or more acoustical professionals to major projects involving large multi-disciplinary teams which have included economists, engineers, psychologists, physicists, social scientists and others. Project areas 2nclude:
Community noise, environmental impact assessment and the development of o
human response criteria, prediction methodology and alternative solutions for airports, rail, highway, engine test cells and industrial plants.
o Vehicle sound control, both interior and exterior, for aircraft, space vehicle launch and re-entry, motor vehicles, rapid transit and ships.
o Noise control device design, specification and test f or machinery, equipment and building spaces including walls, barriers, shrouds, enclosures, ducts and vibration isolation.
Modeling of both partial and complete systems using both analytical and o
physically scaled dynamically similar models.
Design of simulation facilities and methods for ascertaining reliability o
in severe acoustic, vibration and combined loads environments.
Development of procedures for measurement and evaluation of enviroreental o
or equipment source noise, as appropriate for the measurement purposes, and providing a basis for national and international standardization and regulation, o
Analysis and development of regulatory approaches for noise control.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES o
Professional Engineer: Massachusetts, California, Florida and Alabama.
o National Academy of Engineering: Member, elected in 1975.
o Acoustical Society of America: Standards Director; Fellow; Past Chairman, j
Coordinating Committee on Environmental Acoustics; Past Chairman, j
Accredited Standards Committee S-12 on Noise.
o Institute of Noise Control Engineering: Membe r Director; Past President (1976).
e K rE Ql PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES (continued) o American National Standards Institute: Member, Executive Standards Coun-cil. Past Chairman (1985-88); Member, Acoustical Standards Management Board, Past Chairman (1975-1980); Board of Directors, Past Member, (1984-1988).
o National Research Council: Commit tee on Hearing, Bio-Acoustics and Bio-Mechanics, Advisor, Society of Automotive Engineers: Member; Aircraft Noise Committee A21, l
o Member; Subcommittee A21 on Aircraf t Noise Monitoring, Chairman.
o Other technical committee activities: serve and have served as chairman or member of numerous standards writing groups Natienal Research Council Committees and national task forces.
PREVIOUS POSITIONS
(
1973-1981 Bol t, Beranek and Newman: Vice President, Director of the Envi-ronmental and Noise Control Division, and Principal Consultant.
1963-1973 Wyle Laboratories: Group Vice President and Technical Director of the Scientific Services and Systems Group.
i 1957-1963 Western Electro Acoustics Laboratory: Vice President and Consul-
]
tant.
1954-1957 U.S. Air Force: First Lieutenant and Chief Physical Acoustics Section Bio-Acoustics Branch, Wright Air Development Center.
1951-1954 Boston Naval Shipyard: Naval Architect and Engineer in Charge of the Vibration and Sound Laboratory, Scientific Section.
EDUCATION o
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: B.S. in General Engineering with a major in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, and graduate courses in acoustics.
j l
University of California at Los Angeles: Graduate courses in mathematics.
o I
I PUBLICATIONS Author or co-author of over 100 papers and reports available through the o
I literature and of numerous clients reports.
-i.
Publications of Kenneth McK. Eldred
" Noise at the Year 2000," Keynote address at the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Fublic Health Problem, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, August 1988.
" Final Environmental Assessment Runway 27 Departure Procedures Boston-Logan International Airport." (co-author), Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, April 1988.
" Analysis of the Reduction of Estimated Noise Impact as a Result of the Implementation of a New Noise Abatement Regulation at San Francisco International Airport " Airports Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, KEE Report 87-46R, February 1988.
" Mitigation of the Building Vibration and Rattle Induced by Blast Noise:
Development of a Test Facility and Systemetic Investigation Procedures" (co-author), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Interim Report N-87/25, December 1987.
"Barnstable Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Documentation: Vol. I, Noise Exposure Map, and Vol. II, Noise Compatibility Program" (co-author), December 1987.
"The Nationwide Airport Noise Impact Model And Its Application to Regulatory Alternatives" (co-author) Federal Aviation Administration Technical Report No. FAA EJ-88-3, July 1987.
