|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| 1 \
| |
| Vs , t ! i 'd /i L. ,
| |
| O UNITED STATES .
| |
| 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
| |
| l e as as ar1 ta as au em ao ass - as an as as as ans as as aus as au em as as as us er as at2 as me ans as an um as w as as aus aus am um as as aus as as an am as am uns as an as d ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
| |
| ) Docket Nos.
| |
| PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL-1R2 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL-1R2
| |
| ) ON-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING ;
| |
| l EVIDENTIARY HEARING l
| |
| O i Pages: 281 through 558 Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: May 3, 1989
| |
| .....................................................~..c 0
| |
| V O. 0 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION oskw n ,.r.m gS gG8 1229 L Street, N.W., Suite 640 ppMg6[W gogo wmwaston, D.C. 20005 8905080324 890503 (282) 628-4888 PDR ADOCK 0500044o.
| |
| T PDC j
| |
| | |
| 281
| |
| \" UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j l
| |
| l In the Matter of: )
| |
| ) Docket Nos.-
| |
| PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL-01-1R2 l NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL-01-1R2 l
| |
| ) ON-SITE' EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING AND SAFETY ISSUES l EVIDENTIARY HEARING Wednesday, May 3, 1989 Auditorium Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
| |
| Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts l
| |
| /~T)
| |
| \~
| |
| The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
| |
| BEFORE: JUDGE PETER B. BLOCH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
| |
| C Heritage Reporting Corporation {
| |
| (202) 628-4880
| |
| | |
| 282
| |
| ,. A.
| |
| i- APPEARANCES: ;
| |
| For the Applicant:
| |
| THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ..
| |
| KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
| |
| JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESQ.
| |
| Ropes & Gray One. International Place Doston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 For the NRC Staff:
| |
| GREGORY ALAN BERRY, ESQ.
| |
| Office _of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: )
| |
| STEPHEN A. JONAS, ESQ.
| |
| PAMELA TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
| |
| JOHN C. TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
| |
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts l One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 O
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| .i
| |
| | |
| 283 L)
| |
| IHEEE i VOIR I WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM DIRE l Panel:
| |
| Falk Kantor '
| |
| Kenneth M. Eldred-by Mr. Berry 286 by Mr. Jonas 362 i by Mr. Dignan 415 by Judge Harbour 418 by Mr. Berry 433 -
| |
| 4 1
| |
| Panel: )
| |
| Ruth Kanfer )'
| |
| Karl S. Pearsons Charles B. Perrow Gregory C. Tocci by Ms. Talbot 451 by Mr. Dignan 483 by Mr. Jonas 545 by Ms. Selleck 552
| |
| (} EXHIBITS: IDENT. REC. REJ. DESCRIPTION:
| |
| Staf f's :
| |
| Staff A-1 291 310 Letter from Grant Peterson to Victor Stello, date-stamped December 14, 1988 Mass AG:
| |
| A-1 481 483 Appendix 9, 60 dB contours A-2 481 483 Appendix 10, 70 dB contours i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation !
| |
| I (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . -_ _. . _ - _
| |
| L l
| |
| (' ' '
| |
| 284 1
| |
| lEREK (Continued)
| |
| EXHIBITS: IDENT. REC. REJ. DESCRIPTION:
| |
| i ADolicants':
| |
| 12-A 510 510 (Long version) OSRD Report No. 6303, 31 July 1946 12-B 510 510 (Short version) OSRD Report No. 6303, 31 July 1946 1
| |
| INSERTS: PAGE:
| |
| Staff Exhibit A-1, letter from 310 Grant Peterson to Victor Stello l date-stamped December 14, 1988 Testimony of Falk Kantor 310 l regarding Basis A.5 of Massachusetts Attorney General's amended alert notification system contention A Testimony of Kenneth M. Eldred 310 U regarding Basis A.1 of Massachusetts Attorney General's amended alert notification system contention Corrected Massachusetts Attorney '454 General direct testimony regarding Prompt Alert and Notification system issues O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| . ,s 285 1 P_ B Q Q E E D 1 H Q R 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Please be seated.
| |
| 3 Good morning.
| |
| 4 I have before me a cassette box and a tape. The 5 tape is marked Massachusetts prerecorded EBS messages, 7 6 April '89. And I took this and I used it last night. I 7 have a_ tape recorder which appears to be in working order 8 with decent batteries.
| |
| 9 The messages I timed --
| |
| 10 MR. JONAS: Not two decent batteries, I hope. l l
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: It is working so that the sound 12 appears to be proper.
| |
| 13 The third, fourth and fifth messages were the ones
| |
| (} 14 that I timed. The third message begins, " site area 15 emergency", and to the half second, I timed it as 2 minutes, 16' five and a half seconds. The second message I timed is the l
| |
| : l. 17 fourth on the tape. It begins " general emergency", and I l
| |
| 18 timed it as two minutes, three and a half seconds. And the 19 fifth message on the tape, which is a site area emergency 20 which includes evacuation of wildlife, reservoirs, beaches 21 and boating areas, is two minutes, 38 and a half seconds. I l
| |
| l 22 didn't time the French. I got tired.
| |
| 23 Would son:eone like to take the tape back?
| |
| l 24 MR. DIGNAN: Did you want it for a souvenir? 3 1
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I don't think we need it in evidence !
| |
| [\
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L ____ - __ 1
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 286 1 because what was agreed was that the, parties would accept my
| |
| : 2. timing.
| |
| 3 So this morning the order of business is to begin 4 with the very generous offer of' Staff counsel to put his 5 witnesses on out of turn.
| |
| 6 Mr. Berry.
| |
| 7 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 8 At this time the Staff would call to the stand Mr.
| |
| 9 Falk Kantor and Mr. Kenneth Eldred.
| |
| 10 Whereupon, 11 FALK KANTOR 12 KENNETH M. ELDRED 13 having been first duly sworn, was called as witnesses herein
| |
| (} 14 and were examined and testified as follows:
| |
| 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. BERRY:
| |
| 17 Q Could each of you state your full name for the 18 record, please?
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) My name is Falk Kantor.
| |
| 20 A (Eldred) My name is Kenneth Eldred.
| |
| 21 Q Mr. Eldred, do you have before you a document that 22 is 15 pages in length with three attachments entitled 23 " Testimony of Kenneth M. Eldred Regarding Basis A.1 of 24 Massachusetts Attorney General's Amended Alert Notification 25 System Contention"?
| |
| r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| l 4
| |
| | |
| ,- ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 287 A (Eldred) 1 Yos, I do.
| |
| l 2 Q Was that document prepared by you or under your 3 direction?
| |
| 4 A (Eldred) It was.
| |
| 5 Q Are there any changes or clarifications that you 6 would like to make to that document at this time?
| |
| 7 A (Eldred) Yes, there are.
| |
| 8 Q Are there any substantive changes as opposed to 9 typographical che.nges you wish to make, Mr. 31 dred?
| |
| 10 A (Eldred) There is one substantive change.
| |
| 11 Q Would you direct the Board and the parties' 12 attention to the change you are about to make?
| |
| 13 A (Eldred) On page 5, the fifth line up from the
| |
| /~h 14 bottom, it reads that, "The horizontal width of the sound w/
| |
| 15 beam is in the order of 60 degrees, which is about one-sixth 16 of a circle."
| |
| 17 Since preparing this I've had made available to me 18 the Wyle report 88-10R wh'ch shows that that approximate 19 number of "60 degrees" should be replaced with "20 degrees",
| |
| 20 and the "one-sixth" replaced by a "one-third" of that value, l l
| |
| 21 or one-eighteenth. I 22 Q And the report you mentioned, the Wyle report l I
| |
| 23 88-10, ,* hen was that made available to you?
| |
| ]
| |
| 24 A (Eldred) I received that here yesterday. l 25 0 Are there any other changes, Mr. Eldred?
| |
| l l)
| |
| '' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| 1
| |
| _i
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 288 1 A (Eldred) That same change carries over to page 6, 2 the seventh line from the top. The '60 degrees" becomes "20
| |
| : 3. degrees". It is only pointed at a specific object for about 4 10 seconds becomes 3.3, or equivalently four seconds becomes 5 1.3.
| |
| l 6 JUD05 HARBOUR: Excuse me. Was that 120 degrees 7 or 20 degrees?
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Twenty degrees.
| |
| 9 BY MR. BERRY:
| |
| 10 Q Are there any other changes, Mr. Eldred?
| |
| 11 A (Eldred) The others are typographical.
| |
| 12 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, in the copy of the 13 testimony made available to the court reporter, the
| |
| (~3 14 typographical errors that Mr. Eldred has referred to have V
| |
| 15 been corrected, and the transcript will so reflect.
| |
| 16 Thank you, Mr. Eldred.
| |
| 17 BY MR. BERRY:
| |
| 18 Q Mr. Kantor, are there any changes or clarification 19 to make to your testimony?
| |
| 20 A (Kantor) Yes, there are.
| |
| 21 Q Would you direct the Board and the parties' 22 attention to the particular questions and answers to which 23 you refer?
| |
| 24 A (Kantor) Other than some typos which will be 25 given to the court repotter, on page 8, in Answer 15, seven Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| ,- 3 ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 289
| |
| (''') 1 lines from the bottom the word "seven" should be "five" 2 Q And what is the basis for that change in your 3 testimony?
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) Upon further review of the Applicants' 5 prefiled testimony.
| |
| 6 And on page 10 the pa agraph in the middle of the 7 page that begins, "In my view", "about two minutes" should 8 be changed to "about two to three minutes". And also the !
| |
| 9 third line from the top of the page, the same change, "two 10 minutes" should be changed to "two to three minutes".
| |
| 11 Q Are there any other, Mr. Kantor?
| |
| 12 A (Kantor) No, that's all.
| |
| 13 Q Gentlemen, since you prepared your testimony and 14 your testimony was served on the other parties, have you had
| |
| /( })
| |
| 15 an opportunity to visit the site and the site of the VANS 16 deployment locations?
| |
| 17 A (Kantor) Yes, we have.
| |
| 18 Q And Mr. Eldred?
| |
| 19 A (Eldred) Yes, I have.
| |
| 20 Q When did you undertake that visit?
| |
| 21 A (Eldred) We had the visit on Monday.
| |
| 22 Q Same answer, Mr. Kantor?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) That's correct. On Monday of this week
| |
| - 24 we visited some of the staging areas and all the acoustic 25 locations.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 290
| |
| (_~#T 1 Q Mr. Kantor, let me direct your attention to page 5 2 of your testimony to Answer 12. You state in the last 3 sentence in the first paragraph that, " FEMA provided its 4 findings in Seabrook plans and preparedness to the NRC on 5 December 14, 1989."
| |
| 6 Do you see that?
| |
| l 7 A (Kantor) Yes,, sir.
| |
| 8 Q Let me show you a document that will be marked a 9 Staff exhibit.
| |
| I 10 MR. BERRY: And, Mr. Chairman, I believe there are 11 previous Staff exhibits in this portion of the case, but we 12 don't know what they number yet, and if Applicants would be 13 good enough to track that down for us so we can stay in
| |
| () 14 sequence. So for the present time, I'll call this Staff 15 Exhibit A, but I believe there is a number for it.
| |
| 16 MR. JONAS: If I can interject here, we are going 17 to be in the same position at 11:00. I'm not really sure of 18 any way that I know of to find out what Mass AG exhibits, if 19 any, there were in this proceeding. So if the request is on 20 the Applicants since they seem to be the most together on 21 this point to try to find that out, I would add my request 22 as well.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Off the record.
| |
| 24 (Discussion off the record. )
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Back on the record.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
| |
| | |
| :j ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 291 b 1 The Board directs that we begin numbering exhibits 2 over for Staff and for the Massachusetts Attorney General 3 for this portion of the case. So we will call them --
| |
| 4 MR. DIGNAN: Could I make one suggestion?
| |
| 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: How about lettering them instead of 7 numbering them. Then you are going to have no confusion.
| |
| 8 It was all numbers before.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I was going to start it as 10 A-1.
| |
| 11 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, fine. Or anything. .
| |
| 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Good. We will label them as A-1, 13 and this is A-Staff 1. It will be A-Mass AG 1 on the other.
| |
| () 11 4 (The document referred to was 15 marked for identification as l
| |
| 16 A-Staff 1.)
| |
| 17 BY MR. BERRY:
| |
| 18 Q Mr. Kantor, I show you a three-page document, a 19 {{letter dated|date=December 14, 1988|text=letter dated December 14, 1988}}, addressed to Mr. Victor 20 Stello, the Executive Director of Operations for the Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission from Mr. Peterson, Associate Director 22 for State and Local Programs and Support from the Federal 23 Emergency Management Agency. ]
| |
| J 24 And I show you this document, Mr. Kantor, and ask 25 you is that the transmittal letter transmitting the reports j Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| ( (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| u y
| |
| 7 ELDRED,'KANTOR - DIRECT 292 1 .that'you refer ~to in your answer on page 57
| |
| ~
| |
| .2 A (Kantor) Yes, it is.
| |
| 3 MR. BERRY: Off the record, Your Honor.
| |
| 4 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| 5 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, could I inquire for what 6 purpose that document is submitted? Is this.to be an 7 exhibit? What exactly is the purpose of this?
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Berry,.I would appreciate'an 9- answer.
| |
| 10 MR. PERRY: Yes, Your Honor.
| |
| 11 'Your Honor, we are offering it in the record 12 primarily for completeness and clarification'in this record.
| |
| -13 ' Mr . Kantor, who is the branch chief for Emergency
| |
| (} 14 Preparedness _for the NRC, works closely with FEMA on
| |
| : 15. emergency preparedness plans. The plans would come in and 16 Mr. Kantor would perform the staff review.
| |
| 17 His testimony, I believe, is sufficient in itself, 18 indicates that' FEMA has conducted a review and forwarded 19 those results to the NRC Staff. They have been reviewed and 20 examined by Mr. Kantor. This document here is just offered 21 for the purpose of further establishing that fact.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: So it's an illustrative exhibit and 23 not evidence?
| |
| 24 MR. BERRY: Certainly, Your Honor --
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: I just couldn't tell whether you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| V ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 293-o
| |
| 'O.' 1 were offering it in evidence or not.
| |
| 2 MR. BERRY: I am going to offer it into evidence, 3 Your Honor, if there.is no objection to it.
| |
| 4 But it further corroborates and illustrates Mt.
| |
| 5 Kantor's testimony. But I also believe that the document 6 -also speaks for itself.
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any objection to it being 8 in evidence?
| |
| , 9 MR. JONAS: There-is.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: And the ground?
| |
| 11 MR. JONAS: Well, the document doesn't speak for 12 itself. I have to be candid with you. My reaction to 13 seeing:a FEMA document here is to kind of stiffen up because
| |
| () 14 of the prest otion that FEMA sometimes carries with it. As 15 far as I'm concerned, there is no presumption in this 16 particular proceeding. There is no FEMA witness here.
| |
| 17 There is no finding in any of the FEMA documents with 18 respect-to the factual matters that the Board is attempting 19 to deal with in this particular proceeding after summary 20 disposition. And I just can't imagine -- if it's here and 21 'being offered simply to show that Mr. Kantor has reviewed 22 the FEMA finding and that somehow gives him comfort in his 23 position, I don't have any objection.
| |
| ':24 But standing on its own, I don't think it's 25 properly admitted.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 I
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| _ ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 294
| |
| ') 1 MR. DIGNAN: The Massachusetts Attorney General 2 should stiffen up. It's a finding by FEMA under the regs 3 that hands me a rebuttable presumption. It's irrelevant 4 whether it's in evidence or not. The rebuttable presumption 5 comes from the regulations of the Commission, and I will so 6 ask for such a holding. And the Board may decide its been 7 rebutted, but at the same time the Appeal Board has made it ;
| |
| 8 patently clear that the finding is the finding and the '
| |
| 9 rebuttable presumption arises under the regulations in a l
| |
| 10 recent decision in this case, and there it is. There is 11 nothing they can do about it.
| |
| 12 Whether it goes into evidence I think is 13 irrelevant because, it being a finding of FEMA, the Board j
| |
| (T s/
| |
| 14 can either officially notice it or treat it as a finding l 15 which by regulation of the Commission requires the Board to 16 hand the presumption.
| |
| 17 So I'm not too interested in the academic question 18 of whether it goes in evidence. But my brother correctly 19 perceives the use I intend to make of it.
| |
| 20 MR. JONASs But I am unsure about how this 21 document standing alone without a witness to sponsor it, 22 without anybody for me to cross-examine about the scope of 23 what they did or what the conclusions they reached can be 24 given a rebuttal presumption.
| |
| 25 I mean this is a bare document as far as I'm
| |
| /~T l
| |
| \l Heritage Reporting Corporation !
| |
| (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 295 l
| |
| ([) 1 concerned.
| |
| I' 2' JUDGE BLOCH: What I would like to do right now is i 3 take a brief recess, during which the Board would like to 4 read the document. We never received our copies even though 5 they were sent to us.
| |
| 6 MR. JONAS: Sure.