" Sound Exposure Without Decibels," Proceedings of Inter-Noise 86, Vol. I, pp.
111-116, July 1986.
" Criteria for Eligibility in Proposed Home Soundproofing Project " Massport, KEE Report 86-1, June 1986.
" Lebanon Municipal Airport - FAA FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program" j
(co-author), prepared for the City of Lebanon, New Hampshire, November 1985.
" Lebanon Municipal Airport - FAA FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map and Documentation" (co-author), prepared for the City of Lebanon, New Hampshire, November 1985.
"How Do We Arrive at Noise Standards?" presented at the Acoustical Society of America Spring Meeting, April 1985.
" Minimizing the Impact of Aircraf t Noise Near Airports," Proceedings of Inter-Noise 84. Honolulu, Hawaii, 1984.
" Noise from Traf fic and Noise Barrier Performance: A Prediction Technique" (co-author), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Technical Report TN 178 July 1984.
3 a
K EiE
" National Airport Noise Impact Model," for Bolt, Beranek and Newman and Charles River Associates under Federal Aviation Administration Contract DOT-FA-79WA-4230, KEE Report 82-20 August 1983.
"How Do We Describe Noise and How Much Does Its Reduction Cost?" Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Turin, Italy, June 1983.
"Massport: Phase II Preferential Runway Study," KEE Report 82-80, 1982.
" Occupational Noise Analysis Methodology and Data Requirements " for U.S.
Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration KEE Report 82-11 October 1982.
"An Assessment of the Noise Impact of Aircraf t and Airport Compatibility "
National Research Council Transportation Research Board 1981 Workshop on Aircraft and Airport Compatibility Transportation Research Circular #247 Augu s t 1982.
" Rabbit Creek Rifle Range Noise Level Evaluation and Recommendations for the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game," KEE Report 82-9, May 1982.
" Noise Control - Decisions and Technology" (editorial), Noise Control Engineering, Vol.16, No.1, Jan./Feb.1981.
"Model for Airport Noise Exposure on a National Basis - 1960-2000,"
Proceedings of Inter-Noise 80, Miami, Florida, 8-10 December 1980.
"Aircraf t Takeof f Noise - Goals and Flight Procedures," Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4593, prepared f or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (under Contract EPA 68-01-4488), November 1980.
" Noise Control Technology Evaluation of Supersonic Transport Category Aircraf t," Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report 4052, prepared f or U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (under Contract 68-01-4488), November 1980.
" Analysis of Selected Topics in the Methodology of the Integrated Noise Model" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4413, prepared for Department of Transportation. Transportation System Center (under Contract DOT /TSC 1782), November 1980.
" Estimate of the Impact of Noise f rom Jet Aircraf t and Air Carrier Operations," Bolt, Beranek and Newmen Report No. 4237, prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (under Contract 68-01-5014).. September 1980.
" Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Opinion on MPCA Noise Rules NPC-1 and NPC-2" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman l
Report No. 4367, submitted to Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry.
April 1980.
K; ele l
" Potential Ef festiveness of EPA Regulation of Industrial Machinery Noise Emissions - Final Droft" (co-aut, hor), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No.
4330, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1980.
" Power Plant Noise: Review of Community Noise Impact Predictions and Comments," (co-author) Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4223, prepared for Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, April 1980.
~
" Noise Control f or Rapid Transit Cars on Elevated Structures" (co-author),
B ol t, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4155, prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation System Center, February 1980.
l "Errvironmental Assessment of a Proposed Ccomuter Pier at Logan Airport's l
Southwest Terminal: Noise" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No.
l 4085, prepared for the Massachusetts Port Authority. April 1970.
" Acoustical Evaluation of Alternative Departure Procedures for Runway 22R at Logan" (co-author) Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4067, prepared for the Massachusetts Port Authority, February 1979.
"The Nationwide Impact of Various Noise Sources" (co-author), presented at the 96th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Honolulu, Hawaii.
November 27-December 1, 1978.
" Noise in America,1978" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No.
3318, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978.
" Notice Control Act of 1972 - Revisited by Congress in 1978," Noise Control Engineering (editorial), May-June 1978.
" Planning for Standards in Environmental Sound," presented at the ASTM Ccumunity Noise Symposiuo, Kansas City, Kansas, May 24-26, 1978.
" Costs of Uncertainties in Community Noise Assessments" (co-author),
presented at the ASTM Symposium, Kansas, KA. May 21, 1978. ASTM STP 692, "Ccamunity Noise" (1978), pp.161-171.
" Evolution of Needs for Acoustical Standards," presented at the 95th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America Providence, RI. May 16-19, 1978.
" Standards and Criteria for Noise Control," Distinguished Lecture presented at INTER-NOISE 78, San Francisco, CA, May 8-10, 1978 Inter-Noise Proceedings __
78, pp. 45-58.
" Preferential Runway Alternatives for Logan Airport " Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report Nos. 3777 and 3777R, prepared for Massachusetts Port Authority.
April 1978.
" Regulatory Agencies and the Voluntary Standards System," Noise / News (editorial), Jan.-Feb.1978. - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ _
RIE @
" Community Noise " presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.(ASME), Atlanta, GA, Nov. 27-Dec. 2,1977; also published in ASKE Proceedings 1977.
" Guidelines for Prepering Environmental Impact Statements on Noise" (co-author). National Research Council Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (co-author), National Academy of Science, 1977.
" Noise Abatement Policy Alternatives for Transportation," Analytical Studies for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Vol. VIII (co-author), National Research Council Committee on Appraisal of Societal Consequences of Transportation Noise Abatement, National Academy of Sciences, 1977.
"Cocmunity Reactions to the Concorde An Assessment of the Trail Period at Dallas Airport" (co-author), National Research Council Committee on Community 1977.
Reactions to the Concorde National Academy of Sciences, Beranek "The Economic Impact of Acoustical Measurement Uncertainty." Bolt, and Newman Report No. 3538 (co-author), prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, April 1977.
"Aircraf t Noise Control," presented at INTER-NOISE 77, Zurich, Switzerland, 1-3 March 1977, Inter-Noise 77 Proceedings, pp. A-123-125.
" Community Noise: Perspective 1976," presented at INTER-NOISE 76, Washington, DC, April 1976, Inter-Noise 76 Proceedings, p. 363.
" Objectives of a National Noise Abatement Program," Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 3327, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1976 (draft).
" Overview of Noise" (an extemporaneous talk), presented at Princeton University, Conference on Future of Aeronautical Transportation. November 1975.
"The Role of ANSI in Managing Noise Standards " presented at NOISE-CON 75, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC September 1975.
" Assessing the Overall Noise Impact for a Class of !.ound Sources and Evaluating Alternative Strategies for Noise Abatemeat" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. TIR-95, August 1975,
" Demographics of Noise Pollution with Respect to Potential Hearing Loss,"
presented at SUNY - Upstate Medical Center, NIOSH - Noise Symposium, June 1975.
" Comparison of Alternative Strategies of Identification and Regulation of Beranek and Newman Report No.
Major Sources of Noise" (co-author), Bolt, 2966, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1975. - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
EE m
" Assessment of Community Noise," presented at the Noise in Transportation Symposium at University of Southampton, 8th International Congress on Acoustics Southampton, England, July 1974; also published in Noise Control Engineering, Sept./Oct. 1974, pp. 88-95.
" Rationale for the Identification of Major Sources of Noise" (co-author),
B ol t, Beranek and Newman Report No. 2636, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1973.
" Community Reaction to Noises of Various Origins," presented at the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Program, Dubrovnik, l
Yugoslavia, May 1973.
" Population Distribution of the United States as a Function of Outdoor Average Noise Level" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newma, Report No. 2592, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, November 1973.
" Transportation Noise," presented at the 18th Institute of Environmental Science Meeting New York, NY, May 1972.