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: And so let's do that.
| |
| l 8 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) ;
| |
| 9 10 11 12 l
| |
| 13 O
| |
| 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| ,s ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 296 1 JUDGE BLOCH: While we were off tha record Mr.
| |
| 2 Dignan mentioned that this document is already Exhibit 43-A 3 in the other docket.
| |
| 4 MR. DIGNAN: Applicants' 43-A. 1 1
| |
| 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Applicants' 43-A.
| |
| 6 Was there any discussion of its admissibility? 1 1
| |
| 7 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
| |
| I 8 JUDGE BLOCH: And the parties are --
| |
| 9 MR. DIGNAN: Well, the discussion consisted of its ] )
| |
| 10 offer and nobody objected and it went.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: And the parties are the same?
| |
| 1 12 MR. DIGNAN: AG and us are parties. Not all ]
| |
| l 13 parties are here, but the AG is a party.
| |
| [} 14 MR. JONAS: Well, there is a difference, FEMA was 15 at the other proceeding. FEMA is not here. I can't imagine 1
| |
| 16 how -- I mean, it is in the Seabrook proceeding in the sense l l
| |
| 17 that it's before the other Board. But FEMA had a sponsoring l 18 witness before the other Board.
| |
| I 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's go off the record again while f 20 I read the document.
| |
| 21 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Am I correct in believing that the 23 only relevant portion of this letter is page three, the 24 third bullet?
| |
| 25 MR. BERRY: That's correct, Your Honor.
| |
| V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| r f,
| |
| ELDRED, XANTOR - DIRECT 297 U' 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Includes restatement about the 1
| |
| 2 Massachusetts portion of the plan?
| |
| 3 MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor.
| |
| 4 That's the portion as to the particular relevance ;
| |
| )
| |
| 5 to the matters we're here considering.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Jonas, could you address Mr. l 7 Dignan's argument that if there is a FEMA finding that the 8 regulations take place and there is a presumption. And that '
| |
| 9 whether it's in the record or not, providing we know that 10 there's a FEMA finding, that this is an authentic document, 11 that we must take note of it. i 12 MR. JONAS: Well, there obviously is in the 13 regulation a rebuttable presumption that goes along with the
| |
| () 14 FEMA finding. But when that -- as my understanding is, when 15 you come to these proceedings and you attempt to actually 16 have that rebuttable presumption apply there has to be 17 comeone who sponsors the testimony of FEMA in order to get 18 that presumption.
| |
| 19 In the other proceeding where I gather this thing 20 was admitted, Mr. Donovan a FEMA witness was cross-examined 21 at length. Now he couldn't be cross-examined on the portion 22 of this finding that was relevant here because the Board 23 obviously wouldn't have permitted it. It was the subject of j l
| |
| l 24 these proceedings here and not the proceedings before the 25 Smith Board.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ]
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 298 O 1 So there was a FEMA witness uponsoring FEMA 2 testimony which derived from this finding. We had the l
| |
| 3 opportunity -- we had discovery on that witness. We had the 4 opportunity to cross-examine. . But because of the 1
| |
| 5 limitations of that proceeding and the existence of this one '
| |
| 6 we didn't attempt to, and it would have been improper to 1 I
| |
| 7 attempt to explore the basis for the finding with respect to 1 8 the VAN Systems here.
| |
| 9 And in fact, the findings with respect to the VAN 10 System, as I understand it, had nothing to do with the 11 issues that this Board is exploring in these couple of days.
| |
| 12 Absolutely nothing.
| |
| 13 So I just can't imagine, number one, with no I
| |
| (} 14 witness here to defend this. No witness for me to cross-15 examine. In fact, the basis of the testimony having nothing 16 to do with the proceedings that we're engaged in here, that 17 this can be anything other than a piece of paper that Mr.
| |
| 18 Kantor looked at.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, it seems to me that the 20 evidentiary weight of this 10 very slight. But that it does 21 create the presumption.
| |
| 22 Let me just say something about that.
| |
| 23 MR. JONAS: Sure.
| |
| 24 JUDGE BLOCH: To my mind the only thing that would 25 affect is if we found the evidence in exact balance. Then O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - . i
| |
| | |
| ,_.s ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 299-
| |
| '~
| |
| 1 we have to rule in favor of the presumption.
| |
| 2 MR. JONAS: I have to be candid with you, I am not 3 an expert on this presumption. Mr. Traficonte and Mr.
| |
| 4 Dignan are perhaps the two foremost experts in the world on 5 the presumption.
| |
| 6 I think the Smith Board has a slightly different l
| |
| 7 view of what.the presumption is all about than does this l
| |
| 8 Board.
| |
| 9 But again, if there's going to be a presumption 30 attached to a finding, we should have-the opportunity to 11 face the party that prepared the documents and that finding.
| |
| 12 We have no FEMA lawyer here. We have no. FEMA witness here.
| |
| 13 We have no one to defend that finding. We have no one to
| |
| () 14 examine with respect to that finding.
| |
| 15 I can't imagine that there is anything to this.
| |
| 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Berry, it's your offer, would 17 you like to comment on this? Both with regard to what I've 18 said about a presumption and with regard to the fairness of 19 having the presumption when there's no witness to cross- !
| |
| 20 examine from the agency that gives rise to the presumption.
| |
| 21 MR. BERRY: I join my brother, Mr. Jonas, in his 22 comment about not being an expert in this presumption 23 business. This is my first leap into the fray in this area 24 as well.
| |
| 25 So with that in mind I'll state my remarks -- my G
| |
| 'U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
| |
| | |
| E l
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 300 0 1 position is, it is my understanding that in previous cases-2 ' Boards have relied upon the presumption without a FEMA 3 witness there.
| |
| 4 On the other hand, and in Seabrook in particular, 5 I have no basis to disagree with what Mr. Jonas has said 6 that a FEMA witness has been available for cross-7 examination. Discovery may have taken place.
| |
| 8 I, myself, have not been involved in that before, 9 so I don't have -- but I don't have any basis to disagree 10 with that.
| |
| 11 As far as the fairness goes, Your Honor, I'm not 12 going to sit here and argue that it would be better or be 13 fairer for the Interveners if we had a FEMA witness here.
| |
| /"T 14 We don't have a FEMA witness here.
| |
| .V 15 I think the Board should just take that into 16 consideration in determining what if any weight it should ;
| |
| 17 attach to it.
| |
| 18 But I do agree with Mr. Dignan that the document, 19 in that sense, it does speak for itself. If FEMA states 20 they find that the Seabrook alert and notification system 21 design for,the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ has also met i 22 the design requirements of FEMA-REP-10, I believe that's the 23 finding.
| |
| I 24 And under the regulations it does constitute a 25 rebuttable presumption.
| |
| O
| |
| \' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 301 1 Mr. Kantor, his position as reflected in this 2 testimony is that the Seabrook alert notification system 3 also meets the design of NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-10. To 4 that extent it's not completely true that there is no 5 witness that can be cross-examined. No witness that can be 6 questioned on the basis for a conclusion or a position that 7 the alert notification system for the Massachusetts portion 8 of the EPZ meets regulatory requirements.
| |
| 9 So to that extent I don't think the Interveners ,
| |
| 1 10 are as prejudiced as they may'otherwise be with their no 1
| |
| 11 witness from the Staff or FEMA to stand for cross-12 examination.
| |
| 13 In this case there is a witness and the witness is
| |
| (} 14 competent and the witness is prepared to address, you know, 15 to state the basis for the Staff's position that the system 16 complies with requirements of FEMA-REP-10, NUREG-0654.
| |
| I' So in short, Your Honor, the Staff's position is, 18 yes, this document is and does constitute a finding. That 19 finding under the regulations is entitled to -- constitutes 20 at least a' rebuttable presumption. And the Interveners are l 21 not -- it's not unfair to the Interveners for the Board to 22 apply that presumption in the absence of some rebuttal 23 evidence in light of the fact that a witness has been 24 proffered that can speak and address the Staff's position 25 that the alert notification system designed for the O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| 9 1.
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 302 O 1 -Massachusetts portion of'the Seabrook EPZ satisfies the 2 . requirements in NUREG-0654.
| |
| 3 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I don't want to go out.of 4 turn here, if Mr. Dignan wants to say something,.but I do 5 want to respond to some of those statements.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, why not let Mr. Dignan go and 7 then you.
| |
| 8 MR. DIGNAN: I' don't have anything to add.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you comment on what I said 10 about presumption?
| |
| 1 11- MR. DIGNAN: On your view of what the presumption .j
| |
| - (
| |
| 12 does, that is to say, decides the case in equipoise. I l l
| |
| 13 think that's a fair assessment of the law in presumption.
| |
| (} 14- I think what one can argue about, at least in the 15 cases as I have read them so far and it probably will be 16 briefed as part of our findings, is there's some question at 17 least in the NRC cases as to what evidence makes the 18 rebuttal.
| |
| H19 In other words, does a centilla do it. You read 20 something in federal rules cases that the presumption 21 explodes upon the production of what amounts to what we used 1
| |
| 22 to call the centilla of evidence that they used to talk 23 about in terms of directed verdicts. )
| |
| 24 There is case law, it seems to me, that could be 25 read both ways in this agency. Certain judges have i
| |
| - O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
| |
| )
| |
| W
| |
| ._a_--_.- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . I
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 303 i )
| |
| '' 1 . indicated an adherence to that standard. Others have i i
| |
| 2 indicated, no, that like any other evidence under the 3 regulations the agency must be probative and rely upon and 4 so forth.
| |
| 5 I think that's a matter of briefing to you. But I 6 think your assessment that when you come down to the bottom 7 line the rebuttable presumption is the thing that operates 8 to effect the case only when the evidence is in equipoise I 9 think is a fair assessment of who it operates.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Jonas?
| |
| 11 MR. DIGNAN: And it operates another way, to be 12- candid. It also is a wonderful and probably candidly is the 13 main reason I want it now because we have plenty of evidence
| |
| (^} 14 for you to deal with in this case. It's a marvelous cleanup N. ./
| |
| 15 thing. That is to say, if there is some hole in the case by 16 virtue of no evidence being presented by anybody on the ,
| |
| 17 subject, but it's perceived as a hole in the case the 18 presumption operates in favor of the side that holds it. So 19 it has that effect, also, which in this case may be the more 20 realistic and important fe.ct.
| |
| 21 MR. JONAS: A couple of points. Number one, we 22 spoke with Joe Flynn the lawyer for FEMA about three or four 23 weeks ago and asked whether they were going to offer 1
| |
| 24 anything here and he said, no. j i
| |
| 4 25 We got on April -- I think sent out on April 27, m
| |
| - Heritage Reporting Corporation )
| |
| (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 304' O 1 certainly last week, Mr. Berry's correction to the testimony 2 which includes this. letter which he now intends to offer.
| |
| 3= So we're proceeding narrowly along based on the 4' representation of the FEMA lawyer himself that they're going E 5 to bring no one in here. They're not going to have any 6 testimony whatsoever.
| |
| 7 Then last week Mr. Berry brings this up. We don't 8- have any opportunity to probe behind this, what was involved 9 in this particular finding. We have no opportunity to do 10 that except indirectly here today.
| |
| 11 If there is going to be.a presumption that 12 attaches to anything we have a right to determine what 13 weight -- to try to persuade the Board that little or-no 14 weight should be given to it. And part of that is in cross-
| |
| }-
| |
| 15 examining the person that put together the materials that 16 led to the finding. What went into it? What was the nature 17 of it? Did it deal or bear at all on the issues here today?
| |
| 18 We don't have anybody to do that.
| |
| 19 The other point I wanted to make, and then I'll 20 finish up. Page 33 of the Board's order on summary 21 disposition indicates that the burden of proof will be on 22 Applicants to demonstrate that a person will be on duty and 23 alert at all times at each station so that a 10 second alert 24 time or some greater period of time is realistic.
| |
| 25 Now I don't see a FEMA presumption in there. I !
| |
| 'O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| . _ _ _ _ l
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| . ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 305 t")
| |
| L'' 1 see the burden of proof on the Applicants where it ought to 2 be on all of these issues.
| |
| 3 MR. DIGNAN: Well, it remains anyway with the 4 presumption in the picture. The presumption does not shift 5 the burden of proof.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, I didn't hear that from you
| |
| ;~ 7 just a r.econd ago.
| |
| : 8. MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: You said that if there is no 10~ evidence on a point then it --
| |
| 11 MR. DIGNAN: Then it sustains the burden of proof.
| |
| 12 But the burden of proof lies with the Applicant in an NRC L
| |
| 13 proceeding regardless; whereas, the presumption makes
| |
| (} 14 somebody else come forward. And in the absence of somebody 15 coming forward the Applicant may sustain its burden of proof 16 with the presumption.
| |
| 17 MR. JONAS:~ Incidentally, this is not the position 18 that Mr. Dignan took --
| |
| 19 MR. DIGNAN: It is, too.
| |
| 20 MR. JONAS: -- with respect to -- in the Smith 21 Board -- with respect to what happens when a party comes in 22 with contrary evidence to the presumption. It is not an 23 exploding presumption.
| |
| 24 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, I don't think it is. I took the 25 position that it is not. I said to the Judge -- and I say O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 306
| |
| ['T '
| |
| V 1 the case -- l 2 MR. JONAS: So why are you coming in --
| |
| 3 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me.
| |
| 4 MR. JONAS: I'm sorry.
| |
| 5 MR. DIGNAN: I cited the cases both ways in my 6 trial brief to the Board in the other docket. And as I'm 7 indicating to you, I think the cases look both ways on what 8 takes down the presumption.
| |
| 9 My argument will be to you, as it has been in my 10 trial brief to that Board, that the cases I believe to be 11 the better reasoned cases would seem to indicate that the 12 evidence had to be more than the centilla.
| |
| 13 But I cited both sides of the argument, the cages
| |
| {} 14 that go both ways and laid it out in the trial brief 15 completely just the way I laid it out to Judge Bloch now.
| |
| 16 So there is no inconsistency in this position.
| |
| 17 There is no doubt which cases I hope to persuade 18 both Boards to follow.
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: Well, the point I'm raising --
| |
| 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Now Mr. Jonas is going to speak 21 uninterrupted.
| |
| 22 MR. JONAS: The point I wanted to raise was that 23 Mr. Dignan has taken the position that the presumption is 24 worth a considerable amount. You can't just come into the 25 proceeding and offer contrary evidence to the finding and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 307 I ') i
| |
| \~/ 1 the presumption explodes. That's the position Mr. Dignan l 2 has taken. And I gather that's the position he continues to I
| |
| 3 take.
| |
| 4 Therefore, the presumption with a finding as it is j 5 here, namely, in favor of the VAN System is obviously worth 6 something, at least to Mr. Dignan. I l
| |
| 7 To find out how much it's worth, how much credit 8 the Board should give to it, I need to have something here 9 besides Mr. Kantor. I need to have the person that put the 10 material together that led to the finding.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I am prepared to rule and I 12 have not talked it over with my Board yet, so there's a 13 possibility that I'll get a tap on my back and we'll rule (3 14 again.
| |
| s_/
| |
| 15 In this case there's a lot of evidence on each of 16 the contested points. And I have never found a case in 17 which after careful study I was in exact balance. So I 18 believe that the issue we're arguing about is one that i 1
| |
| 19 really has no effect or is very unlikely to affect this case 20 the way it's been argued and the way it's been tried.
| |
| 21 My belief is, at this point, that the presumption 22 does exist under the regulations just because there has been 23 a finding. I am troubled that an agency which is making a 24 finding of legal importance like this would merely state the 25 finding with absolutely no reasoning behind it at all. That n
| |
| kl Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| _q ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 308 d 1 bothers me that they would do that.
| |
| 2 But we do have witnesses here who can talk'about 3 the substance of what's going on.
| |
| 4 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor.
| |
| 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: On that point _you should, in fairness 7 to FEMA, understand this is -- I told you this is 43-A in 8 the other docket. 43 consists of 43-A, B, C, D, _ E, and F.
| |
| 9 This is a cover letter,'if you will, with the ultimate 10 finding.which is on top of a total of five other FEMA 11 reports. One of which' addresses particularly the SPMC. And 12 in there.are specific findings and reasons for them with 13 respect to each of the elements of planning, one of which is 14 this.
| |
| 15 Just so that you know, I mean, I think it's only 16 fair to FEMA; The reasoning that's behind the ultimate 17 finding is found in those other documents that FEMA 18 publishes also As findings and which this served as the 19 cover letter for eith the ultimate official statement of the 20 overall finding.
| |
| 21 So they did not publish it naked, that's my only 1
| |
| 22 point.
| |
| 1 23 JUDGE BLOCH: The other consequence to this is 24 that FEMA has no direct representation here, so we don't 25 even know if having heard these arguments they might want to l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 !
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - DIRECT 309 1 change their mind.
| |
| 2 I do think the presumption exists despite that.
| |
| 3 And I intend to apply it. But I don't think it matters an 4 awful lot under the specific circumstances we've got here.
| |
| 5 I'm willing to reconsider that if the parties file 6 legal arguments at the time of their findings.
| |
| 7 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I don't mean any 8 disrespect, I just want to make sure that the record is 9 clear that I have an objection to that ruling and will cross 10 Mr. Kantor on some of these poin's. t But, I do not mean to 11 waive the objection.
| |
| 12 JUDGE BLOCH: No. I specifically said the parties 13 may file briefs on it and if we consider it more fully at
| |
| {} 14 15 that time we may change our ruling.
| |
| BY MR. BERRY: I 16 Q Gentlemen, with the corrections you have 17 indicated, does the testimony before you today represent 18 true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) Yes, it does.
| |
| 20 A (Eldred) Yes, it does.
| |
| 21 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, at this time I would move 22 that the testimony of Mr. Kantor and Mr. Eldred be admitted 23 and bound into the record at this point as if read. ,
| |
| 24 JUDGE BLOCH: And Exhibit A-1 immediately 25 following?
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ _ _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .i
| |
| | |
| h-ELDRED, KANTOR-- DIRECT 310 1- MR.' BERRY: Yes, Your Honor.
| |
| 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any objection?
| |
| 3 MR. JONAS: None'other than the one that I raised.
| |
| L '4 JUDGE'BLOCH: So we will admit the evidence 5 including the letter for the purpose of.demone.cating that 6 there's a FEMA finding.
| |
| 7 (Testimony of Kenneth M.
| |
| 8 Eldred regarding Basis 9 A.1 of Massachusetts {
| |
| 10 Attorney General's 11 amended alert notification l l
| |
| 12 system contention; and i
| |
| 13 testimony of Falk Kantor j
| |
| /^% 14 regarding Basis A.5 V
| |
| 15 of Massachusetts Attorney 16 General's amended alert 17 notification system 18 contention follows:)
| |
| 19 (The document referred 20 to, having been previously 21 marked for identification as 22 A-Staff-1, was received and f 23 bound into the record.) l 24 25 l-( l Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
| |
| (202) 628-4888 /
| |
| | |
| '! j 9 .th 311 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| 'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) 1 Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEWHAMPSHIRE,etal. On-site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 1 TESTIMONY OF KENNETH M. ELDRED REGARDING BASIS A.1 0F MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'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 Standards 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 1 for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection site permitting process; Overseeing the technical direction of the acoustical aspects of an Environmental Impact Statement to 3 evaluate relative noise impact on the population residing in alternative airplane departure patterns from one of the runways at Logan International Airport O in Boston, Massachusetts; 1
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| c i
| |
| ' 312
| |
| ~*
| |
| ' 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 sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration;.
| |
| Developing acoustic criterion for the selection of candidate homes for sound proofing in the vicinity of
| |
| - Logan InternatiodMirport.-
| |
| 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; research on long range acoustic propagation, jet and aerodynamic noise; acoustic treatments for test cells; and development of methods for displaying contours of noise around airbases.
| |
| After leaving the U.S. Air Force I spent six years directing a wide variety of consulting and research projects at the Western Electric Acoustic Laboratory. In 1963, I was made Director of O aesearch for Wrie laboratories aad partic4 pated in assemb11a9 the
| |
| | |
| G U
| |
| 313 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.
| |
| This included developing high intensity noise facilities to duplicate the noise experienced by a space vehicle during launch, as well as devising means to control the noise and vibration responses to improve reliability.
| |
| 1 In the early 1970's, I became significantly involved with the 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 (m 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 prediction, and noise control.
| |
| Q3: Mr. Eldred, have you prepared a s tatement of your professional '
| |
| qualifications?
| |
| -1/
| |
| Information On Levels Of Noise Requisite To Protect Public Health And I q Welfare With An Adequate Margin Of Safety - EPA 550/9-74-004(March V 1974).