" Community Noise," presented at the 18th Institute of Environmental Science Meeting, New York, NY, May 1972.
"Ef fective Modal Density in Reverberant Sound Fields for Finite Sized Sources (co-author), presented at the 83rd Acoustical Society of America Meeting.
Buf falo, NY, April 1972.
" Noise Pollution," presented at the Arden House Workshop on Noise Control Engineering, Columbia University, Karriman, NY, January 1972.
" Community Noise," NTID 300.3, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 31, 1971.
"Using Engineering, Research and Development Results to Implement a Noise Control Program." presented at the National Safety Congress and Exposition.
Chicago, IL, October 1971,
" Airport Noise Monitoring " presented at the 82nd Acoustical Society of America Meeting Denver, 00. October 1971.
" Review of Aircraf t Noise, Rotor Noise, Jet Noise and Sonic Boom" (co-author), presented at the 82nd Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Denver, CO, October 1971.
" Airport Noise " presented at Purdue Noise Control Conference, Purdue Univaref tv, IN, July 1971.
" Future ?: ends in Airport Noise " presented at the 81st Acoustical Society of Americ..ieeting, Washington, DC April 1971. - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
l KjE!E
" Control of Noise Generated by Aircraf t at Subsonic Speeds " presented at the 81st Acoustical Society of America Meeting Washington, DC, April 1971.
"A Redetermination of the N0Y Contours" (co-author), presented at the 81st Acoustical Society of America Meeting Washington, DC. April 1971.
" Standards for Noise Monitoring Systems for Industrial or Cor.munity Noise" (co-author), presented at the ASME 1970 Winter Annual Meetin6 New York, NY, December 1970.
" Acoustic Loads Generated by the Propulsion System," NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria NASA SP 8072 (10 Nov.1970).
" Theoretical and Experimental Results for Coaxial Flow Jet Noise" (co-author), presented at the 80th Acoustical Society of America Meetirg, Houston, TX, November 1970.
"High Transmission Loss Wall Panels" (co-author), presented at the 80th Acoustical Society of America Meeting. Houston, TX, November 1970.
"Some Technical Aspects of Noise Abatement Regulations," presented at the 1970 Annual Meeting of the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Hartford, CT, September 1970.
" Simulation of Space Vehicle Launch Environment, with Emphasis on Acoustics" (co-author), presented at the 77th Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, April 1969.
" Vibration and Acoustic Test Techniques " presented at the Institute of Environmental Science 15th Annual Technical Meeting and Equipment Exposition.
Anaheim, CA, April 1969.
" Coupling of Finite Sized Sources to a Modal Reverberant Sound Field" l
(co-author), presented at the 76th Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Cleveland, OH, 1968.
"Large Vibroacoustic Test Facilities - Vibroacoustic Environmental Simulation for Aerospace Vehicles," Shock and Vibration Bull., 37:Part 5. January 1968; also presented at the 37th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Orlando, FL,1967.
Design and Performance of the Spacecraf t Acoustic Laboratory"
" Concept, (co-author), Shock and Vibration Bull., 37:Part 5. January 1968; also 1967.
presented at the 37th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Orlando, FL,
" Development of Acoustic Test Conditions for Apollo Lunar Module Flight Ce r ti fica tiot." (co-;. thor), Shock and Vibration Bull., 37:Part 5. January 1968; also presented at the 37th Shock and Vibration Symposium Orlando, FL, 1967.
"Large Acoustic Facilities for Environmental Simulation" (co-author),
presented at the 1967 Annual Meeting of the Institute of Environmental l
Science. !
a
EF
" Gas Turbine Noise Control" (co-author), presented at the 1967 Annual Meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers, January 1967.
"No Sonic Barrier to the Moon," Test Engineering, 1966.
" Performance of a New 100,000 Cubic Foot Reverberation Room," presented at the 71st Acoustical Society of America Meeting Boston, MA, June 1966.
" Basic Model for the Correlation and Prediction of Flight Vehicle Vibration" (co-auth;r), presented at the 35th Symposium on Shock and Vibration, October 1965.
" Estimating the Acoustic Loading on Building Fhuctures Near Launch Sites,"
presented at the Acoustical Society of America. Washington, DC, June 1965.
"High Intensity Acoustic Testing - Reverberant or Progressive Waves,"
presented at the Fif th Congress International d' Acoustique. Liege, Belgium, September 1965.
" Empirical Correlation of Excitation Environment and Structural Parameters with Flight Vehicles Vibration Response" (co-author), WPAFB TR-64160 December 1961.
" Noise Reduction of Jets by Multiple Nozzles and Turbo Fans," J. Acoust. Soc.
Amer., 36:1035 (A), 1964
" Noise and Aerodynamic a ressure Fluctuations Anticipated for Space Vehicles,"
or " Laboratory Simulation of an Acoustic Environment for Qualification Testing," presented at the Second 7. international Conference on Acoustic Fatigue, 1964.
" Problems in the Laboratory Qualification of Structures and Equipment Exposed to Intense Acoustic Environments," Proceedings Institute of Environmental Science, 1964
" Suppression of Jet Noise with Emphasic on the Near Field" (co-author), ASD TR 62-578, September 1963.
" Investigation of a Method for the Prediction of Vibratory Response and Stress in Typical Flight Vehicle Structure" (co-author). ASD-TDR-62-801, August 1963.
" Noise F.adiation In and Near a Jet Flow" (co-author), J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.,
35(A), May 1963.
" Utilization of Dynamically Similar Structural Models in Predicting Vibration Responses of Flight Vehicles" (co-author), Shock, Vibration and Associated Environ. Bull., 31. Part III, ' April 1963.
9 I
K ;ldl;
" Acoustical Evaluation of the (various) Ground Runup Noise Suppressor" (co-author) ASD TR Nos.61-540.,61-541, 61-542,61-544, October 1961 and Technical Documentary Report Nos. 61-21, 62-22, 62-23, 62-24 and 62-25, Aerospace Med. Research Div., April 1962.
" Noise Generated by Aircraf t in Flight," J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 33:6, 845(A),
June 1961.
" Empirical Prediction of Space Vehicle Vibration " Shock, Vibration and Associated Environ. Bull., 29, Part 4, June 1961.
" Structural Vibration in Space Vehicles," AIA-ONR Symposium Struct. Dynamic High Speed Flight, ACR-62, pp. 649-685, April 1961.
" Structural Vibration in Space Vehicles" (co-author) WADC TR 61-62, 1961.
" Base Pressure Fluctuations," J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 33(1):59-63 Janua ry 1961.
" Review of the Noise Generation of Rockets and Jets," J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.,
32 (11) :1502 (a ), 1960.
" Prediction of Sonic Erpesure Histories," WADC TR59-507, September 1959.
" Acoustical Factors in Jet Airport Design," J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 32(5):547, May 1959.
" Measurement of Industrial Noise," Noise Control. 4(4):40-46, July 1958.
Comments on " Noise Characteristics of the Caravelle Jet Airliner," Noise Con t r ol. 4(3):46-48, May 1958.
" Prediction of Rocket and Turbojet Noise," presented at Acoustical Society of America Fall Meeting,1956.
" Noise Radiation from Jet Aircraf t in Flight" (co-author), J. Acoust. Soc.
Amer., 28:519(A), 1956.
" Noise Characteristics of Air Force Turbojet Aircraf t" (co-author), WADC TN56-280, 1956.
" Criteria for Short Time Exposure of Personnel to High Intensity Jet Aircraf t Noise" (co-author), WADC TN55-355.
1 "Results of Erperience in Balancing Subcarine Auxiliaries " Summary of USN Underwater Sound Symposium, May 1954.
" Resume of Applications of Vibration Engineering to Solution of Marine Operational Problems" (co-author), Trans. SNAME. 1953. - - _ _ _ _
s 126 dBC
- 1) Very high above ground in Free Space 130 4
j 134
/
126 dBC g) 51 feet above ground 128 130 lu t
d 1'
J-51 ft.