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| . D u./ 314 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 (LRD-89-09) which granted in part and denied in part Applicants' motion for summary disposition of the Attorney General's contention.
| |
| Q5: Mr. Eldred, are you familiar with Basis A.1 of the Attorney General's amended alert notification system contention?
| |
| AS: Yes, I am. Basis A.1 of the Attorney General's contention states:
| |
| The VANS and the New Hampshire fixed sirens because of r their locations, height, acoustic range and number, do not b] 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 identify 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 dispute 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.
| |
| - 4. Whether Applicants' position on the sound level resulting from their sirens is an underestimate because of sound reflection from buildings.
| |
| | |
| 4 i
| |
| . ;3 U 315 07: Mr. Eld.ed, are familiar with Applicants' Vehicular Alert Notification (VANS)yousystem?
| |
| A7: Yes I em.
| |
| Q8: What is the VANS?
| |
| A8: My understanding of VANS is based on my review of the Seabrook FEMA-REP-le 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) 1" 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 i
| |
| Dual Whelen WS-4000 siren to a height of 51 feet. The siren is capable O' functioning either as a siren or as a public address (V3 system. In the public address mode, voice messages received over radio are amplified and broadcast over the siren speakers. 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 synanetry.
| |
| 1.0
| |
| ,he order of he which Thehorizontgiwidthofthissoundbeam1c f f, '
| |
| is about r: Ilf:t' of a circle. The vertical dispersion is much less s9 that most of the sound is transmitted horizontally where it can n fulfill its intended use rather than be wasted by being transmitted L) (
| |
| up into space or down into the earth. Because of this beaming
| |
| .________a
| |
| | |
| , /\ V 316 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 siren's axis of symmetry.
| |
| 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 46* degrees, is only pointed at a specific object for about 30 M seconds per minute, or equivalently .3 l+ 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 i manually.
| |
| The siting plan for the VANS sirens was developed using a 1
| |
| ~
| |
| 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 Q9: 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.
| |
| O c10: er. sidred, nuaec-06s4 provides, emono other tnia9s, thet 'tt,he maximum [ siren] sound levels received by any member of the public i
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| } ' should be lower than 173 dB, the level which may cause discomfort to 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 sirens which Applicants plan to use in connection with the VANS system will not exceed 123 dBC in normal operation. However, as Applicants' witnesses acknowledge, if a VANS siren is activated when it is at a 25 foot height in the process of being raised to 51 feet,
| |
| < s sound level on the ground could, momentarily, exceed 123 dBC.
| |
| Mr. Louis Sutherland testified in support of Applicants' motion for 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 A
| |
| V person vere standing at this noisiest spot when the siren was activated, the duration of the exposure would be very short -- on the order of a few seconds -- before the oscillation of the siren sweeps r
| |
| 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. Applicants 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
| |
| | |
| O (._.) 318 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. l
| |
| )
| |
| 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 q sirens will not exceed 123 dBC? '
| |
| 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 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 testimor.y. This figure shows a set of hypothetical contours of equal sound level radiated from a loud soeaker in a fairly narrow beam with loud speaker high above the ground.
| |
| Figure 2 shows the same loud speaker lowered to a mounting l 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 r a mounting location at 25 feet above the earth. The sound levels at the 5 foot listening heir t 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 will be a direct relationship between C) the sound ievei on the siren axis end the soued ,evel et the
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| , ( 319 l listening height. Consequently, if the volume control is turned up l 1
| |
| in a system that is operated with a constant frequency, and in the j 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 i the siren, but the sound level always will remain less than that measured in axis. j Finally, the addition of oscillating rotatfor 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 pd 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. Bouliar,e essentially is correct However,'as I will explain in this respo~nse, 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 !
| |
| l is derived from consideration of typical listening heights. There j 1
| |
| are many voluntary national and international standards and government regulations which contain these requirements; for example,
| |
| - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ .I
| |
| | |
| . . =;O U 320 those for measurement of sound of automobiles, trucks, and airplanes.
| |
| Also, free field requirements are recommended for most loud speaker component tests prescribed by the Audio Engineering Society. E The reason that free field conditions are usually specified for outdoor measurements is that the presence of nearby reflecting 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; A
| |
| V
| |
| * 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) er 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 p Reinforcement," attached to October 11, 1988 Affidavit of Thomas G.
| |
| V Bouliane.
| |
| | |
| Q G
| |
| 321 i
| |
| locations where the interference from the sound waves would cause the '
| |
| 1 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 ot.:put of installed warning sirens with respect to people outdoors and near the siren, I would recommend defining a specific microphone I
| |
| height for measurements to be made in a free field without reflecting surfaces. The procedures used in this application appear consistent with this recommendation.
| |
| ,r 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.
| |
| that the word " discomfort" has any particular and specific meaning in 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; i O
| |
| | |
| n .
| |
| L m l
| |
| : 2) NUREG-0654 picked up much of its language directly 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 report prepared by the Natio WG46chairedbyKarlKrytergplResearchCouncilCHABA
| |
| ; and
| |
| : 5) Mr. Keast chose the limit to apply to "an almost daily .i exposure over about 10 years to 1 to li 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. M Q15: Mr. Eldred Applicants assert (p.18) that "the limit for discomfort l should be equal to the threshold for hearing damage risk" which they L suggest should be expressed "in the terms of sound level, frequency
| |
| , and time duration, specificsily 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 1
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 3_/ NRC - CHABA WG46, " Hazardous Exposure To Intermittent And Steady -
| |
| State Noise," (January 1965)
| |
| O y FEMA Guidance Memorandum <13 (June 17, 1980).
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| . A)
| |
| ( 323 l reactions of people when they are hearing the sound, but rather on consideration of its possible long tenn physical effect. A better 1 phrase for describing this limit would be "a level which is protective of the hearing of individuals." In my view the threshold I 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 i 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 hour 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 specific way.
| |
| The value of this descriptor was chosen to protect up to the 96th percentile of the population against a loss of 5 dB hearing
| |
| | |
| i h - ~
| |
| 324 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 hour 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 level 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 terms of a set of one or more quantifiable descriptors as shown in the EPA illustration and/or it may be stated in terms of temporary 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 using TTS2 as a primary criterion is that it can be measured.
| |
| Furthermore., the potential effects on risk of hearing damage for a warning system having unusual acoustical characteristics can be I
| |
| directly estimated from laboratory measurements of the TTS2 '
| |
| O experienced by veiunteer sub3ects after exposure to its sound.
| |
| | |
| 325 Q16: Mr. Eldred, does this complete your testimony?
| |
| A16: Yes, it does.
| |
| 1 I
| |
| I O
| |
| O
| |
| [ l i
| |
| 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . . _ . _ . .
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| >D gg 326 dred .
| |
| ggO g ggO
| |
| * PO BOX 1037
| |
| * CONCORD
| |
| * MASS
| |
| * 01742
| |
| * USA TELEPHONE
| |
| * 617 371*0M9 Principal: Kenneth McK. Eldred, P.E. , Fellow, ASA, Member, INCE.
| |
| Services: Consulting and research in:
| |
| T community noise and environmatn 1 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 facilities and pro- ;
| |
| cedures for measurement and evaluation of environ-mental or source noise.
| |
| Typical Projects: Airports, aircraft, sof tware development, surf ace transportation vehicles , buildings, indratrial plants and machinery, regulatory analysis atJ development, courtroom testimony.
| |
| I Typical Clients: Airports, government agencies, industrial companies, building owners, architects, engineering fires and levyers.
| |
| 1 General Data: The firm was founded in 1981 and provides its services l in the United States and abroad. Principal is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the Fetier.1 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. l O . ,
| |
| ATTACHMENT #1
| |
| | |
| e O 327 RESUME KENNETH MCK. EL$ RED, P.E. , CONSULTING ENGINEER PROFESSION /4 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 la rge multi-disciplinary teams which have included econcaists, engineers, psychologists, physicists, social scientists and others. Project areas include:
| |
| o Community noise, environmental impact assessment and the development of )
| |
| 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 tircraf t, space vehicle launch and re-entry, motor vehicles, rapid transit and ships.
| |
| o Noise control device design, specification and test for machinery, equipment and building spaces including walls, barriers, shrouds, enclosures, ducts and vibration isolation, o Modeling of both partial and complete systems using both analytical and physically scaled dynamiccily similar models.
| |
| o Design of simulation facilities and methods for ascertaining reliability in severe acoustic, vibration and combined loads environments.
| |
| o Development of procedures for measurement and evaluation of environmental 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.
| |
| l o Acoustical Society of America: Standards Director Fellow; Past Chairman, I Coordinating Committee on Environmental Acoustics: Past Chairman, Accredited Standards Committee S-12 on Noise.
| |
| o Institute of Noise Control Engineering: Member; Director; Past President (1976).
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| . 328 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: Committee on Hearing, Bio-Acoustics and Bio-Mechanics, Advisor.
| |
| o Society of Automotive Engineers: Member; Aircraf t Noise Committee A21 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, National Research Council Committees and national task forces.
| |
| PREVIOUS POSITIONS 1973-1981 B ol 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.
| |
| O t 1957-1963 Western Electro Acoustics Laboratory: Vice President and Consul-s_/
| |
| 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.
| |
| EDU CATION o Massachusetts Institute of Technology: B.S. in General Engineering with a major in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, and graduate courses in acoustics.
| |
| o University of California at Los Angeles: Graduate courses in mathematics.
| |
| PUBLICATIONS o Author or co-author of over 100 papers and reports available through the literature and of numerous clients reports.
| |
| G O
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| a K iE S
| |
| - k-) 329 Publications of Kenneth McK. Eldred
| |
| " Noise at the Year 2000," Keynote address at the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Swedish Council for Building Research, St ockholm, Sweden, August 1988.
| |
| " Final Environmental Assessment Runway 27 Departure Procedures, Boston-Logan International Ai rport," (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 Systematic Investigation Procedures" (co-author), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory Interim Report N-87/25, December 1987.
| |
| "Bernstable Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Documentation: Vol . I, Noise Exposure Map, and Vol. II, Noise Compatibility Program" (co-author), December 1987.
| |
| G k-) "The Nationwide Airport Noise Impact Model And Its Application to Regulatory Alternatives" (co-author), Federal Aviation Administration. Technical Report No. FAA EE-88-3, July 1987.
| |
| " Sound Exposure Without Decibels," Proceedings of Inter-Noise 86. Vol. I, pp.
| |
| 111-116. July 19 86.
| |
| " 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" (co-author), prepared for thw City of Lebanon, New Hampshire, November 1985. j
| |
| " Lebanon Municipal Airport - FA,. FAR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map and !
| |
| Documentation" (co-author), prepas td for the City of Lebanon, New Hampshire, November 1985.
| |
| "How Do We Arrive at Noise Standards?" presented at the Accustical 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 Engineer
| |
| * ng Research Laboratory Technical Report TN 178, July 1984. ,
| |
| l j
| |
| | |
| d 4
| |
| I
| |
| . 330
| |
| " 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 Aircraft and Airport Compatibility "
| |
| National Research Council Transportation Research Board 1981 Workshop on Aircraf t and Airport Compatibility, Transportation Research Circular #247, August 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.
| |
| " Aircraft Takeoff Noise - Goals and Flight Procedures," Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4593, prepared for 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 for 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 j Department of Transportation. Transportation System Center (under Contract DOT /TSC 1782), November 1930.
| |
| " Estimate of the Impact of Noise from Jet Aircraf t and Air Carrier Operations " Bolt. E-ranek and Newman 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
| |
| ]
| |
| Report No. 4367, submitted to Minnesota Association of Ccemerce and Industry, l April 1980. j O l 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| K;E @
| |
| . 331
| |
| " Potential Effectiveness of EPA Regulation of Industrial Machinery Noise Emissions - Final Draft" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 3 4330, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1980. !
| |
| " Power Plant Noise: Review of Cmmunity Noise Impact Predictions and Comments," (co-author) Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4223, prepared l for Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, April 1980. !
| |
| " Noise Control for Rapid Transit Cars on Elevated Structures" (co-author).
| |
| Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 4155, prepared for U.S. Department' of Transportation, Transportation System Center, February 1980. ;
| |
| " Environmental Assessment of a Proposed Commuter Pier at Logan Airport's i Southwest Terminal: Noise" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 1 4085, prepared for the Massachusetts Port Authority. April 1979. !
| |
| " Acoustical Evaluation of Alternative Departure Procedures for Runway 22R at j Logan" (co-author) Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report ik 4067, prepared for i the Massachusetts Port Authority. February 1979.
| |
| "The Nationwide Impact of Various Noise Sources" (co-aut presented at the 96th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. Honv a. Hawaii, November 27-December 1, 1978.
| |
| " Noise in America,1978" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No.
| |
| (qj 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 Cmmunity Noise Symposium, 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
| |
| " Community 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, 8 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.
| |
| l
| |
| . l
| |
| ! Q l 332
| |
| " 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 ASME Proceedings 1977 l
| |
| " Guidelines for Preparing Envirornental Impact Statements on Noise" (co-author), National Research Council Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and j Biomechanics (co-author), National Academy of Science,1977.
| |
| " Noise Abatement Policy Alternatives for Transportation," Analytical Studies for the U.S. Envirornental notection Agency, Vol. VIII (co-author), National Research Council Committee on Appraisal of Societal Consequences of Transportation Noise Abatement, National Academy of Sciences, 1977.
| |
| "Ccamunity Reactions to the Concorde: An Assessment of the Trail Period at Dallas Airport" (co-author), National Research Council Committee on Community Reactions to the Concorde. National Academy of Sciences, 1977.
| |
| "The Economic Impact of Acoustical Measurement Uncertainty," Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No. 3538 (co-author), prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. April 1977.
| |
| " Aircraft 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, O oc. ^Pri1 1976.1 ter-wei e 7e erecee41 . P. 363-
| |
| " Objectives of a National Noise Abatement Program," Bolt, Beranek and Newman )
| |
| Report No. 3327, prepared for U.S. Enviroreental 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 Sound Sources and Evaluating Alternative Strategies for Noise Abatement" (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 - Upstste Medical Center, NIOSH - Noise Symposium, June 1975.
| |
| " Comparison of Alternative Strategies of Identification and Regulation of Major Sources of Noise" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report No.
| |
| 2966, prepared for U.S. Envirornental Protection Agency, Februat,/ 1975.
| |
| O I
| |
| : I K I l1.
| |
| 333
| |
| " Assessment of Community Noise," presented at the Noise in Transportation Symposium at University of Southampton, 8th International Congress on Acoustics, Southaapton, 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, ;
| |
| Yugoslavia, May 1973. !
| |
| " Population Distribution of the United States as a Function of Outdoor Average Noise Level" (co-author), Bolt, Beranek and Newman 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 O (co-author), presented at the 83rd Acastical Society of America Meeting.
| |
| Buf falo, NY, April 1972.
| |
| " Noise Pollution,". presented at the Arden House Workshop on Noise Control Engineering, Columbia University, Harriman, NY, January 1972.
| |
| " Community Noise,". NTID 300.3, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 31, 1971.
| |
| "Using Engineering. Research and Developme::t Results to Implement 's Noise Control Prograa," 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, CO, 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 University, IN, July 1971.
| |
| " Future Trends in Airport Noise." presented at the 81st Acoustical Society of America Meeting, Washington, DC. April 1971, 1
| |
| | |
| KjE@
| |
| ~
| |
| r 334
| |
| " 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 Community Noise" (co-author), presented at the ASME 1970 Winter Annual Meeting, 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 Meeting, 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 Of ficials (NASAO), Hartford, CT, September 1970.
| |
| O " Simul ation of Space vehicle Launch Environment, with Emphasis on Acoustics" C) (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" (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 PL, 1967.
| |
| " Concept, Design and Performance of the Spacecraf t Acoustic Laboratory" (co-c..sthor), Shock and Vibration Bull . , 37 :Part 5, January 1968; also presented at the 37th Shock and Vibration Symposium, Orlando, FL, 1967.
| |
| " Development of Acoustic Test Conditions for Apollo Lunar Module Flight Certification" (co-author), 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),
| |
| ]v presented at the 1967 Annual Meeting of the Institute of Environmental l Science. l l
| |
| l I
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| .' - (/ 335
| |
| " 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-author), presented at the 35th Symposium on Shock and Vibration, October 1965.
| |
| " Estimating the Acoustic Loading on Building Structures 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 Inte rnational 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.
| |
| .O.
| |
| " Noise and Aerodynamic Pressure Fluctuations Anticipated for Space Vehicles,"
| |
| or " Laboratory Simulation of an Acoustic Environment for Qualification Testing," presented at the Second 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 Emphasis on the Near Field" (co-author), ASD l 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 Radiation In and Near a Jet Flow" (co-author), J. Acoust. Soc . Ame r. ,
| |
| 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.
| |
| O 9
| |
| J
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
| |
| | |
| KlE E
| |
| ,' 336
| |
| " 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. l
| |
| " 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., l 32 (11) :1502 (a), 1960. ]
| |
| " Prediction of Sonic Exposure Histories," WADC TR59-507. September 1959.
| |
| " Acoustical Factors in Jet Airport Design," J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 32(5):547 O xar 19s9-
| |
| " Measurement of Industrial Noise." Noise Control. 4(4):40-46, July 1958.
| |
| Comments on " Noise Characteristics of the Caravelle Jet Airliner," Noise Control. 4(3):46-48, May 1958.
| |
| " Prediction of Rocket and Turbojet Noise," presented at Acoustical Society of ;
| |
| America Fall Meeting, 1956. i
| |
| " 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.
| |
| "Results of Experience in Balancing Submarine 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, 1933.
| |
| O l
| |
| | |
| 126 dBC Very high'above ground 337 in Free Space 128 130 l 134 - -
| |
| 4 g
| |
| /
| |
| 126 dBC 2)'51 feet above ground 128 132 A
| |
| QJ~
| |
| ~
| |
| o 51 ft.
| |
| 5 ft.--- --- - --- - - #- - ---
| |
| j 4.126 126 dBC
| |
| : 3) 25 feet above ground 130 134 3 L n
| |
| 5 f t .-
| |
| f l
| |
| 126 130 130 128 l
| |
| F gure 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
| |
| | |
| l' 550/9-74-004 O 338 INFORMATION ON LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REQUISITE TO PROTECT
| |
| , PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY O
| |
| 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, O specification, or regulation.
| |
| l
| |
| '"'' " *"*"::" :".?;=22. ,r:;-"~~ c~'
| |
| ATTACHMENT #3 )
| |
| ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| |
| NDT_________ _ __ - ---_
| |
| - __ A
| |
| | |
| g.
| |
| 339 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 defined 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 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 A requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The infor-U' 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. Th lessons of the past in general health and safety practices are eas- o read. They are characterized by em-pirical decisions, by eteruy persistent reappraisal of public health standards against available knowledge of causation, by consistently giving the public the benefit of the doubt, and by ever striving for improved environmental quality with the accompanying red'uction in disease morbidity and mortality. The day of precise quantitative l's Q Foreword L
| |
| l l
| |
| ~ ~~e' . . ._ _ _ - ._
| |
| h _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ . _- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - '
| |
| | |
| (~~)%
| |
| % 340 Section 3 RATIONALE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REQUISITE TO PROTECT PUBLIC IIEALTH AND WELFARE BASIS FOR IDENTIFYING LEVELS 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 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 speech-perception, sleep, and thought can lead to annoyance and indirect effects on well-being. All of these direct and indirect effects are considered here as effects on 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 O oftea produced er vsousat a the individua>. ror exempie. volunt rv exposures to -
| |
| 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 i not apply to the effects of noise on hearing.
| |
| A further consideration is the physical setting in which the exposure takes place.
| |
| Although there are no data to justify the assumption,it isjudged here that, whereas a small amount of speech interference in most outdoor places is not detrimental to public health and welfare, the same is not true for most indoor environments. Based on this reasoning, :
| |
| adequate protection of the public against involuntary exposure to environmental noise i requires special consideration of physical setting and the communication needs associated with each. ;
| |
| j in the next subsection, the above rationale is applied to identify the maximum noise level consistent with an adequate margin of safety for the general classes of sound '
| |
| found most often in the environment. Certain special classes of sound, such as infrasound, ultrasound, and impulsive sounds are discussed in the final subsection.
| |
| j l
| |
| t i
| |
| 17 l
| |
| I
| |
| --- - A
| |
| | |
| - A
| |
| ]-
| |
| _ f4 liU 4Q WW3 IDENTIFICATION OF MAXIMUM EXPOSURE LEVELS TO AVOID SIGNIFIC
| |
| '$d. c+ 4 ADVERSE EFFECTS t.1, .
| |
| &" Hearing M
| |
| ~Yd Basic Considerations f.,
| |
| 7.:il
| |
| : e yj The following considerations have been applied in identifying the environmental g noise levels requisite to protect the hearing of the general population. For detailed derivation, justification and references,(see Appendix C).
| |
| -.Q
| |
| .A y The human ear, when damaged by noise,is typically affected at the 4000 Hz lh 1.
| |
| frequency first, and, therefore, this frequency can be considered the most noise-sensitive
| |
| ! Md frequency.The averaged frequencies of 500 Hz,1000 Hz and 2000 Hz have traditionally been employed in hearing conservation criteria because of their importance to the hearing
| |
| , e (
| |
| of speech sounds. Since there is considerable evidence that frequencies above 2000 Hz are critical to the understanding of speech in lifelike situations, and since 4000 Hz is considered
| |
| {$.
| |
| _rg the most sensitive frequency,4000 Hz has been selected as the most important frequency to be protected in this document.
| |
| ' (9%W M 2. Changes in hearing level ofless than 5 dB are generally not considered g.
| |
| h noticeable or significant.