/
"O~
~~~
5ft.--
,,f
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-------<-'--rr#<
4.126 126 dBC
- 3) 25 feet above ground 1
130 134
- L
~
li i
5 f t.- '
~~
126 130 130 128 figure 1 Hypothetical Illustration of siren sound beam contours of equal sound level at three heights above the ground and the corresponding values of dBC at a 5 ft. listening height.
ATTACHMENT #2
i l
INFORMATION ON LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REQUISITE TO PROTECT
{
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE l
WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY I
M ARCH 1974 L
PREPARED BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL This document has been approved for general availability. It does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation, v=.* tr un somnten ioro;
.t o.rna.nt ennuns ome, ATTACHMENT #3 M
E-______'l
~
~~
~ "~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FOREWORD The Congress included among the requirements of the Noise Control Act of 1972 a directive that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency "... develop and publish criteria with respect to noise..." and then " publish information on the levels of environmental noise the attainment and maintenance of which in defm' ed areas under vari-ous conditions are requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate mar-gin of safety."
Not all of the scientific work that is required for basing such levels of environmental noise on precise objective factors has been completed. Some investigations are currently underway, and the need for others has been identified. These involve both special studies i
on various aspects of effects of noise on humans and the accumulation of additional epidemiological data. In some cases, a considerable period of time must elapse before the results will be meaningful, due to the long-term nature of the investigations involved. None-theless, there is information available from which extrapolations are possible and about which reasoned judgments can be made.
Given the foregoing, EPA has sought to provide information on the levels of noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The infor-mation presented is based on analyses, extrapolations and evaluations of the present state of scientific knowledge.This approach is not unusual or different from that used for other environmental stressors and pollutants. As pointed out in " Air Quality Criteria"-Staff Report. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S.
Senate, July,1968, The protection of public health is required action based upon best evidence of causation available. This philosophy was appropriately expressed by Sir E. B. Hill,1962, when he wrote: "All scientific work is incomplete-whether it be observational or experimental.
All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us freedom to lower the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.The lessons of the past in general health and safety practices are easy to read. They are characterized by em-pirical decisions, by eternally persistent reappraisal of public health standards against available knowledge of causation, by consistently giving the public the benefit of the doubt, and by ever strhing for improved environmental quality with the accompanying reduction in disease morbidity and mortality. The day of precise quantitative Foreword I
l
Section 3 RATIONALE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REQUISITE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 1
l BASIS FOR IDENTIFYING LEVELS i
For the identification oflevels to protect against the direct, disease producing effects of noise, protection against hearing loss is the guiding consideration. At this time, there is insufficient scientific evidence that non-auditory diseases are caused by noise levels lower than those that cause noise-induced hearing loss. In the event that future research renders f
this conclusion invalid, this document will be revised accordingly (see Appendix E).
I In addition to direct disease-producing health effects, interference by noise with various human activities, such as spech perception, sleep, and thought can lead to annoyance and indirect effects on well-being. All of these di ect and indirect effects are considered here as effects en public health and welfare. It is important to note, however, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary exposures. Exposures to high levels of environmental noise are often produced or sought by the individual. For example, voluntary exposures to loud music are common. Consequently, the concept of totalindividual noise dose with regard to annoy-ance, must be applied only to involuntary exposure, although, of course, this argument does not apply to the effects of noise on hearing.
j A further consideration is the physical setting in which the exposure takes place.
Although there are no data to justify the assumption,it is judged here that, whereas a small l
amount of speech interference in most outdoor places is not detrimental to public health and welfare, the same is not true for : ; indoor environments. Based on this reasoning, adequate protection of the public against involuntary exposure to ensonmental noise requires special consideration of physical setting and the communication needs associated with each.
l-In the next subsection, the above rationale is applied to identify the maximum noise level consistent with an adequate margin of safety for the ' metal classes of sound j.
found most often in the environment. Certain special classes of sound, such as infrasound, j
ultrasound, and impulsive sounds are discussed in the final subsection.
l 17 l
l l
'~
,).