| |
| : 3. As individuals approach the high end of the distribution and their hearing h
| |
| j4 levels are decreased, they become less affected by noise exposure. In other words, there comes a point where one cannot be damaged by sounds which one cannot hear.
| |
| z 1- 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 l permanent threshold shift (NIPTS).
| |
| ,y
| |
| : r. -
| |
| $:. Explanation of Identified level for Hearing Loss h Taking into account the assumptions and consideration'ns mentioned above, the 8-hour exposure level which protects virtually the entire population from greater than 5 dB l -k ,.
| |
| NIPTS is 73 dB,(see Figure 3). Before this value of 73 dB for 8 hour exposures can be
| |
| ?
| |
| d ,
| |
| applied to the environmental situation, however, certain correction or conversion factors must be considered.These correction factors are:
| |
| -A
| |
| , f.
| |
| _1 MFy 18
| |
| -W.*
| |
| lM w c5
| |
| : y. ,
| |
| | |
| \ .
| |
| h _
| |
| 342 90 d
| |
| o ,8 no %
| |
| EE -
| |
| N l se N i l
| |
| to l
| |
| 1 1
| |
| _ q g i l I i il t f I l I I t ie i t i t t 0 20 40 60 to too PERCINTAGE OF POPULAfl04 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).
| |
| : 1. I Intermittency: allows the exposure level to be 5 dB higher. This correction h factor is required because most environmental noise is intermittent (not at a steady level, j j
| |
| but below 65 dBA more than 10% of any one-hour period) and intermittent noise has been 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 for intermittency. ll.
| |
| : 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 l days in a year. '
| |
| : 3. Correction to twenty-four hour day: the identified level of 73 dB is based on 8-hour daily exposures. Coaversion to a 24-hour period using the equal-energy rule requires l reduction of this level by 5 dB. This means that continuous sounds of a 24-hour duration l
| |
| must be i dB less intense than higher level sounds of only 8 hours duration, with the remain-ing 16 hours considered quiet. l i
| |
| Using the above corrections and conversions implies that the average 8-hour daily dose (based on a yearly average and assuming intermittent noise) shouhl be no greater {
| |
| i 3
| |
| (d 19 t
| |
| | |
| l j(Vl 3D than Leq(8) = 73+5-1.6 = 76.4 dB. Extending the duration to 24 hours would yield age j >
| |
| of 71.4 dB. For continuous noise, this value would be 66.4 dB. However, since environ-mental noise is intermittent, this levelis below that which is considered necessary to protect p public health and welfare. In view of possible statistical errors in the basic data, it is con-h 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:
| |
| e Leq(24) = 70 dB
| |
| }}
| |
| p (For explanation of the relationship between exposures of Leq(8) = 75 dB y
| |
| g and Leq(24) = 70 dB, please see page 4.)
| |
| G Adequate Margin of Safety j
| |
| ,q'd Section 5(a)(2), as stated previously, requires an adequate margin of safety. The f' levelidentified to protect against hearing loss,is based on three margins of safety considera-
| |
| ' tions:
| |
| ?'
| |
| I- 1. The level protects at the frequency where the ear is most sensitive (4,000 Hz).
| |
| g It protects virtually the whole population from exceeding 5 dB NIPTS.
| |
| i t
| |
| h 2.
| |
| : 3. It rounds off in the direction of hearing conservation (downward) to oro-
| |
| ' vide in pa;t for uncertainties in analyzing the data.
| |
| I Activity Interference / Annoyance s
| |
| 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 referenc i.e., they depend upon " defined areas under various conditions". The effect of activi ference is often described in terms of annoyance. However, various non-level related fac such as attitude towards the noise source and local conditions, may influence an ind
| |
| ' reaction to activity interferences.
| |
| $}
| |
| D
| |
| %.i c1
| |
| .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . , , . , , , , , . . , , . p,,,.
| |
| - i .
| |
| % - i .i
| |
| | |
| i 344 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
| |
| . ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMvANY OF ) 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. l ) On-site Emergency Planning
| |
| ) and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
| |
| TESTIMONY OF FALK KANTOR REGARDING BASIS A.5 0F MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDED ALERT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM CONTENTION Q1: Please state your full name, employer, and occupation.
| |
| A1: My name is Falk Kantor. I am employed as a Section Chief in the Emergency Preparedness Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In this capacity I am responsible for supervising the review and evaluation of radiological emergency plans l
| |
| submitted by nuclear power plant applicants and licensees to ensure the proposed plans meet the regulatory requirements and guidance of the Commission.
| |
| Q2. Mr. Kantor, have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?
| |
| A2. Yes, a statement of my professional qualifications is attached to this i i
| |
| l testimony. 1 l
| |
| l Q3. Mr. Kantor, what is the purpose of your testimony? l 1
| |
| A3. My testimony addresses those issues relating to Basis A.5 of the Massachusetts Attorney General's amended alert notification siren j contention which the licensing Board found to be in dispute in its March l
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| n '
| |
| V 345 l l
| |
| 3, 1989 order (LBP-89-09) which granted in part and denied in part !
| |
| Applicants' motion for summary disposition of the Attorney General's contention.
| |
| Q4. Mr. Kantor, are you familiar with Basis A.5 of the Attorney General's amended alert notification system contention?
| |
| A4 Yes, I am. Basis A.5 of the Attorney General's contention states:
| |
| I The time needed for driver alert, dispatch, route transit, setup and activation in accordance with NRC regulations will exceed 15 minutes for many of the VANS vehicles in optimum weather condition. The reasons for this include the time required to get vehicles on the road (which itself includes the time required to notify the driver, have the driver proceed to the vehicle, check out the vehicle equipment, start the vehicle and leave the staging area, along with l other vehicles at the staging area), the distance to be traveled, the traffic that will be encountered, the setup time and the need for both alert signal and message capability within the 15 minute period. In poor weather, heaq traffic, and nighttime conditions the times needed to accomplish these tasks will increase.
| |
| Q5. Please identify the issues relating to Basis A.5 of the Attorney General's contention which your testimony addresses.
| |
| AS. The four issues relating to Basis A.5 which the Board found to be in dispute are listed at pages 37-38 of the Board's March 3,1989 order. The issues are:
| |
| : 1. What is an appropriate conservative estimate of the length of time it would take for drivers to take the necessary actions before their vehicles leave their stations during conditions likely to prevail at the time of need?
| |
| : 2. Given that there is snowfall of 0.5 inches or more during 5.5% of the days of the year, would a conservative estimate of travel times to VANS acoustic locations include the somewhat prolonged travel times anticipated during snow conditions? If so, what time estimates should be included?
| |
| : 3. What is an appropriate conservative .: t.imate of the length of time it would take for people within five miles of Seabrook to receive the information message to be broadcast over the EBS?
| |
| O V
| |
| 2
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| (] ~ ~
| |
| 346
| |
| : 4. What is an appropriate conservative estimate of the total length of time for alerting and informing people within five miles of Seabrook?
| |
| Is that estimate within acceptable guide lines? (if it is longer than 15 minutes, what are the factors we are to consider in deciding whether the time period is adequate?) !
| |
| Q6. Mr. Kantor, sre you familiar with Applicants' Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS)?
| |
| A6. Yes, I am.
| |
| Q7. What is the VANS?
| |
| A7. The Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS) is a mobile fixed siren concept designed to provide public alerting for the Massachusetts portion of the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). The VANS is comprised of heavy-duty trucks equipped with a telescoping crane to which is attached a Dual Whelen Model WS-4000 siren. The VANS vehicles are deployed to sixteen acoustic locations from six continuously staffed p
| |
| V primary staging areas.
| |
| : 08. Mr. Kantor, where are the regulatory requirements regarding alert and notification systems found?
| |
| A8. The Commission's requirements regarding alert and notification systems are set forth in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5), which states:
| |
| ...means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been established." ,
| |
| and Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, Section IV.D.3, which states:
| |
| "The design objective of the prompt public notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes."
| |
| : 09. Mr. Kantor, is a vehicular alert and notification system required by NRC regulations?
| |
| A9. No. The regulations require Applicants to demonstrate that administrative em j U and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| l~4
| |
| -4~
| |
| JQ 347 instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. The regulations do not expressly require or prohibit the use of specific systems or methods to achieve this objective.
| |
| Q10. What guidance criteria exist regarding alert and notification systems?
| |
| i .
| |
| l A10. Guidance criteria regarding alert and notification systems are found 1 in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1 and Supplement 1. FEMA-REP-10, and FEMA Guidance Memorandum AN-1. These documents provide guidelines for developing and evaluating the alert and notification systems required by the regulations for nuclear power plants. Regarding the "about 15 minutes" requirement of the regulations for notification of the public, NUREG-0654, Appendix 3 at 3-3 states: l The minimum acceptable design objectives for coverage by the system are:
| |
| O- a) capabiiity for provid4ng both an alert signal and an informational or instructional message to the population on an area wide basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, within 15 minutes.
| |
| b) The initial notification system will assure direct coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles of the site.
| |
| c) Special arrangements will be made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.
| |
| Additional guidance criteria for assessing the adequacy of alert and notification systems are found in FEMA-REP-10 and FEMA GM AN-1.
| |
| The guidance documents also contain guidelines on siren sound levels to be used in the design of alert and notification systems. The acceptability of the VANS design sound levels is beyond the scope of my O
| |
| | |
| .p.
| |
| U 348
| |
| . testimony but is, to the extent relevant, addressed in the testimony 'of
| |
| \
| |
| Staff witness Kenneth Eldred.
| |
| Q11. Mr. Kantor, does the Staff have a position .as to whether there is reasonable assurance that Applicants' VANS- system .is capable of alerting the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ in about 15 minutes in the event of an emergency at the Seabrook Station?
| |
| All. Yes. The NRC Staff has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the design of the Applicants' VANS system satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 50 and the guidance criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 for the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ.
| |
| l Q12. Upon what information do you base this statement?
| |
| A12. This position is based upon a review of the information presented by ]
| |
| Applicants in the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) and associated implementing procedures and the FEMA-REP-10 Design Report .
| |
| including Addendum 1 to that report; on information provided in a filing Q ;
| |
| by the Applicants to the Board on September 17, 1988, and on the l Applicants' prefiled testimony dated April 3, 1989. .This position is also based upon (1) a review of the FEMA preliminary technical review of the Seabrook alert and notification system provided to the NRC on January 23, 1989; (2) a review of the FEMA exercise report for the June 28-29, 1988 exercise dated September 2,1988; and (3) a review of the December 1988 FEMA report on the review and evaluation of the SPMC. FEMA provided its findings in Seabrook plans and preparedness to the NRC on December 14, 1988.
| |
| The Staff's position also opinion is based on an inspection (,f the VANS conducted by NRC Region I on June 1-2, 1988 (reported in Inspection Report No. 50-443/88-08, dated July 7, 1988) and on an April 26, 1988 NRC
| |
| | |
| L ,
| |
| ,pU 349 staff visit to the VANS staging areas and acoustic locations, including the location with the longest route transit time.
| |
| The total elapsed time required to deploy and activate the VANS system is arrived at by summing the time estimated to complete the following tasks: (1) alert the operators, (2) dispatch the vet.icles from the staging areas, (3) travel from the staging areas to the acoustic locations, (4) setup the sirens at the acoustic locations, and (5) sound the sirens.
| |
| The Board already has determined that there is no genuine dispute involving Applicants' time estimates for alerting the operators, traveling from the staging location to the acoustic locations in non-snow conditions, and setting up and sounding the sirens. Thus, the only questions surrounding Applicants' time estimates to alert the public s
| |
| relate to the time required to dispatch the VANS vehicles and the travel time estimates for the VANS vehicles in snow conditions. The Board also had questions related to the time required for people within five miles of Seabrook to receive the information message broadcast over the EBS and the estimate of the total length of time for alerting and informing people within five miles of Seabrook.
| |
| Q13. Mr. Kantor, with respect to the time estimated to dispatch the VANS vehicle operators from the staging locations to the acoustic locations
| |
| (" dispatch time"), the Board has inquired as to the appropriate conservative estimate of the length of time it would take for drivers to take the necessary actions before their vehicles leave their st-tions during conditions likely to prevail at the time of need. Does the Staff have a position regarding the appropriate conservative time estimate for dispatch of the VANS vehicles?
| |
| I Uq l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ga _7_
| |
| v 350 A13. Yes. The Staff's position is that Applicants' design planning basis time I of 50 seconds to dispatch the VANS vehicles from the staging areas appears to be an appropriately conservative time estimate.
| |
| 1 Q14. Please discuss the bases for this conclusion.
| |
| A14 This conclusion is based on a review of Applicants' program for I
| |
| ensuring prompt response by the VANS operators to a notification to dispatch the VANS vehicles, and on the documented results of alert and dispatch tests. The Applicants' program includes the periodic training and annual re-qualification of each VANS operator, the requirement for the VANS operators to perform non-emergency (ongoing) procedural steps when on duty; periodic dispatch drills; continuous staffing of the VANS staging areas with one supervisor and twenty VANS operators for the sixteen A primary VANS vehicles; the provision of supplemental and backup VANS U
| |
| operators and vehicles which ensures that the sixteen primary VANS operators (and vehicles) are not required to leave their duty station to perform any maintenance, testing or administrative functions; and a prioritized dispatch system for dispatching the first VANS vehicles to the furthest acoustic locations which provides a five minute margin in the event a driver is momentarily indisposed. The Vehicular Alert and Y
| |
| Communication System (V S) also assures prompt vehicle dispatching. Upon I c \
| |
| activation by the OR0 E0C Contact, the V$S automatically sounds audible ( l alarms and activates visual alarms at the staging areas, and automatically cpens the overhead doors at those staging areas where vehicles are stored indoors.
| |
| An additional conservatism in Applicants' program is that the VANS f~
| |
| b) operators are notified by the OR0 E0C Contact and placed on standby
| |
| | |
| s f)/-
| |
| s 351 )
| |
| status at a Notification of Unusual Event, the lowest emergency classification. The VANS vehicles are dispatched to the acoustic locations at an Alert or higher level emergency. Thus, except for very low probability events, the VANS operators will be alerted and standing by ;
| |
| in anticipation of the dispatch signal. Even for these rare, low probability events, the design basis dispatch time of 50 seconds appears reasonable and achievable.
| |
| Q15. Mr. Kantor, with respect to travel time, the Board has stated that
| |
| "[g]iven that there is snowfall of 0.5 inches or more during 5.5% of the days of the year, would a conservative estimate of travel times to VANS acoustic locations include the somewhat prolonged travel times anticipated during snow conditions? If so, the Board has asked "what time estimates should be included?" Please address these questions.
| |
| A15. Applicants have evaluated the impact of snow conditions on VANS transit times. The results are presented in their prefiled testimony and FO V in their September 17, 1988 filing to the Board. Applicants have utilized an adverse winter weather average speed reduction factor of 25% in their evacuation time estimate study for Seabrook. Applying this speed reduction factor to the average VANS transit times shows that winter adverse weather, which occurs about 5% of the time, could cause the design planning basis transit times (10 minutes to VL-01 to 15; 15 minutes to VL-16) to be exceeded by less than 1.5 minutes for n of the sixteen X acoustic locations. This delay is 10% or less of the overall 15 minute {
| |
| 1 design objective and is considered to be a conservative estimate for the following reasons. The 25% speed reduction factor is applicable to evacuating traffic which consists primarily of passenger vehicles. It is expected that the VANS trucks with their wider wheel base, heavier weight, and dual mud and snow tires will be less affected by snow and ice 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| rg -g- d V
| |
| 352 conditions than passenger vehicles. In addition, Actual route transit tests conducted by Applicants under icy road conditions indicate a speed reduction factor less than 25%, i.e... faster travel times.
| |
| In the Staff's view, Applicants have appropriately considered the potential impact of adverse weather conditions on the VANS transit times.
| |
| The Staff believes a 25% speed reduction factor, and the' resulting pro-longed travel times, is a reasonably conservative estimate for planning purposes. Given the relatively minor impact of adverse weather on the VANS travel times, the relatively infrequent number of days on which adverse weather occurs, the dispatch of the VANS at the Alert level, and the unlikely need for imediate protective actions, the staff concludes that the VANS system meets the requirements of the regulations and the guidance criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 even under adverse weather
| |
| (
| |
| conditions.
| |
| Q16. Mr. Kantor, the Board also inquired as to the estimated length of time it would take for people within five miles of Seabrook to receive the information message to be broadcast over the EBS. What is your response to this question?
| |
| A16. Applicants have described the process for broadcasting an EBS message in the event of an emergency at Seabrook. In accordance with the guidance in NUREG-0654, Appendix ?, a prompt notification scheme must include the capability for offsite officials to provide information promptly over the air at the time of activation of the alert signal. The SPMC and associated implementing procedure provides that the informational message will be transmitted over the EBS concurrently with the alerting signal. 1 For events requiring immediate protective action recommendations, the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization (NHY OR0) maintains s
| |
| | |
| 353 prerecorded messages at each EBS station. The Applicants have timed each message to determine the length of time necessary(to Er % vut deliver the message.
| |
| Each message has an approximate duration of two minutes. The initial (
| |
| message is' played three times and subsequently repeated at 15. minute intervals. Specifically scripted informational messages may contain additional information that could extend the time necessary to deliver the message. However, as noted by Applicants, these messages would not be used for events requiring immediate protective action recommendations. In addition, public education program is in place to provide .information to the public on an annual basis to tune to the EBS stations when the sirens are heard and on what actions to take in the event protective actions are necessary.
| |
| Mr M In my view, Applicants estimate of about two minutes to broadcast 4
| |
| 4 prerecorded EBS messages, concurrent with the alerting signal, for events requiring immediate protective actions is an appropriately reasonable time estimate for people within five miles of Seabrook to receive the information broadcast over the EBS. This approach meets the requirements of the regulations and is consistent with the practice at other nuclear power plant. sites. The replay and subsequent repetition of the message assures that people who did not initially receive the message will be informed in a reasonably acceptable timeframe.
| |
| Q17. Mr. Kantor, the final issue which the Board determined to be in dispute is the estimated total time for alerting and informing people within five miles of Seabrook and whether that estimate is within acceptable guide-lines. What is the Staff's position on this issue?
| |
| )- A17. It is the Staff's position that Applicants have demonstrated that the administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and
| |
| | |
| , p- V 354 providing prompt instructions to the public within the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ. The time estimate for alerting and informing people within five miles of Seabrook is within the "about 15 minutes" l l
| |
| requirement of the regulations under both normal weather conditions l
| |
| (maximum value of 13 minutes 37 seconds) and adverse weather conditions (maximum value of 16 minutes and 28 seconds). )
| |
| Q18. Please explain the bases for your answer.
| |
| A18. The bases for my response is my review of the information orovided by {
| |
| Applicants in their testimony and other submittals as well as my review of the conclusions of FEMA in their evaluation of Applicants' FEMA-REP-10 Design Report, the SPMC and the June 7-9, 1988 exercise. Applicants have presented reasonably conservative estimates of the times-required to alert q the VANS operators, dispatch the VANS, travel to the acoustic locations, V
| |
| set up the sirens, sound the strens, and, concurrently with siren activation, broadcast an EBS message. The summation of these times results in time estimates for alerting and notifying the public in the Massad.oretts portion of the EPZ withirs 5 miles of Seabrook which are within I.cceptable NRC/ FEMA guidelines.
| |
| Q19, Mr. Kantor, does this complete your testimony?
| |
| A19. Yes, it does.