IDENTIFICATION OF MAXIMUM EXPOSURE LEVELS TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS p.]
b Hearing wn IE[i Basic Considerations u
The folicw.ng considerations have been applied in identifying the environmental
[*g noise levels requisite to protect the hearing of the general population. For detailed derivation, justification and references,(see Appendix C).
t.:1 M
1.
The human ear, when damaged by noise,is typically affected at the 4000 Hz i
^]
frequency first, and, therefore, this frequency can be considered the most noise-sensitive frequency.The averaged frequencies of 500 Hz,1000 Hz and 2000 Hz have traditionally a
been employed in hearing conservation criteria because of theirimportance to the hearing h@h of speech sounds. Since there is considerable evidence that frequencies above 2000 Hz are critical to the understanding of speech in lifelike situations, and since 4000 Hz is considered the most sensitive frequency,4000 Hz has been selected as the most important frequency to be protected in this document.
g G&
2.
Changes in hearing level of less than 5 dB are generally not considered h
noticeable or significant.
J, 3.
As individuals approach the high end of the distribution and their hearing h,
levels are decreased, they become less affected by noise exposure. In other words, there P
comes a point where one cannot be damaged by sounds which one cannot hear, h
4.
The noise level chosen protects against hearing loss up to and including the 96th percentile of the population, ranked according to decreasing ability to hear at 4000 Hz.
Since the percentiles beyond that point are also protected (see consideration number 3),
virtually the entire population is protected against incurring more than a 5 dB noise-induced i
permanent threshold shift (NIPTS).
/
[
Explanation of Identified Level for Hearing Loss
"' 5 Taking into account the assumptions and considerations mentioned above, the 8-hour exposure level which protects virtually the entire population from greater than 5 dB
}
NIPTS is 73 dB,(see Figure 3). Before this value of 73 dB for 8-hour exposures can be U
applied to the environmental situation, however, certain correction or conversion factors 4
must be considered.These correction factors are:
C 18
- t
,a 3
I l
i.
l l
1 l
to d
N e
H" N
N se 70
'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 C
20 40 50 80 100 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION Figure 3. Percentage of Exposed Population That Will Incur No More Than 5 dB I
NIPTS Shown as a Function of Exposure Level. Population Ranked by I
Decreasing Ability to Hear at 4000 Hz. (See Appendix C for Rationale).
I 1.
Intermittency: allows the exposure level to be 5 dB higher. This correction 3
factor is required because most environmental noise is intermittent (not at a steady level, j
but below 65 dBA more than 10% of any one-hour period) and intermittent noise has been 1
shown less damaging than continuous noise of the same Leq. This correction should normal-ly be applied except in situations that do not meet this criterion forintermittency.
2.
Correction to yearly dose (250 to 365 days): requires reduction of the exposure level by 1.6 dB. All data used as the basis of Figure 3 come from occupational exposures which are only 250 days per year, whereas, this document must consider all 365 days in a year.
3.
Correction to twenty-four hour day: the identified level of 73 dB is based on l
8-hour daily exposures. Conversion to a 24-hour period using the equal-energy rule requires reduction of this level by 5 dB. This means that continupus sounds of a 24-hour duration must be 5 dB lessintense than higher level sounds of only 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> duration, with the remain-l ing 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> considered quiet.
{
Using the above corrections and conversions implies that the average 8-hour daily dose (based on a yearly average and assuming intermittent noise) should be no greater i
19
)
l 1
.i 3
. -~.
m
than Leq(g) = 73+5-1.6 = 76.4 dB. Extending the duration to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> would yield a j
of 71.4 dB. For continuous noise, this value would be 66.4 dB. However, since environ-f mental noise is intermittent, this level is below that which is considered necessary to protect public health and welfare. In view of possible statistical errors in the basic data,it is con-
)
- sidered reasonable, especially with respect to a margin of safety, to round down from 71.4 dB to 70 dB. Therefore, the level ofintermittent noise identified here for purposes of pro-tection against hearing loss is:
Leq(24) = 70 dB 1
(For explanation of the relationship between exposures of Leq(8) = 75 dB Jj and Leq(24) = 70 dB, please see page 4.)
A
$j Adequate Margin of Safety 4
Section 5(a)(2), as stated previously, requires an adequate margin of safety. The levelidentified to protect against hearing loss,is based on three margins of safety considera-tions:
The level protects at the frequency where the ear is most sensitive (4,000 Hz).
1.
It protects virtually the whole population from exceeding 5 dB NIPTS.
2.
It rounds off in the direction of hearing conservation (downward) to pro-3.
vide in part for uncertainties in analyzing the data.
Activity Interference / Annoyance Basic Considerations The levels of environmental noise which interfere with human activity (see Appen dix D for detailed dicussion) depend upon the activity and its contextual frame of re i.e., they depend upon " defined areas under various conditions". The effect o ference is often described in terms of annoyance. However, various non-level rel such as attitude towards the noise source and local conditions, may influen reaction to activity interferences.
I 20 ei
)NO
- i. 4b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 79 APR 26 P3 :28 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2*. '
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. S0-443 OL-01" PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
On-site Emergency Planning
)
and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "NRC STAFF BRIEF REGARDING RELEVANCE OF DISCOMFORT,"
" TESTIMONY OF KENNETH M.
ELDRED REGARDING BASIS A.1 0F MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDED ALERT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM CONTENTION,"
and
" TESTIMONY OF FALK KANTOR REGARDING BASIS A.5 0F MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDED ALERT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM CONTENTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, or as indicated by double asteris.ks, by express mail, this 25th day of April 1989:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman
- H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 500 C Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Station Washington, DC 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke**
John Traficonte, F<.
t*
i Administrative Judge Stephen A. Jonas, Esq.
4515 Willard Avenue Assistant Attorney General Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Office of the Attorney General P
Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
Loston, MA 02108 l
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
)
One International Place Geoffrey Huntington, Esq.
I i
Boston, MA 02110-2624 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 l
l l
- -- -- J
j o
' 1 Diane Curran, Esq.**
Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman J
Harmon, Curran & Yousley Board of Selectmen 2001 S Street, NW 13-15 Newmarket Road Suite 430 Durham, NH 03824 Washington, DC 20009 I
Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey i
Calvin A. Canney United States Senate
.j City Hall 531 Hart Senate Office Building _
{
126 Daniel Street Washington, DC 20510 l
Portsmouth, NH 03801 l
Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Allen Lampert City Hall Civil Defense Director Newburyport, MN 01950 Town of Brentwood 1
20 Franklin Michael Santosuosso, Chairman l
Exeter, NH 03833 Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03827 William Armstrong Civil Defense Director Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Town of Exeter Town Counsel for Merrimac 10 Front Street 145 South Main Street Exeter, NH 03833 P.O. Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Holmes & Ellis Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
47 Winnacunnet Road BackJs, Meyer & Solomon Hampton, NH 03842 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03106 J. P. Nadeau Board of Selectmen Paul McEachern Esq.
10 Central Street Shaines & McEachern Rye, NH 03870 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 Judith H. Mizner, Esq, Portsmouth, NH 03801 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
McKay, Murphy & Graham Robert Carrigg, Chairman 100 Main Street Board of Selectmen Amesbury, MA 01913 Town Office Atlantic Avenue William S. Lord North Hampton, NH 03862 Board of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Amesbury, MA 01913 Board of Selectman RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensington, NH 03827 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton
& McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 i
. Barbara J. Saint Andre. Esq.
Ms. Suzanne Breiseth Kepelman & Paige, P.C.
Board of Selectmen 77 Franklin Street Town of Hampton Falls Boston, MA 02110 Drinkwatter Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
Docketing and Service Section*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (1)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Washington, DC 20555 l
Gregory Ali l'3 erd /'
(
Counsel for NRC S taff o