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| g V FALK KANTOR 355 !
| |
| EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BRANCH DIVISION OF RADIATION PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION I l
| |
| PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS {
| |
| I am employed as a Section Chief in the Emergency Preparedness Branch, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I have responsibility for supervising the review and evaluation of radiological emergency plans submitted by reactor applicants and licensees to ensure proposed plans meet the regulatory requirements and guidance of the Commission. I also function as a team member on emergency preparedness inspection teams engaged in the observation and evaluation of nuclear power plant emergency drills and exercises. I have been involved in the assessment of emergency planning and preparedness for nuclear power plants since March 1981.
| |
| I have been a member of the NRC (AEC) Staff since January 1973. From that time until June 1980 I held the position of Mu Analyst in the Accident Analysis Branch. My duties included the review and evaluation of the radiological consequences of postulated design basis accidents, the effectiveness of pro-posed engineered safety features, the population density and growth character-istics in the site environs, and the possible adverse effects on plant safety of nearby industrial, transportation and military facilities. From September q 1980 until March 1981 I was a member of the NRC's onsite technical support U section at the Three Mile Island facility. I have participated in the detailed review of over thirty nuclear power plant sites with the primary objective being to ensure public health and safety through the application of Commission regulatory requirements and guidance on reactor siting. I have presented testimony on siting and emergency preparedr.ess issues at public hearings on the licensing of nuclear facilities, including Shoreham and Seabrook, and I have appeared before the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
| |
| I entered graduate school in l9' 67 at the University of Pittsburgh on a U.S. Public Health Service Fellowship and received a MS degree in 1968 in Radiation Health (Health Physics). Following graduation I was employed by the NUS Corporation in Rockville, Maryland, and engineering and environmental consulting organization. At NUS I was involved in the environmental aspects of siting both nuclear and fossil power plants.
| |
| In 1963, I began employment with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My duties included the design of radiation shielding for nuclear power reactors for both landbased and shipboard applicants. I participated in field tests at Federal reactor facilities to evaluate the effectiveness of shield design features on operating reactors.
| |
| I received a BS degree in Industrial Engineering in 1958 from the Pennsylvania State University. Upon graduation I entered the U.S. Air Force where I n attended the Basic Meteorology Program at St. Louis University in St. Louis, V Missouri. Following the completion of this program in 1959, I served as a l weather officer in the U.S. Air Force.
| |
| L 1
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 2 In addition to my formal education, I have attended training courses sponsored 356 by the NRC on reactor systems and operation and emergency preparedness. .In {
| |
| May of 1979 I attended the course titled " Planning for Nuclear Emergencies" at Harvard University and in September 1980 I participated in the Radiological Emergency Response Operations Training course at the Nevada Test Site.
| |
| I am a member of the Health Physics Society. I was a member for 25 years of the National Guard and currently am a member of the U. S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.
| |
| I have contributed to the following NRC documents: ;
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station", NUREG-0420, Supplement No. 10, May 1989. j
| |
| " Director's Findings on Shoreham Emergency Planning Contentions",
| |
| April 7,1989.
| |
| " Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206", Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, December 29, 1988.
| |
| " Issuance of Extension to the Exemption to CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.3 for the Pilgraim Nuclear Power Station", May 11, 1988.
| |
| " Issuance of Exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.3 for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station", December 9, 1987.
| |
| " Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 for the Perry Nuclear Power O- Plant", dated September 14, 1987.
| |
| " Issuance of Exemption to.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,'Section IV.F.2 for the North Anna Power Station", March 28, 1988. Exemption to conduct an exercise in'1987 granted based on licensee's response to SGTR event on July 15, 1987.
| |
| * " Emergency Planning Input for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 Decommissioning Safety Evaluation Report", letter to J.D. Shiffer, VP Nuclear Power Generation, PGE, April 29, 1987.
| |
| " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (ExpansionofEPZ)", January 29, 1987.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for Grand Gulf Safety Evaluation Report".
| |
| December 12, 1986.
| |
| " Issuance of Exemption to 10 CRF Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2, Wolf Creek Generating Station", November 14, 1986.
| |
| * " Issuance of Exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant", dated October 31, 1986.
| |
| l
| |
| " Emergency Plan Input for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2, )
| |
| G Safety Evaluation Report", NUREG-1047, dated February 1985. Supplement i b No. 3 dated July 1986. )
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| l l
| |
| l
| |
| /i 3
| |
| 367 )
| |
| j V* " Emergency Planning Input for the Seabrook Station Safety Evaluation Report 377 )
| |
| NUREG-0896, Supplement No. 4, May 1986. '
| |
| " Emergency Plan Input for the Hope Creek Generating Station Safety Evalution Report", dated October 10, 1984. Supplements dated June 19, 1985 and January 16, 1986.
| |
| Issuance of Exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E Section IV.F.1 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant", dated December 11, 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, Safety Evaluation Report", NUREG-1031, Supplement No. 4., dated November 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Safety Evalu-ation Report," with P. D. Robinson, dated January 1984. Supplements dated January 1985 and September 1985.
| |
| " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, Fermi-2", August 12, 1985.
| |
| "NRC Staff Response to Applicant's Motion for an Exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1, for Limerick Generating Station. Affidavit dated July 11, 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for the Fermi-2 Safety Evaluation Report".
| |
| NUREG-0798, Supplement No. 3 (January 1983), Supplement No. 5 (March 1985),
| |
| and Supplement 6 (July 1985).
| |
| q
| |
| " Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plar.U', May 13, 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input to the Palo Verde Safety Evaluation Report",
| |
| NUREG-0857, Supplement No. 4, March 1983. Supplement No. 5 (November 1983),
| |
| Supplement No. 7 (December 1984), Supplement No. 8 (May 1985).
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input to the Wolf Creek Generating Station Safety Evaluation Renort," NUREG-0881, Supplement No. 2. June 1983. Supplement No.4, December 1983, Supplement No. 5 March 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Exercise Exemption Review for Cooper Nuclear Station",
| |
| February 26, 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Preparedness Input For Waterford 3 Safety Evaluation Report (Exercise Exemption)", January 30, 1985.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for Safety Evaluation Report for Limerick Generating Station", NUREG-0991, October 1984.
| |
| " Emergency Planning Input for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Safety Evaluation Report", NUREG-0420, Supplement No. 7, September 1984.
| |
| n
| |
| " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 for Three Mile Island Nuclear U Station, Unit No. 1," July 27, 1984.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| i 4
| |
| 3 (V *
| |
| " Inspection Report 50-/341/84-15 Emergency Preparedness Exercise, Enrico 358 Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2", July 27, 1984.
| |
| " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Plant, Unit No. 2", April 20, 1984.
| |
| '' Inspection Report 50-341/83-24 Emergency Preparedness Appraisal, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No.2", November 28, 1983.
| |
| " Interim Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station", September 30, 1983.
| |
| " Input for GPU vs B&W Lawsuit Review Safety Evaluation Report (TMI-2),"
| |
| September 1983.
| |
| " Inspection Report 50-213/81-14, Emergency Preparedness Appraisal. Haddam Neck Plant", Appraisal Team Leader, April 1982.
| |
| i
| |
| " Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement, Pilgrim Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2", May 1979. Contributor on Demography and Nearby Industrial, . Transportation and Military Facilities.
| |
| "Seabrook Alternative Site Study, NRC Staff Testimony, Seabrook Station," I before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, December 12, 1978.
| |
| Contributor on Design Basis Accident Analysis.
| |
| O i
| |
| O
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| a SinFF 7
| |
| y 7 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 FXk Vf] L 3'59 DEC I 4 088-Mr. Victor J. Stello Executive Director for Operations kclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Mr. Stello:==
| |
| | |
| his is in further response to the September 9,1988 memorandum from Frank- J. Congel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Richard W.
| |
| Krimm of the_ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) confiming the schedule for the issuance of FEMA's findings and determinations on the offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. This 'also represents FEMA action in response _to requests received from the States of New Hampshire and Maine for FEMA approval of their offsite radiological emergency plans and preparedness for Seabrook under the provisions of 44 CFR 350.7. These requests were published in the Federal Register on October 28, 1988, in accordance with 44 CFR 350.8.
| |
| Finally, this further carries out certain agreements reached with the NRC and the Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board (ASLB) on the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC). In the August 3-4, 1988, pre-hearing b
| |
| V conference on the upcoming litigation on the SPMC, FEMA agreed to provide a review of the SPMC by October 14, 1988, in order to accommodate the scheduling needs of the ASLB hearing. That commitment was met. FEMA had also agreed to provide a consolidated finding for the offsite plans of the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite. Response.
| |
| Organization in November. Unfortunately, the discovery demands on the FEMA Region I Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) Chairman for Seabrook prevented us from meeting this deadline.
| |
| We have completed our integrated review and evaluation of the offsite plans and preparedness for Seabrook. The enclosed documents, all of sich are dated December 1988, represent the results of that review. Due to their large combined volume, we have bound them as six separate documents. The documents are:
| |
| : 1. Review and Evaluation of the State of Maine Ingestion Pathway Plan for Seabrook Station. l
| |
| : 2. Review and Evaluation of the State of New Hampshire Radi(logical Emergency Response Plan for Seabrook Station.
| |
| : 3. Review and Evaluation of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities.
| |
| O l d
| |
| __m_.__ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . . _ . _ . _
| |
| | |
| J (G 360
| |
| : 4. Status of Corrective Actions for the 1988 FEMA Graded Exercise.
| |
| : 5. Report of the Public Heeting for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. 1
| |
| : 6. Findings and Determinations Document for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. I l i The exercise report was provided to you on September 2,1988, but should be l considered part of this submittal. {
| |
| l The plans for the States of New Hampshire and Maine were reviewed against the l standards of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.
| |
| l The Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities was reviewed against the standards and assumptions of NUREG-0654/
| |
| FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Supplement 1. Those assumptions are that in an actual radiological emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning will:
| |
| : a. Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public; l
| |
| : b. Cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan; and
| |
| : c. Have the resources suf ficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.
| |
| In accordance with an agreement between NRC and FEMA, we expect that the
| |
| (]
| |
| v NRC will defend any legal challenges to these assumptions.
| |
| We would like to note the following events and actions which support and document the findings to follow:
| |
| : 1. A joint exercise was held on June 28 - 29, 1988, in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9 (a).
| |
| : 2. A briefing of exercise participants and a public meeting were held on July 2,1988, in accordance with 44 CFR 350.9 (a) and 44 CFR 350.10.
| |
| : 3. Requests for corrective actions (and implementation schedules) for inadequacies resulting from the June 1988 exercise were made to the appropriate organizations.
| |
| : 4. Responses to those requests were received and evaluated.
| |
| : 5. Integrated reviews and evaluations of the offsite plans for the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were made, including review by the FEMA Region 1 RAC.
| |
| Based on the results of the above mentioned plan reviews, exercise and analyses,
| |
| { and the recommendation of the FEMA Region 1 Regional Director, we make the i
| |
| following findings for the three jurisdictional areas in the Seabrook EPZ:
| |
| n q)
| |
| )
| |
| I O
| |
| | |
| i j
| |
| j ,q 'It is FEMA's position that Maine's ingestion pathway plan and V preparedness are adequate to protect the health and safety of the 36~'
| |
| public living in the Maine portion of the ingestion pathway of Seabrook by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event nf a radiological emergency and are capable of being implemented. In response to the State of Maine request, FEMA has initiated the process for granting approval under 44 CFR 350 for its ingestion pathway plan for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. We are distributing the FEMA Region I review of the Maine ingestion plan and preparedness to the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee for their review, prior to granting fonnal approval .
| |
| * Concerning the plans and preparedness for the State of New Hampshire, the Seabrook alert and notification system design for the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EPZ has met the design requirements of F EMA-REP-10. When the proposed enhancements to the alert and notification system for the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EPZ are installed and operable, it is FEMA's position that the plans and preparedness will be adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EPZ, by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency and are capable of being implemented. At that time, we will be able to make a FEMA approval under 44 CFR 350.
| |
| l
| |
| * Concerning the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities, developed p by New Hampshire Yankee, the Seabrook alert and notification system design v for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ has also met the design requirements of FEMA-REP-10. When the vehicular alert and notification system is installed and operable, it is FEMA's position that plans and preparedness will be adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the Massachusetts portion of the Seabrook EPZ by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event a radiological emergency and are capable of being implemented. At that time, a positive finding can be made.
| |
| In conclusion, I believe that this evaluation of plans and preparedness for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station represents a thorough evaluation of the plans and preparedness as they exist today. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 646-3692.
| |
| Sincer y, '
| |
| }M Grant C. Peterson Associate Director State and 1.ocal Programs and Support l l O)
| |
| (. Enclosures As Stated l
| |
| f "
| |
| | |
| l 4
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 362 r" '
| |
| (. 1 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.
| |
| 2 The witnesses are now available for cross-3 examination.
| |
| 4 MR. JONAS: Thank you. q 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 7 Q Good morning, gentlemen.
| |
| 8 Mr. Kantor, I notice from your statement of 9 professional qualifications that you have contributed to a
| |
| ! 10 number of NRC documents dealing with emergency planning on a l 11 number of different plants; is that correct?
| |
| l 12 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 13 0 Including Seabrook?
| |
| 14 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 15 Q And you've reviewed the VAN System in its 16 entirety, I take it? j 17 A (Kantor) Yes, I have.
| |
| 18 Q What documents or other materials did you review 19 in the course of preparing for your testimony?
| |
| 20 A (Kantor) As reflected in the testimony I reviewed 21 the FEMA-REP-10 report; addendum 1 to that report; the 22 Seabrook plan for Massachusetts communities and it's 23 associated implementing procedures; the filings of the 24 Applicant to this Board including their prefiled testimony.
| |
| 25 I also reviewed the FEMA reports referred to in the
| |
| ,i ,
| |
| v Heritage Reporting Corporn51on (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 363
| |
| ['/
| |
| (-
| |
| N 1 testimony, also.
| |
| 2 Q That's it?
| |
| 3 A (Kantor) Yes. I believe that is the bulk of the 4 documents I reviewed.
| |
| 5 Q You mention the FEMA reports, I gather you've 6 reviewed a letter that just was the subject of our little 7 debate here?
| |
| 8 A (Kantor) Yes.
| |
| 9 As indicated, that is a cover memo that conveyed 10 to the NRC FEMA's findings and determinations of their 11 review of the plan, Seabrook plan for Massachusetts 12 communities and their report on the exercise that was 13 conducted in June of 1988.
| |
| {} 14 Q With respect to the VAN System, what backup 15 material for FEMA is there?
| |
| 16 A (Kantor) I'm not sure --
| |
| 17 Q There's a finding on the VAN System, correct?
| |
| 18 A (Kantor) Right.
| |
| 19 Q Is there backup documentation to that?
| |
| 20 A (Kantor) Yes. As also referred to in the 21 testiraony here there is a report afforded by FEMA to the NRC 22 on January 23rd, 1989 which is a draft report of their 23 review of the Seabrook alert notification system.
| |
| 24 Q Is that called preliminary review of the Seabrook 25 Station alert notification system?
| |
| /'S U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 364 1 A gKantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 2 Q Has there been a final review?
| |
| 3 A (Kantor) No , not at this time.
| |
| 4 Q So the FEMA finding as far as you know is based on 5 that preliminary review?
| |
| 6 A (Kantor) It's based on that preliminary review.
| |
| 7 It's also based -- during the exercise there was a test of 8 the VAN System, the timing aspect getting the VANS to their 9 locations and being prepared to sound the siren when it was 10 called for. And that was part of the exercise evaluation ;
| |
| 11 done by the FEMA observation team.
| |
| 12 Q Are you familiar with the Board's order on summary !
| |
| )
| |
| 13 disposition that brings us here today?
| |
| () 14 A (Kantor) Yes, I am. I have reviewed it.
| |
| 15 16 17 18 '
| |
| 19 20 21 ,
| |
| 22 23 24 l
| |
| 25 O%- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| L
| |
| ! ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 365 i r%
| |
| 1 Q I don't know whether Mr. Berry wants to put in 2 front of you the order. It might be helpful.
| |
| 3 (Document proffered to the witnesses.)
| |
| L 4 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 5 Q Do you have it in front of you?
| |
| 6 A (Kantor) Yes, sir. The March 3, 1989 document?
| |
| 7 Q That's correct.
| |
| 8 Could you turn to page 20?
| |
| 9 I'm referring to the paragraph under " Dispatch". I l
| |
| 10 A (Kantor) Yes.
| |
| 11 Q Do you see it at the end of that paragraph where 12 it says, "It is not clear whether these. tests," referring to 13 the dispatch tests, "where the operators were aware that 14 they would be repeatedly called or a fair prediction of what
| |
| (~}
| |
| 15 would actually happen in the event with no forewarning." l i
| |
| 16 Do you see that? ;
| |
| 17 A (Kantor) Yes, I do.
| |
| 18 Q In any of the FEMA documents or its findings does 19 it deal with that issue?
| |
| 20 A (Kantor) No, they don't. ;
| |
| 21 Q When the exercise was conducted, was there a 22 calculation of the dispatch time it took to get operators on 23 the road?
| |
| 24 A (Kantor) There was some timing evaluation done by 25 FEMA.
| |
| I
| |
| . O. Heritage Reporting Corporation i
| |
| (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 366
| |
| .f) k/ 1 Q With respect to dispatch.
| |
| 2 A (Kantor) I believe the timing of FEMA went more 3 to the route travel times than the dispatch times.
| |
| : 4 L So there is no timing of dispatch at all?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor) I wouldn't say no timing of dispatch.
| |
| 6 But given the scenario of the exercise where it was not an 7 immediate fast-breaking accident, there was plenty of time 8 to dispatch the VANS and get them to their acoustic 9 locations before the need for a message.
| |
| 10 I believe the FEMA evaluation focused on the l I
| |
| 11 travel times for the VANS to get to their locations. f 12 Q Okay. Now there was a FEMA evaluator timing, 13 starting 6he timing when the truck actually left the
| |
| () 14 simulated staging areas at the exercise?
| |
| 15 A (Kantor) Yes, there was.
| |
| 16 Q Now when the VANS operator received notification 17 to go, where was that person physically?
| |
| 18 A (Kantor) I'm not sure I know exactly where the 19 VANS operator was physically during the -- j 20 Q Were they in the cab of the truck, sir?
| |
| l 21 A (Kantor) I don't know. I don't believe they I l
| |
| 22 were. I believe they were at their normal duty station in l 23 the staging areas.
| |
| 24 Q In the staging areas.
| |
| I 25 So the staging areas were built back then?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 367 :
| |
| 1
| |
| (~w..
| |
| \d 1 A (Kantor) No, the staging areas probably were not !
| |
| l 2 built then. '
| |
| .3 Q So how were they at their duty stations.in a 4 staging area that wasn't built?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor) Well, whatever location was being used l
| |
| '6 as the staging area at that time,.which may or may not be j 7 the present staging area, was the one thau was evaluated.
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Kantor, do you know the answer 9 to this. question or are you speculating?
| |
| 10 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) No , I was not there, and I l 11 do not know the answer, i 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Please, if you don't know the 13 answer, please don't speculate.
| |
| 14 BY MR.'JONAS:
| |
| ( 15 Q Mr. Kantor, a little further down in the Board 16 . order, in fact the next sentence, "Over years of plant 17 operation how likely is it that each of the VANS operators 18 will be actually available and alert, e.g., not in the 19 restroom, not away from post on break, not believing that 20 the situation is a false alarm, at the time an alert message 21 is received?"
| |
| 22 Do you see that?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 24 Q Anything in the FEMA finding or the background 25 documents that deal with that issue?
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| , 1 ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 368
| |
| ,3 k/ 1 A (Kantor) No , I don't believe so.
| |
| 2 Q The ne.xt sentence, "How long will it take if 3 electronic activation fails and radio or telephone voice 4 contact becomes necessary?"
| |
| 5 Do you see that?
| |
| 6 A (Kantor) Yes, I do.
| |
| 7 Q Anything in the FEMA finding that deals with that 8 issue?
| |
| 9 A (Kantor) Not really, Just they acknowledge that 10 there were several different communication systems 11 available, but there was no timing, I don't believe.
| |
| 12 Q Turning your attention, sir, to pages 9 to 10 of 13 the order, and I want to refer you down on the bottom of
| |
| (^ 14 page 9 where it says, " Findings".
| |
| %)T 15 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 16 Q Do you see where it says, "The following genuine 17 issues of fact exist and shall be heard", and then there is 18 a series of questions that run iqto the next page?
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) Yes. I 20 Q All concerning the 123 dB level and the issue of l
| |
| 21 discomfort? I 22 A (Kantor) Yes, I see that. l 23 Q Taking the first question, is there anything in l
| |
| 24 the FEMA finding dealing with that?
| |
| , 25 A (Kantor) I don't believe so.
| |
| l k# Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 369
| |
| 's) 1 Q Taking the second question, id there anything in 2 the FEMA finding dealing with that?
| |
| 3 A (Kantor) No, sir, I don't believe so.
| |
| 4 Q Third question, same question?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor) No, sir.
| |
| 6 Q How about the fourth one?
| |
| 7 A (Kantor) No , that was not included.
| |
| 8 Q Turning your attention to page 23 of the Board 9 order. In particular, I would like to direct your attention 10 toward the second half of that second sentence where it 11 says, "Therefore, there is a genuine issue of fact 12 concerning how much time should be added for this 13 notification function. We note that this question is
| |
| (} 14 apparently not simple since it appears to us that a person 15 must first hear a siren before tuning in for notification,"
| |
| 16 and then it goes on from there. ,
| |
| 17 Are you familiar with that?
| |
| 18 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 19 Q Is there anything in the FEMA finding dealing with 20 those sets of issues?
| |
| 21 A (Kantor) No, I don't believe so.
| |
| 22 Q The exercise was held when?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) In June of last year.
| |
| 24 Q No snowfall that day. )
| |
| l 25 A (Kantor) Correct.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| a_____-__-_- - _ _ - .J
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 370 y~.
| |
| (> 1 Q At page 24 of the Board order, see Question A.5-27 2 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 3 Q Dealing with snowfall.
| |
| 4 Anything in the FEMA finding dealing with that 5 issue?
| |
| 6 A (Kantor) No, there wasn't.
| |
| 7 Q Mr. Kantor, have you been in any of the staging 8 areas? 6 9 A (Kantor) Yes, sir, on Monday of this week.
| |
| 10 Q That was part of your visit?
| |
| 11 A (Kantor) Right.
| |
| 12 0 I would like to turn your attention, sir, to page 13 7 of your testimony.
| |
| 14 Do you see up there, Answer 13, where it says,
| |
| [}
| |
| 15 "The Staff's position is that Applicant's design planning 1 <6 basis time of 50 seconds to dispatch the VANS vehicles from 17 the staging area appears to be an appropriately conservative 18 estimate."
| |
| 19 Do you see that?
| |
| 20 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 21 Q Now the rationale for it being conservative comes 22 from where?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) From my review of the information 24 provided by the Applicants.
| |
| 25 0 Is there anything in guidance material that C)
| |
| 'u Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 371 1 requires a conservative time estimate?
| |
| 2 A. (Kantor) For that particular step?
| |
| 3 Q Well, for any kind of mobile alerting system.
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) No , there is no specific guidance 5 addressing conservatism for mobile alerting systems that I'm 6 await of.
| |
| 7 Q Do you consider a mobile siren vehicle to be a 8 mobile alerting system?
| |
| 9 A. (Kantor) Well, there are two different types of 10 mobile systems. One is a tradition mobile alerting system 11 which is a siren mounted on a vehicle that's used to alert 12 the public as opposed to the VANS system which is, I 13 believe, referred to as a mobile fixed system. It's a
| |
| {} 14 15 unique system I would say.
| |
| You are aware, are you not, that in FEMA-REP-10 Q
| |
| 16 there is a requirement for conservatism in calculating these 17 components of activation time for mobile siren vehicles?
| |
| 18 A (Kantor) Yes, I am familiar with that.
| |
| l 19 Q But you don't think that should be applicable to 20 the mobile VANS system?
| |
| 21 A (Kantor) I don't believe the FEMA-REP-10 document 22 was referring to a VANS type system.
| |
| 23 Q What I asked is whether you think that same 24 conservatism assumption ought to be applied in this case.
| |
| 25 A (Kantor) At this point I'm not sure whether it O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 372 )
| |
| fx.
| |
| \ 1 should be applied in this case.
| |
| 2 0 Well, but you say in ycur Answer 13 that this is a 3- conservative time estimate.
| |
| 4 A. '(Kantor) Yes, and that was not made in reference 5 to the guidance in FEMA-REP-10.
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 12 13 O
| |
| 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 q 25 1
| |
| ' V('') Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4868 I
| |
| I j
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 373 1 So you are not sure whether the conservative 2 requirement ought to apply here, but you put it in your 3 testimony anyway?
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) No , the --
| |
| 5 MR. BERRY: Objection. I have an objection, Your 6 Honor. Argumentative.
| |
| 7 MR. JONAS: Well, what I am trying to learn here 8 is --
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Jonas, that question is going to 10 be a matter of law anyway, and I would appreciate it if you 11 would reference that in your findings to us.
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: I will do that.
| |
| 13 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 14 Turning your attention to page 8 of the testimony.
| |
| [}- Q 15 Right before Question 15 there is a sentence that reads, i
| |
| 16 "Even for these rare low probability events, the design l 17 basis dispatch time of 50 seconds appears reasonable and l
| |
| 18 achievable."
| |
| 19 Do you see that?
| |
| 20 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 21 Q Is that to be distinguished from conservative?
| |
| 22 A (Kantor) I think the intent was to convey that a 23 dispatch time of 50 seconds was a reasonable time for the 24 dispatching of the VANS driver.
| |
| 25 0 Well, what I am trying to get at here is whether Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 374 l 1 there is a distinction you are drawing between Answer 13 and 2 Answer 14. Answer 13, you're talking about the 50 seconds 3 and you say that's a conservative time estimate. Answer 14, 4 you are talking about the same 50 seconds and this time you 5 say it's reasonable and achievable.
| |
| 6 And what I'm asking you is whether there is a 7 difference between those two.
| |
| 8 A (Kantor) No, sir. There was no intent to try to 9 distinguish between those words.
| |
| 10 0 Turning our a .ention to Answer 15. ;
| |
| i 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Kantor, have you given any 12 consideration to the human factors problems, about whether 13 or not these people will be ready?
| |
| /'T 14 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Based on the information D
| |
| 15 provided by the Applicants on their program for staffing, 16 training and providing for the VANS drivers, that's the 17 extent of the information I reviewed.
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: So if I understand you, you did not 19 consider the things the Board was talking about, about 20 boredom and whether or not the people would actually be on 21 duty at the time? That there is six hours of the shift that 22 may not have any specific duties, or that may later have 23 them assigned, that kind of factor.
| |
| 24 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) I think that was a 25 consideration in our review of the information. We might ;
| |
| Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 L
| |
| I ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 375 1 not have directly reviewed the boredom. But in looking at 2 the program which calls for by procedure certain steps to be 3 taken on each shift and the fact that the drivers will be 4 alert and not sleeping during their shift were 5 considerations that went into our review.
| |
| 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you think that if there is a 7 regulation that someone should be alert that they i
| |
| 8 necessarily will be alert?
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) No, sir, I don't believe j l
| |
| 10 that.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: So how did you go about thinking 12 about whether someone wouldn't be available when they were 13 called, or what the probability of that was?
| |
| (} 14 How could you estimate the likelihood of operator l 15 failure at a VANS str a tion?
| |
| l 16 Just like we do for certain events in operating a 17 nuclear power plant, it's a lower level problem, it's a 18 lower level duty. But how do we know whether they will 19 actually be alert and available at the time there is an 20 event?
| |
| 21 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Well, looking at the 22 program the Applicant has designed and the fact that there 23 is additional drivers available and several drivers on duty 24 at each staging area at any given time, I believe there was 25 some assurance that the drivers would respond when called O
| |
| k- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 376 UT 1 up.
| |
| 2 The-Applicants' program also requires them to be 3 at,the station, at their duty station and not to leave, as I 4 understand it. Those were the type of factors that went ]
| |
| 5 into our consideration. I believe there is some assurance 6 that the drivers will be available and will respond.-
| |
| 7 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 8 Q Sir, in your experience, is there any system like 9 this in the country in that respect?
| |
| 10 A (Kantor) There are no other VAN Systems, but 11 having people standby for need in the event of an emergency 12 such as fire and crash rescue and emergency medical is 13 fairly common throughout the country.
| |
| 14
| |
| (}. Q Okay, let me be a little bit more precise. I'll 15 come back to those in a second.
| |
| 16 In your experience in reviewing emergency planning 17 for nuclear facilities, you know of no other situation quite 18 like this one?
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) That's correct. I know of no other VANS 20 type alert notification system. j i
| |
| 21 Q So with respect to nuclear systems, you weren't j 22 comparing this to'any other system?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 24 Q And you, I take it, are not conversant or expert 25 in job motivation issues?
| |
| O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 377 1 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 2 Q Now you mentioned fire stations?
| |
| 3 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 4 Q You don't see any distinction between the way a 5 fire station cperates and the way this system would operate-6 with respect to driver alert?
| |
| 7 A (Kantor) The only point I was trying to make is 8 that --
| |
| 9 Q Well, no.
| |
| 10 I'm asking you whether you understand any 11 distinctions between the way fire stations work and the way 12 this system would work.
| |
| 13 A (Kantor) Based on my conversation with people
| |
| ,])
| |
| ( 14 that have experience in fire station operations, they felt 15 that the realization of VANS drivers being available within 16 the 50-second time was reasonable. I 1
| |
| 17 Q Do you know fire stations that have 50-second J 18 dispatch times?
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) Not directly. It's my understanding ;
| |
| I 20 that fire stations in general operate on about a one minute j l
| |
| 21 is a reasonable time.
| |
| I 22 Q I take it it's your understanding that an actual I
| |
| 23 response to a fire would occur much more often than an ;
| |
| I 24 actual response to an event that would require these VANS 25 operators to be deployed, correct?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 378
| |
| <g
| |
| / 1 A (Kantor) Yes, that's true.
| |
| 2 Q So they are in practice quite a bit more than 3 these folks would be?
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) Yes.
| |
| 5 0 And are you aware of how many people will be at 6 each staging area during the life of this system?
| |
| 7 A (Kantor) Well, each shift has 20 primary drivers.
| |
| 8 Q Right, but how many at each staging area?
| |
| I 9 A (Kantor) There are six staging areas. So I think l 10 that's on the order of --
| |
| 11 Q Two to three?
| |
| 12 A (Kantor) Two to three at each station, perhaps 13 four.
| |
| (} 14 0 In your conversation with folks about fire 15 stations, did you ask them how many people were normally 16 stationed at those fire stations?
| |
| , l l 17 A (Kantor) No , I did not.
| |
| I 18 Q Is it your judgment that that would have any 19 affect on alertness, the number of people at the station?
| |
| 20 A (Kanter) It could.
| |
| 21 Q What was the other example you gave besides fire ,
| |
| i 22 station?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) Crash rescue, emergency medical, that
| |
| ;24 sort of thing. j 1
| |
| 25 Q I take it in those jobs those folks respond quite O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 379 1 a bit more often than these VANS operators would?
| |
| i 2 A (Kantor) Yes, I believe you could say that.
| |
| 3 There will be a training program and a drill program for the 4- VANS operators.
| |
| 5 Q Incidently, how many conversations did you have 6 with individuals about these similar kinds of jobs as you 7 put it?
| |
| 8 A (Kantor) Several. Other people in my office and 9 some people in FEMA that are experienced in that area.
| |
| 10 Q Did you look at any vigilant studies for railroad 11 engineers?
| |
| 12 A (Kantor) No , I did not.
| |
| 13 Q Sir, turning your attention --
| |
| () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you look at any vigilant studies 15 at all?
| |
| 16 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) No, sir, I did not.
| |
| 17 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 18 Q Turning your attention again to Answer 14, but at i 19 the top of page 8 where you say, "Thus, except for very low j 20 probability events the VANS operators would be alerted and 21 standing by in anticipation of the dispatch signal."
| |
| 22 Do you see that?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 24 Q Isn't the 15-minute requirement designed just for 25 these low probability events?
| |
| / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDREDs KANTOR - CROSS 380
| |
| 's l 1 A (Kantor) Yes, it is.
| |
| 2 O' Turning your attention to lower down in that page, 3 A.15 where you talk about the speed reduction factor.
| |
| 4 Do you see that?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 6 Q Are you relying on anything other than what Mr.
| |
| 7- Lieberman testified to and what appears in his material?
| |
| 8 A (Kantor) That's primarily what I'm xalying upon.
| |
| 9 The. speed reduction. factors that was given in the evacuation 10 time estimate study for Seabrook.
| |
| 11 Q Were you here yesterday hearing his testimony on 12 that speed reduction factor?
| |
| 13 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| (} 14 Q Did you have any significant disagreement with his 15 responses to questions from me and from the Board?
| |
| 16 A (Kantor) No, I don't believe I did.
| |
| 17' Q Sir, I would like to direct your attention to 18 Answer 15 on page 9 where it says, "Given the relatively 19 minor impact of adverse weather on the VANS travel times, 20 the relatively infrequent number of days on which adverse 21 weather occurs, dispatch of the VANS at the alert level and 22 the unlikely need for immediate protective actions, the 23 Staff concludes that the VANS system meets the 24 requirements," et cetera.
| |
| 25 Is that right?
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 381
| |
| (~~')
| |
| \/
| |
| i
| |
| - 1 A (Kantor) Yes, sir.
| |
| 2 Q The 15-minute requirement, is that likely to be 3 used when there is an acc3 dent that has an alert first?
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) Well, the 15-minute requirement derives 5 from the declaration of any emergency. So it could be an 6 alert would be declared first and then --
| |
| 7 Q Is it fair to say the 15-minute requirement is 8 designed primarily for accidents that require immediate 9 protective actions?
| |
| 10 A (Kantor) Yes.
| |
| 11 Q And are those accidents where there would be an 12 alert first?
| |
| 13 A (Kantor) Well, there is the fast-breaking
| |
| () 14 accident where you may not have an alert first. That 15 certainly is a possibility.
| |
| 16 Q Then in that kind of accident the dispatch of the 17 VANS at the alert level will do nothing to meet the 15-18 minute requirement, correct?
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) If you have a fast-breaking accident 20 where you do not have an alert, that's correct.
| |
| 21 Q And where you say, "the unlikely need for 22 immediate protective actions", I'm a little confused by 23 that.
| |
| 24 How is it that the unlikely need for the actions :
| |
| 25 that give rise to the very requirement is a reason you give A
| |
| \'-) Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
| |
| (202) 628-4888 )
| |
| | |
| ELDRED,-KANTOR - CROSS 382 1 that the Applicants meet that requirement?
| |
| I 2 'MR. BERRY: Is that a fair --
| |
| ~3 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 'l 4 Q Do you understand the question?
| |
| 5- MR. BERRY: Is that a fair summary of the 6 testimony? 1 7 THE WITNESS: (bantor) I think all we were saying_
| |
| 8 here-is that the so-called fast-breaking accident is a<very 9 low probability event.
| |
| T 10 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 11 Q But the 15-minute requirement is designed for just i 12 that low probability event.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that correct?
| |
| 14 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) That's within the spectrum
| |
| '15 of accidents the 15-minute requirement is designed for, yes.
| |
| lo JUDGE HARBOUR: Are you asking if that's the only 17 requirement?
| |
| 18 MR. JONAS: What I'm -- well.
| |
| 19 JUDGE HARBOUR: But are the 15 minutes intended 20 only for the fast-breaking accident, is that your question?
| |
| : 21. MR. JONAS: ~ No. My question is to get from the 22 witness why it is that the unlikeliness of an accident that 23 would test the Applicants' system for meeting that 24 requirement is a reason for concluding that they meet the 25 requirement.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| - - - - - - _ _ - J
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 383-1 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 2 Q Could you answer that?
| |
| 3 A (Kantor) It was a judgmental factor that went 4 into our consideration of the acceptability of the VANS.
| |
| 5 We believe the VAN, has the capability to meet the 15 6 minutes, although that - given as unlikely event as that.
| |
| 7 might be.
| |
| 8 Q I would lika to turn your attention to Answer 16-9 on page 10 with respect to the informational message issue.
| |
| 10 The first sentence in the first full paragraph at page.10, 11 you use the term "to receive the information broadcast over 12 the EBS".
| |
| 13 Do you see that? Right ht the end of that 14 sentence.
| |
| f]
| |
| 15 A (Kantor) Excuse me, where are you?
| |
| 16 You're on page lLO.
| |
| 17 Q Yes, I'm right at the middle of page 10. I didn't 18 want to read the whole sentence but maybe I should.
| |
| 19 A (Kantor) Oh, I think I see where you are talking 20 about now.
| |
| 21 Q You're concerned there with the population 22 actually receiving the message; is that correct?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) Yes.
| |
| 24 Q And that's your understanding of what the Board 25 was concerned with as well?
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 384
| |
| ,] .
| |
| \- 1 A (Kantor) Right.
| |
| 2 Q And the timing of when they receive the initial 3 message is important in terms of meeting that 15-minute 4 requirement?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor) The requirement is for a --
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Please listen to the question and 7 answer the question.
| |
| 8 Repeat it.
| |
| 9 (Pause . )
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it important that the people 11 actually receive the information that's being broadcast as i
| |
| 12 part of the requirement?
| |
| 13 MR. JONAS: Thank you, Judge.
| |
| (} 14 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Yes, I believe it is l 15 important that people actually receive the message. And 16 that was, I believe, the intent of the regulations and the 17 guidance.
| |
| 18 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 19 Q And receive at least one message. In other words, 20 the guidance --
| |
| 21 A (Kantor) to be informed.
| |
| 22 0 -- doesn't require them to receive more than one 23 message, or is it repeated, but just one message.
| |
| 24 A (Kantor) To be informed. Yes, sir, that's right.
| |
| 25 0 And so it would have to be a full message?
| |
| l l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 385
| |
| 'c) k/ 1 A (Kantor)' I don't know if it would have to be a 2' full message.
| |
| 3 ,
| |
| .Q Well, do you think they would be adequately 4 informed'by_ hearing half _the message?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor)- I' don't know if they would or not.
| |
| 6 Q Have you listened to the messages in this 7 particular case?
| |
| 8 A (Kantor) Yes, I have.
| |
| 9 Q Okay. Now did you attempt to determine whether 10 people would be adequately informed coming in in the middle 11' of one message?
| |
| 12 A -(Kantor) I didn't view it from that aspect.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Then we don't want any more..
| |
| () '14 If you really don't know, don't say.
| |
| 15 16 17-18 19 20 .
| |
| 21 22 23 l
| |
| 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| | |
| l 1
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROS'; 386
| |
| (~h j
| |
| \-) 1 _Q Sir, is it fair to say that in the three-minute
| |
| - 2 period that the siren is actually activated that people 3 within the EPZ will actually become alerted by that siren at i 4 different times within that period?
| |
| 5 A (Kantor) I think that's fair to say that. Yes, j i
| |
| 6 sir.
| |
| 7 Q So that some would be alerted in the first minute, 8 some in the second, some in the third?
| |
| i
| |
| *9 A (Kantor) That's probably correct.
| |
| 10 Q And the purpose of the alert is to prompt people 11 to tune into the radio to-listen to the EBS message?
| |
| .12 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 13 Q So those who don't get alerted until into the
| |
| (} 14 third minute of that siren activation won't tune into the 15 radio until at the end of that three-minute alert or toward 16 the end of it?
| |
| 17 A (Kantor) That's right. They probably would not 18 or they might not have a radio available to them directly 19 upon hearing the siren.
| |
| : 20. O So they might not even tune in until well after 21 that?
| |
| 22 A (Kantor) Right.
| |
| 23 But the message is going to be repeated three 24 times and then subsequently --
| |
| 25 Q So they may tune in at the last repetition of that O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| . 1 i
| |
| 'ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 387 V~ ~1 me'ssage?
| |
| 2 A (Kantor) That's certainly possible. Yes, sir. !
| |
| 3 Q' So if you wanted to get essentially 100 percent of.
| |
| )
| |
| 4 'the population to actually receive that message you would 5 assume-that some of that population wouldn't receive the 6 message until the last repetition?
| |
| 7 A (Kantor) Again, I think I would be speculating, 8- you know, when people would hear the siren and when they 9 turn on the radio.
| |
| 10 In general, the siren is going to cause: people to 11 tune to the radio and TV and they at that point would be 12 . informed about what the event is.
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 Q But if you wanted to get essentially 100 percent
| |
| () 14 1,5
| |
| 'of'the people to actually receive that message you would have to wait until the last repetition of that message; is i
| |
| 16 that correct?
| |
| : 17. A It may or may not be. I don't have that type of I
| |
| 18 information.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you have any empirical 20 information one way or the other on this?
| |
| 21 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) No, sir, I don't.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any Staff precedent on 23 considering this issue of whether you should consider there !
| |
| 24 to be a sequential informational message or simultaneous?
| |
| 25 Has there ever been any other plant in which this O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 388 1 1 issue has been decided?
| |
| 2 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) I hesitate to say never, J
| |
| 3 because I'm continually surprised. )
| |
| 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, do you know of any?
| |
| 5 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) I do not know of any, Your 6 Honor, at this point, no.
| |
| 7 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, may counsel approach the 8 bench.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Please. Although, I think we're all 10 among friends, but come on. l 11 (Whereupon, a bench conference was held.)
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: That's all I have for this particular !
| |
| 13 witness. So if you wanted to take that break.
| |
| 14 JUDGE BLOCH: It is now 10:20; the break will be
| |
| [}
| |
| 15 from 10:20 to 10:30, we will start sharply at 10:30.
| |
| 16 Thank you.
| |
| 17 (Whereupon, a 10 minute recess was taken.)
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Please be seated.
| |
| 19 Mr. Jonas?
| |
| 20 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 21 Q Mr. Eldred, good morning.
| |
| 22 A (Eldred) Good morning.
| |
| 23 Q Just a few questions for you.
| |
| 24 Could you turn to page five of your direct 25 testimony. You indicate in answer eight that your O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 389
| |
| - )
| |
| 1 understanding of the VANS is based on your review.of the )
| |
| I 2 REP-10-design report.
| |
| 3 If you could just state for the record what 4 besides the REP-10 design report you've reviewed in 5 preparing your testimony, just so that's clear?
| |
| 6 A (Eldred) Prior to preparing this testimony I 7 reviewed in total the REP-10 design report; the amendment to 8 it in October. I read CPG 1-17, the applicable portions of 4
| |
| 9 the, I guess it's Appendix 3 of the NUREG. The Applicants' 10 testimony; Mr. Bouliane's testimony. And perhaps one or two 11 other things. But that was the major substance that was 12 available to me prior to this.
| |
| 13 Q And after this? After you submitted that?
| |
| (} 14 A. (Eldred) Subsequent to this I've had a site And 15 . visit. I reviewed the Wyle 88 -- test report 88-10 R.
| |
| 16 also received the supplemental testimony from the Applicants 17 which I guess was handed out yesterday.
| |
| 18 Q You didn't review the Mass AG testimony?
| |
| 19 A (Eldred) Yes, I did. I have done that.
| |
| 20 Q Just so this is clear, you indicated you reviewed 21 Mr. Bouliane's testimony, you called it. That was actually j i
| |
| 22 an affidavit? t 23 A (Eldred) That was his affidavit; correct.
| |
| 24 Q Did you review any Mass AG material besides that?
| |
| 25 A (Eldred) It seems to -- okay. I did not review O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| t ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 390
| |
| (-)s
| |
| (_ 1 your most recent setup affidavits.
| |
| 2 O You didn't review the direct testimony of this 3 hearing'today?
| |
| 4 A (Eldred) The testimony that is to be given today 5 I did not review prior to this writing. I didn't have it.
| |
| 6 It does seem to me that there was something from 7 the Mass AG that I did review earlier. Whatever had been at !
| |
| 8 the earlier hearing. I reviewed a very large stack of 9 material.
| |
| 10 Q I understand. I'm really not trying to trip you 11 up here.
| |
| 12 MR. BERRY: Mr. Jonas, I might be of some slight 13 assistance here. The Staff counsel made available to Mr. ;
| |
| 14 Eldred as well as Mr. Kantor in preparation for this hearing l
| |
| (
| |
| 15 the background material that had been compiled in this case 16 relating to these issues. '
| |
| 17 It's my recollection that what was made available 18 to the witnesses was: the Board's order; the Applicants' 19 motion for summary disposition or those portions of the !
| |
| I 20 Applicants' motion for summary disposition that related to )
| |
| l
| |
| -21 the issues identified by the Board; those portions of the l 22 Massachusetts Attorney General's response to the motion for 23 summary disposition that related to those issues identified 24 by the Board; previous Staff filings including the Staff's 25 response to Applicants' motion for summary disposition; the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 391 1 Applicants' prefiled testimony; the FEMA-REP-10 report and 2 the addendum to that report.
| |
| 3 And after we received the-Massachusetts Attorney i
| |
| 4 General's direct testimony that was forwarded to Mr. Eldred l 5 as well.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Berry, you didn't mention -- I 7 don't think -- the affidavits filed for summary disposition 8 by the Mass AG, did you?
| |
| 9 MR. BERRY: I believe I did.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: You did.
| |
| 11 And how about the summary disposition decision of 12 the Board?
| |
| 13 MR. BERRY: Yes. When I say the Board's order,
| |
| - gG 14 that's the order I was referring to. l
| |
| %/
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: Let me just shift the focus for a I
| |
| 16 second.
| |
| 17 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| l 18 Q Mr. Eldred, did you -- I'm just trying to get 19 whether you read the Mass AG direct testimony that Mr. Berry 20 provided to you?
| |
| 21 A (Eldred) I have read that, yes. Since preparing 22 this.
| |
| 23 Q Okay.
| |
| 24 Mr. Kantor, that's the same for you?
| |
| 25 A (Kantor) Could you repeat again which testimony?
| |
| 6 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| J ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 392 rr N.) 1 Q Did you read the Mass AG direct testimony for this 2 proceeding after you prepared your direct testimony but 3 before you went on the stand? 3 1
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) Yes, I did. l l
| |
| 5 Q Mr. Eldred, you're familiar with the --
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Eldred, in what detail did you l
| |
| 7 review the Mass AG's affidavits?
| |
| 8 How carefully did you review what they said?
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Well, I reviewed the -- j 10 JUDGE BLOCH: I asked Mr. Eldred, I'm sorry. j i
| |
| 11 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) I would say I read it to 12 get a general understanding of the parts that were 13 concerned, f) 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you so much as list what they v
| |
| 15 said so that you could see whether it was rebutted 1
| |
| 16 elsewhere?
| |
| ]
| |
| 17 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) No, I didn't.
| |
| 18 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 19 Q Mr. Eldred, are you familiar with the dual Whelen 20 speaker system? Whelen 4,000 dual system?
| |
| 21 A (Eldred) Yes, I am, l
| |
| 22 Q Is that system in use for any other alert 23 notification system for a nuclear power plant?
| |
| l 24 A (Eldred) I don't know.
| |
| 25 Q When did that syetem come out?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| .1 A (Eldred) on't now precisely when the syste: :t 2 came out.
| |
| 3 Q 'Is it a relatively recent -- q 4 A (Eldred) I have seen the system. I have read L 5- descriptive information about it. I have seen it and I have 6 seen.it deployed.- .That is my real extent of understanding. l
| |
| : 7. the system. I don't know the date that it was designed, et l
| |
| 8 cetera. !
| |
| 9 JUDGE HARBOUR: -Mr. Eldred, would you move the
| |
| '10 microphone a little bit closer.
| |
| 11 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) How is this?
| |
| 12 JUDGE HARBOUR: I have a little trouble. hearing 13 you.
| |
| 14 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) How is this?
| |
| 15 JUDGE HARBOUR: Thank you.
| |
| 16 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Thank you.
| |
| '17 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 18 Q At the bottom of your direct testimony on page 19 .five there wEs a correction earlier this morning about the !
| |
| 20 dispersion angle -- am I using the right term?
| |
| 21' A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| 22 Q What would the comparable dispersion angle be for i
| |
| 23 a single Whelen 4,0007 ,
| |
| i 24 A (Eldred) It would be about 60 degrees, is my !
| |
| 25 understanding from the REP-10 report. l I
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 394 1 -The REP-10 report states that the dispersion angle 2 for the WS 3,000-is 60 degrees to the minus 3 dB points on 3 the horizontal beam.
| |
| 4 It states that the single WS 4,000 has a similar 5 dispersion. And that's where I got'the 60 degrees.
| |
| 6 It makes no statement of the dispersion angle for 7 the dual 4,000.
| |
| 8 And the data for that was in the Wyle report, test 9 report 10 -- 88-10 R.
| |
| 10 Q I may regret getting into this, but could you 11 describe in lay terms what a dispersion angle is?
| |
| 12 A (Eldred) This --
| |
| 13 Q Actually, let me preface that, because the source
| |
| (} 14 of my confusion is that we had testimony yesterday that I 15 suspect you heard from Mr. Sutherland about how the 16 horizontal beam for the dual system is wider, if you will, 17 than for the single system.
| |
| 18 And I'm wondering how, if at all, that relates to 19 this dispersion angle. Maybe I'm talking about apples and 20 oranges.
| |
| 21 A (Eldred) I do not recall hearing Mr. Sutherland 22 say what you just said.
| |
| 23 Q Okay.
| |
| 24 A (Eldred) I didn't think he said that the beam for 25 the dual system was wider than the beam for the single Eeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 395
| |
| ,Q (m/ 1 system. l 2 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought that was in the area where I 1
| |
| 3 we were talking about reflection and cancellation? j 4 MR. JONAS: I thought we were talking about a 5 horizontal directivity pattern.
| |
| 6 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 7 Q Is that not correct, Mr. Eldred, with Mr.
| |
| 8 Sutherland?
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) I think -- the portion of -- I was not 10 here all the time. I was here only for the afternoon 11 session. But in the afternoon session it seemed to be the 12 weight of most of the discussion was on the vertical 13 directivity. Very little on the horizontal.
| |
| 14 Well, Mr. Sutherland was testifying, as I recall, (J
| |
| TT Q 15 about the use of a single Whelen speaker to predict what the 16 vertical directivity pattern for a dual Whelen system would 17 be.
| |
| 18 Do you recall that?
| |
| 19 A (Eldred) Yes, I think I do recall. He took some i 20 data from a single for the vertical directivity. That's l
| |
| 21 correct.
| |
| 22 O That's right. AWFthe Board --
| |
| 23 A (Eldred) But not for the horizontal directivity.
| |
| 24 Q The Chair asked whether there was any difference 25 in the vertical directivity pattern if you added this whole J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 396 As 1 other set'to make the dual system. And the substance of Mr.
| |
| 2 Sutherland's comments were, there was no difference.
| |
| 3 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| 4 Q But he said there was a difference for the 5 horizontal directivity pattern?
| |
| 6 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 7 0 Now, is that in any way related to what you call 8 the horizontal width of the sound beam?
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 10 Q So the horizontal width of the sound beam for the ;
| |
| i 11 dual system should be twice the horizontal width of the 12 sound beam for the single system?
| |
| 13 A (Eldred) No. It's actually narrower.
| |
| () 14 Q It's narrower.
| |
| 15 Could you just explain how that works?
| |
| 16 A (Eldred) If one has a very small source, a source 17 that's very small with respect to a wave length. And at 550 18 cycles per seconds or hertz, we're talking about a wave 19 length of about two feet is the physical wave length.
| |
| 20 So if one has a very little loudspeaker and you 21 put a 550 hertz signal into it, it will have very little 22 directivity. It will radiate approximately equally all the 23 way around, spherically.
| |
| 24 If one assembles many of these loudspeakers into a 25 large array so that the array becomes the size of a wave O
| |
| # Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 397 1 length or larger, the array will tend to focus the sound 2 much, as I think Mr. Sutherland used the analogy of a beam 3 of light, a headlight.
| |
| I 4 And depending on the frequency, the exact q 5 dimensions, the spacing of the various sources, the exact 6 phasing and so forth, this beam can be sharper or less 7 sharp. That's a fairly-complicated subject.
| |
| 8 But basically the Whelen system, I don't have the 9 exact dimensions, but it's probably six to eight feet in i 10 height and three or four feet in width, at least. Perhaps 11 more than that. Someone else could attest to what it really 12 is.
| |
| 13 But it is certainly of significance -- it's
| |
| (} 14 radiating area is significant in size relative to a two foot 15 wave length. So it has the capabilities of focusing.
| |
| 16 l
| |
| 17 18 19 20 21 1
| |
| 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS .398
| |
| 'g
| |
| (/f 11 Q Do you know what polar charts are?
| |
| 2 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 3- Q- Is that a fairly common way to assess the
| |
| : 4. horizontal and vertical directivity patterns of 5 loudspeakers?
| |
| '6 A (Eldred) It is one way. There are others.
| |
| 7 Q Do you know of any such charts for this particular 8 system?
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) I think there was one-in Mr. Boulaine's 10 affidavit.
| |
| 11 Q Any other than that?
| |
| 12 A (Eldred) No.
| |
| 13 Q Turning your attention to page 7, Answer 10.
| |
| (} 14 Do you see the sentence that says, "However, as 15 Applicants' witnesses acknowledge if a VANS siren is.
| |
| 16 activated when it.is at a 25-foot height in the process of 17 being raised to 51 feet, the sound level on the ground could 18 momentarily exceed 123 dB."?
| |
| l 19 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| 20 Yes, I see it. ;
| |
| 21 Q on the' ground means at ear level?
| |
| 22 A (Eldred) Here it would mean at ear level, which 23 in this hearing is mainly focused on the five-foot hearing 24 height.
| |
| 25 Q You use the word "could". l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
| |
| l i
| |
| I i
| |
| - _ _ _ _ _ - - - . _ - - - ?
| |
| | |
| I I
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 399 j 1
| |
| fs k-) 1 A (Eldred) It depends where you are on the ground.
| |
| 2 Q Okay. But in terms of the - you're talking about 1
| |
| 3 for the listener? j 4 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 5 0 You're not questioning that at five feet if there 6 was a measurement, that there would be five-foot levels 7 above 123 dBC? The question is only whether a listener 8 would be there.
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| 10 Q A little further down and maybe I missed this 11 earlier or maybe I'm doing Mr. Berry's job in this respect.
| |
| 12 Dut it says " earth level" four lines down.
| |
| 13 Do you mean to say " ear level"?
| |
| (} 14 (Laughter) 15 A (Eldred) I think the "T-H" could very well be 16 deleted from that. And I would propose that as a 17 typographical change.
| |
| 18 Q Okay.
| |
| 19 Turning your attention to page 8 of your direct 20 testimony, Answer 11, the second paragraph.
| |
| 21 Well, actually that paragraph introduces an 22 attachment to your direct testimony; is that right?
| |
| 23 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| 24 Q And those are the hypothetical illustrations, 25 Attachment 27 Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 400 1 A (Eldred) That is correct.
| |
| 2 Q And you picked an outward contour of 126 dBC?
| |
| 3 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| t 4 Q Is there any particular reason for picking the 5 126? I 6 A (Eldred) No. In this I attempted to make a 7 hypothetical example that could look at the question of what 8 happens as you raise something that-has a certain constant 9 directivity pattern. This is a very simplified example.
| |
| 10 Q Is this supposed to be the VANS system or not?
| |
| 11 A (Eldred) No, this is a loudspeaker. This is not 12 the VANS system. It is totally hypothetical. It is a 13 loudspeaker that has a vertical directivity pattern in free 14 space, which is shown on the top diagram. And this j}
| |
| 15 directivity pattern is shown by one of the other common 16 methods of showing directivity patterns, i.e., by contours L 17 of equal level. And it shows that on axis at a given radius 18 from any distance radius along the axis the sound is higher 19 than it is at.the same radius as you go away from the axis, 20 1.e., the beaming of the sound.
| |
| 21 It then in a very simplified way takes this free 22 space directivity pattern and comes down to earth, assuming 23 a totally absorbing earth so there is no reflection, and 24 rimply demonstrates what happens as the observer is moved --
| |
| 25 the distance between the axis and the observer vertically is .
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| f I
| |
| _ ___-_____a
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 401 l
| |
| (~) 1 changed, and that's basically what it shows.
| |
| \_/ ;
| |
| 1 2 Q Okay. Skipping on to page 10 at the bottom. You !
| |
| 3 are talking about building reflection there in that answer? l l
| |
| 4 A (Eldred) Yes. I i
| |
| 5 0 You are aware that the Applicants said that l q
| |
| 6 building reflection could be as much as 6 dB7 i 7 A (Eldred) I am aware of that, yes.
| |
| I 8 Q Okay.
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) There will be spots at which building 10 reflections could instantaneously be as much as 6 dB. The l
| |
| l 11 entire wall of a building will be 6 dB. So that if jou were 12 inside the building and cut a hole for your ear and fit your 13 ear in the plane of the outside of the building, you would
| |
| (} 14 have a 6 dB rise.
| |
| 15 Q And as you moved away from the building there will 16 be spots in which it would be 6 dB7 17 A (Eldred) If the sound is directly incident on the 18 building, perpendicular to the building as you move away, 19 there will be a sequence of spots.
| |
| 20 0 Where it would be 6 dB7 21 A (Eldred) Where it could be as high as 6 dB.
| |
| 22 Q And other spots where it would be --
| |
| 23 A (Eldred) Zero.
| |
| 24 0 -- zero.
| |
| 25 A (Eldred) Theoretically. Except it will never Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L--_--
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 402 es
| |
| (-) 1 reach either of those limits. The space average in the near 2 vicinity of the building would be typically 3 dB.
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: How far from the building?
| |
| 4 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) In, let's say, a third to 5 maybe as much as a half of either the smaller of either the 6 length of the building, the width of the building or the 7 height of the building. And that's in the case where the 8 sound is directly incident on the building. It would be !
| |
| 9 lower where the sound is hitting the building at a glancing, s 10 at an angle.
| |
| 11 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 12 O In that instance if you had the siren in a sense 13 perpendicular to the face of the building --
| |
| fl 14 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| %)
| |
| 15 0 -- and the building, the smallest of those 16 dimensions of the building was 30 feet, that area you are 17 talking about could be as much as 15 feet?
| |
| 18 A (Eldred) Could be as much as 15 feet for a very 19 short period of time, because we have a sweeping siren.
| |
| 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that true despite the fact that 21 the siren is at 51 feet and the building is 25 feet?
| |
| 22 A (Eldred) There will still be a reflection from 23 the building, but the maximum reflection that we are 24 discussing and the distance is only when the siren is 25 pointed directly ;t the building, perpendicular to the
| |
| (~)
| |
| '- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . = - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 403 O
| |
| .D 1 building.
| |
| 2 In most of the buildings at these sites, there are 3 few buildings that are perpendicular. Most of them are at 4 some angle so that one doesn't really get this build-up l l
| |
| 5 region.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: What about when they are completely 7 perpendicular, but the siren is 10 feet higher than the top 8 of the building?
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Then the reflection --
| |
| 10 there will still be a reflective build up.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: But not as high as --
| |
| 12 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) It wouldn't get up to 13 probably 6 dB in any spots.
| |
| 14 But in that condition, I would say 3 dB would be
| |
| [}
| |
| 15 an expected in that very region very local to the building.
| |
| 16 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 17 Q Turning your attention to page 11, Question and 18 Answer 13. You say, "I'm unaware of any standard, code, 19 regulation, et cetera, that the word ' discomfort' has any 20 particular and specific meaning in acoustics."
| |
| ]
| |
| 21 Do you see that?
| |
| 22 A (Eldred) Yes. )
| |
| 23 Q Now, I'm a little unclear about what the "et 24 cetera" includes.
| |
| l 25 Does that include textbooks, treatises, O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 404 1 authoritative articles?
| |
| 2 A (Eldred) No, it does not. It would include other 3 things of a regulatory or voluntary standard.
| |
| l 4 Q But the word " discomfort" does have a particular
| |
| : 5. and specific meaning in some authoritative texts? l 6 A (Eldred) The word " discomfort" has been given !
| |
| 7 meaning certainly in Mr. Silverman's paper. And it would be 8 presumptuous, but I would presume that those who copied Mr.
| |
| 9 Silverman's paper or put it on his graphs assumed that 10 discomfort had the same meaning that he alluded to it if 11 they referred to him.
| |
| 12 Q And is it fair to assume that those individuals !
| |
| 13 found the Silverman work authoritative enough to put it in
| |
| (} 14 their own works?
| |
| 15 A (Eldred) I think their actions must speak for 16 themselves in that. I certainly can't add anything to it.
| |
| 17 Q Do you know Leo Beranek?
| |
| 18 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 19 Q How do you know him?
| |
| 20 A (Eldred) He's a close friend.
| |
| 21 Q A professional relationship?
| |
| 22 A (Eldred) For many years.
| |
| 23 Q He was one of the founders of the firm that you ,
| |
| 24 were employed at?
| |
| 25 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 405 ;
| |
| ll Q He wrote a book called " Acoustics"; is that 2 correct?
| |
| 3 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 4 Q And doesn't he define the discomfort threshold at 5 110 dB.for naive ears, and 120 dB for exposed ears?
| |
| 6 A (Eldred) He well may. 2 --
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: If you don't know, you --
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) I don't know it, no.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don't you show the materials to 10 the witnest ?
| |
| 11 M1 . JONAS: Let me just put on the record what the 12 full title of this is. It's called " Acoustics". This is 13 Chapter 13 tha*, I'm going to be showing him. Leo L.
| |
| {} 14 Beranek, and T think this is from the 1986 edition, 975 15 Memorial Drive, Cambridge. And it's page 396 to 397.
| |
| 16 (Document proffered to the witness.)
| |
| 17 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Oh, are you waiting for me 18 to answer your question?
| |
| 19 Would you repeat your question, please?
| |
| 20 MR. JONAS: Sure.
| |
| 21 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 22 O You have that in front of you, correct?
| |
| 23 A (Eldred) I do, yes.
| |
| 24 Q And Mr. Beranek has a Table 13.1 entitled 25 " Threshold of Tolerance"?
| |
| O kl Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| ELDRED,.KANTOR - CROSS 406 ,
| |
| /~') l
| |
| (_/ 1 A (Eldred) Correct. '
| |
| 2 Q "For Pure Tones"? 1 l
| |
| 3 A (Eldred) Right, j I
| |
| 4 Q And the threshold for discomfort is 110 for naive !
| |
| 5 ears?
| |
| 1 6 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| 7 Q And 120 for exposed.
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: The question was 110 for what?
| |
| 9 MR. JONAS: Naive.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Naive ears.
| |
| ! 11 JUDGE HARBOUR: 110 what for naive ears?
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: Well, the context is dB here, but it 13 doesn't say it actually in the figure.
| |
| {} 14 15 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| Would you assume that to be dBC?
| |
| Q 16 A (Eldred) Actually it's stated as dB in the text.
| |
| 17 Q For the context, do you have any --
| |
| 18 A (Eldred) I think it's fair to use the -- it would 19 be comparable to dBC. It's actually overall sound pressure 20 level without a specific sound level meter waiting. So it 21 probably isn't exactly dBC, but it would be within a tenth i
| |
| 22 of a dB of it.
| |
| 23 Q Okay, just the last question on this just to 24 finish up.
| |
| 25 And the figure has exposed ears 120?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 407 (r
| |
| (s). 1 A (Eldred) The table you mean?
| |
| 2 0 The table.
| |
| 3 A (Eldred) Correct. This would appear to be 4 Silverman's data, I would assume.
| |
| 5 Q Turning your attention to page 12 of your direct 6 testimony.
| |
| 7 You see the sentence there that says, I'm sorry, 8 with respect to Answer 15, where it says, "To achieve this 9 purpose," namely, alert and notification, "with efficient 10 coverage the VANS sirens should be as loud as possible 11 wit $outcausingpermanentharmtoanypersonhearingthe 12 siren."
| |
| 13 Do you see that?
| |
| [} 14 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 15 0 And that is your testimony?
| |
| 16' A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 17 Q Would you agree with me that there are levels of 18 sound that would cause temporary threshold shifts without 19 permanent harm?
| |
| 20 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 21 Q So what you are saying here is that the sirens 22 should be -- well, let me back up.
| |
| 23 And that those levels would be less than the 24 levels that would cause permanent harm?
| |
| 25 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 408
| |
| ) 1 Q So what you.are saying here is that you think the 2 VANS sirens should be as loud as possible, going beyond the 3 point of temporary threshold shift to the point, just below 4 the point of permanent harm?
| |
| (Eldred) l 5 A I didn't say that.
| |
| 6 Q Well, is that what you.mean here?
| |
| i 7 A (Eldred) What I mean is precisely what it says.
| |
| 8 That we should not -- design objections should be to ensure 9 that one is not causing permanent harm. And as the rest of 10 the discussion goes on, it says that one should come up with 11 some criteria.
| |
| 12 As.far as the temporary threshold shift, that
| |
| .13 occurs in every day life. We all experience temporary l
| |
| (} 14 15 threshold shift.
| |
| JUDGE BLOCH: The question isn't that. How many 16 decibels would meet this criterion? How loud should it be 17 to meet this criterion?
| |
| 18 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) To meet this criterion.
| |
| l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: In your sentence there.
| |
| 20 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) It's a combination, as I 21 think was discussed yesterday. It would be a combination of 22 the level of the sound, how long it was; its frequency; its 23 duration; and how often the experience, it would be 24 e:sperienced, how often it would be repeated. l 25 JUDGE BLOCH: So if we are going to do the dual Heritage Reporting Corporation A
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 409 i
| |
| (~)
| |
| (_/ 1 Whelen and we're going to have exactly the pattern that 2 we're going to have in this case, how loud should the sirens 3 be to meet this optimum criteria?
| |
| 4 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) They could ,arobably go up 5 to 135. They could practically go up to the pain threshold.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: 135 or even higher?
| |
| 7 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) 135 to 140 somewhere. I 8 haven't made that exact calculation, but it's a very short, 9 very short duration. And the repetition, for all the i
| |
| evidence that I have heard, would be certainly not more than 10 11 once a year, if that, and perhaps only one period in a l 12 lifetime.
| |
| i 4
| |
| 13 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| ('T 14 Q Just so I'm clear on this. Your standard would go V
| |
| 15 beyond temporary threshold shift right up, nudged up against 16 permanent harm?
| |
| 17 A (Eldred) My standard would undoubtedly allow for 18 some temporary threshold shift. But --
| |
| l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: What's the resistance?
| |
| 20 He says it would go beyond that. Why are you not 21 willing to cay it would go beyond that?
| |
| 22 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) It would.
| |
| 23 The resistance is the second -- somehow the intent ac 24 of tt Hay - the way it came across to me.
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: You don't want to nudge it up
| |
| ~s (d
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 a
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 410 l I 1. against that. You want to have it separate from that.
| |
| 2 THE WIINESS: (Eldred) I'm not nudging into ---
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Just short? l 4 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) I'm not nudging into the ]
| |
| 5 bottom:of the permanent threshold. That was my resistance.
| |
| 6 JUDGE.BLOCH: You don't want to harm anyone 7 permanently, but close to that.
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) No , we want to ensure that 9 we're not going to harm anybody permanently, but not by 10 being 20 or 30 dB conservative. I think that's really --
| |
| 11 BY MR. JONAS:-
| |
| 12- Q Okay. While we're on the' issue of intent here,-
| |
| 13 can'you skip down a little bit where you put your own gloss
| |
| '14 on.the phrase "in NUREG-0654"..
| |
| 15 Do you see that?
| |
| 16 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 17- Q Were you involved in drafting that document?
| |
| 18 A (Eldred) I was not.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, but one more question 20 here.
| |
| p 21 Mr. Eldred, if you could allow 135 decibels under 22 this pattern, how many decibels could you allow if it was to 23 sound for three minutes continuously?
| |
| 24- THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Depending on the H25 - frequency. I give an example based on an --
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 411 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Say a thousand cycles per second.
| |
| 2 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Right. I think 123 is 3 perfectly consistent.
| |
| 4 JUDGE BLOCH: I see. So you would not be any 5 higher than 123 if you assume three minutes constant sound 6 for a thousand cycles per second?
| |
| 7 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) On a very conservative 8 criteria.
| |
| 9 Let me just elaborate. I, in my testimony, 10 discuss some criteria that was used by the Environmental 11 Protection Agency primarily as an example of how one would 12 go about defining what the objectives of the criteria should f
| |
| 13 .be, what criterion should be met before the scientists
| |
| (} 1 <4 decide what the - propose what the numbers are. That was 15' the purpose for that.
| |
| 16 The Environmental Protection Agency's criteria are 17 not aimed at short duration sounds, particularly -- it's
| |
| [ 18 certainly not short duration sounds that would be heard only 19 once in a lifetime or once or twice in a lifetime. So that
| |
| '- 20 the CHABA criteria that came out of Working Group 46, which 21 Dr. Kryter testified to yesterday, actually is a more 22 appropriate criteria then the EPA criteria for this 23 particular situation.
| |
| 24 Does that answer --
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| O H6ritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L _ __ _ _______ o
| |
| | |
| f ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 412 l
| |
| 'm l
| |
| _ ) 1 Now just one thing is, do you think that your 2 standard, having read the words of the NUREG, is your 1
| |
| 3 standard the same as what the NUREG says or is your standard 4 what you would like it to be? i l
| |
| 5 In other words, are you rewriting the NUREG for j I
| |
| 6 us?-
| |
| 7 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) In this question I am 8 basically looking at the question that the Board raised of 9 what enould be done. And I'm looking towards how would one 10 go about changing it. My opinion is that the NUREG is very l 11 conservative. The NUREG clearly, from Keast's testimony, 12 was not designed, or the data, the 123 was not chosen for 13- the purpose of very infrequent warning situations. But 14 rather, a daily use of a fire siren.
| |
| 15 And so if one were to develop a criterion for the 16 specific purpose of nuclear warning systems, one would come 17 up with a higher level. And the approach that the 18 Applicants have suggested is certainly a reasonable way to 19 go. )
| |
| 20 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 21 Q Do I take it from that then that the answer to the l 22 Chair's question is, yes, you are rewriting the NUREG 23 standard?
| |
| 24 A (Eldred) I am suggesting how one might approach 25 the rewriting of the NUREG standard.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w__-_u_---_a__-- _-a-- .:u
| |
| | |
| l' ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 413
| |
| (~\ l
| |
| () 1- Q And on page 13 of your direct testimony, you say, 2 "A better phrase for describing this limit would be a level 3 which is protective of the hearing of individuals", that 4 would be the phrase that you would insert into NUREG-0654?
| |
| I 5 A (Eldred) That would be a phrase that I would use 6 to replace the word " discomfort". ;
| |
| l 7 You would insert that into NUREG-0654 instead of Q
| |
| 8 " discomfort"?
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) Yes, but with additional qualifications.
| |
| 10 I think to insert directly in NUREG-0654 with the 11 presence of the 123 number, then we would have to say 12 something about the amount of repetition.
| |
| 13 Q Okay. So you would change both the 123 number and
| |
| [} 14 the phrase?
| |
| Well, if I were'to leave the 123, then 15 A (Eldred) 16 the conditions for which the 123 meets the phrase would have 17 to be more completely stated.
| |
| 18 Q Change one or the other, or perhaps both.
| |
| 19 A (Eidred) It would have to be a more full and 20 complete statemant is what I'm saying since we have several i
| |
| 21 parameters that have to be concerned with this, and not just 22 a single number of 123.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: If our purpose is to protect 24 hearing.
| |
| 25 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| OV Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 e
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 414 10
| |
| \_/ 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Do we have any reliable data from 2 which we could tell whether as few as 1 percent of the 3 people might have permanent hearing loss from a tone of a ;
| |
| 4 certain decibel and frequency?
| |
| 5 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Yes, I think we do.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: And so the levels that you are 7 talking about here are safe for substantially less than 1 8 percent, let's say.
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: That's your testimony, not mine.
| |
| l 11 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) That is my testimony, not 12 yours. Yes, sir.
| |
| 13 MR. DIGNAN: I have some confusion. ,
| |
| 14 You put the question to him it's safe for
| |
| [}
| |
| 15 substantially less than 1 percent.
| |
| 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Ah.
| |
| 17 MR..DIGNAN: And I think that you meant that it 18 was safe for substantially more than 99 percent.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| 20 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) That's correct, and that 21 is the way I --
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Far fewer than 1 percent would be 23 injured.
| |
| 24 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) That is correct. That is 25 the way I took your question, t"
| |
| t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 415 1 /~~
| |
| 5_) 1> MR. JONAS: I don't have any other questions.
| |
| l 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan.
| |
| 3 MR. DIGNAN: A few brief' questions.
| |
| 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 6 Q Mr. Kantor, I believe this would be in your area.
| |
| 7 Are.you aware of any NRC criterion or~ guidance.as 8 to a limitation-on the length of EBS messages to be used in l- 9 emergency plans?
| |
| 10 A .(Kantor) No, I'm not.
| |
| 11 Q' In the normal case where the state is cooperating 12 in emergency planning,-it is the state's decision as to what 13 the contents of an EBS message will be; is that not correct, 14 .in the time of an emergency?
| |
| j}
| |
| 15 A (Kantor) That's correct. The offsite authorities 16 are responsible for developing the EBS messages. Usually in 17 the planning purposes they. work with the onsite organization 18 and also FEMA is involved in'the review and evaluation.
| |
| 19 Q And it is also true, is it not, that as was 20 suggested by some cross-examination that occurred yesterday,
| |
| '21 that in a given situation an election may be made by the 22 cognizant official to change the EBS message from any that 23- has been prescripted in the plan; is that correct?
| |
| 24 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 25 Q And NRC, as I understand it, does not purport to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 416
| |
| ( 1. regulate states on what the contents of their EBS messages
| |
| >2 are in general or in particular accident situations; is that 3 correct?
| |
| 4 A (Kantor) That's correct. The available guidance 5 is in NUREG-0654.
| |
| 6 Q So a governor in a hypothetical situation could 7 select his EBS message that actually went out to be as 8 little as say 30 seconds long if he thought that was 9 sufficient?
| |
| 10- A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 11 Q And he could elect to make it 10 minutes long if 12 he thought that fit the situation; is that correct?
| |
| 13 A (Kantor) I suppose that's correct, but that would 14 be highly unusual.
| |
| 15 Q In any event, the decision would be his, not the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's; isn't that correct?
| |
| 17 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 18 Q Now you are aware that we are in a situation here 19 where the state is not cooperating in the emergency 20 planning; isn't that correct?
| |
| 21 A (Kantor) Yes, sir. l 22 Q And that indeed the whole reason the VANS system 23 has been designed is because of the inability of the 24 Applicant to get permits for the so-called pole-type system.
| |
| (
| |
| 25 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| l j
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 417 1 Q So that in the event that the SPMC is activated in-2~ an accident, and in the event _that the state executes the 3 plan as designed, it will be the governor of the 4 Commonwealth who will decide, or his designee, in the last 5 analysis, what the content is and what the length is of any 6 EBS message that is sent out; is that correct?
| |
| 7 A (Kantor) Yes, that would be based -- I would 8 assume his actions would be based on the recommendations 9 from the onsite operators. But, yes, it would be his 10 decision.
| |
| 11 Q But the authority would lie with him.
| |
| 12 A. (Kantor) The authority would lie with him, that's i
| |
| 13 . correct.
| |
| 14 Q And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not
| |
| []}
| |
| 15 purport, as you understand it, to in any way attempt to l 16 regulate him in the exercise.of that authority?
| |
| 17 A (Kantor) No, our regulations go toward ensuring, 18 a reasonable assurance that there will be an alerting signal 19 and an instructional message of some sort to the public.-
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: That's all I have.
| |
| 21 May I have just one minute?
| |
| 22 (Pause . )
| |
| 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i 1
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 418
| |
| [: s) 'l- JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan, Judge' George will ask a 2 . question-while you take you minute.
| |
| .3 MR. DIGNAN: Judge who?
| |
| 4 (Laughter) 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Judge Harbour.
| |
| 6 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mr. Kantor,.one of the questions 7 that came to my mind when you were talking about the 15-8 minute.or about:15-minute requirement for alert and 9 notification. When does the about 15-minute requirement for 10 alert and notification begin? When does it start to toll?
| |
| 11 At what event sets that off as far as your review of the i
| |
| 12 regulatory requirements is concerned?
| |
| 13' THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Well, it's actually in regulations two 15-minute c1'ocks. Upon the time a
| |
| }{) 114
| |
| -15 declaration of emergency is made in the control room, say, 16 onsite, there's a 15-minute clock that allows for the i
| |
| 17 licensee to inform the offsite authorities.
| |
| 18 And upon the time the offsite authorities are 19 informed of the onsite event is when the 15-minute clock 20 would start-there.
| |
| 21 Now it would depend also on the situation. If 22 it's a situation requiring prompt offsite decision-making 23 and activities it would' start at the time they received the 24 information from the onsite authorities that there is an l 25 urgent situation onsite.
| |
| -O~
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 419
| |
| /~N
| |
| !s_) 1 And that, of course, as the regulations show will 2 range from that case up until a case where there is 3 substantial time for the offsite authorities to make a 4 decision.
| |
| 5 But in our review we look for the capability to 6 exist in the offsite authorities. The administrative and 7 the physical capability to exist to make that 15-minute 8 declaration.
| |
| 9 JUDGE HARBOUR: In this specific case where the 10 VAN System is required to be employed, at what time would t
| |
| 11 alert and notification of about 15-minutes begin?
| |
| 12 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) I think it would depend 13 upon the scenario of the event. If it's the fast-breaking 14 event I would say the clock would start when the message is l 15 received by the offsite authorities.
| |
| l 16 JUDGE HARBOUR: What about the other case where 17 it's not a fast-breaking event?
| |
| 18 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Then the clock starts at 19 the time a decision is made by the offsite authorities to 20 alert and notify the public.
| |
| f 21 JUDGE HARBOUR: Thank you.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: You said the clock starts when the 23 offsite officials receive notice of a fast-breaking event or l
| |
| 24 when the decision is made that there is a fast-breaking 25 event?
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| \
| |
| ..i
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 420 O
| |
| (_) 1 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Are we referring now to ,
| |
| 2'' the specific VANS situation?
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| 4 In this case if someone -- there's a decision made 5 in the onsite -- by the onsite officials that there's a 6 fast-breaking event. Does the clock start then or at some 7 other time?
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) I beideve the clock would 9 start when the -- I think the term is, the short-term 10 emergency director, which is actually the shift supervisor 11 realizes there is a serious situation onsite. And he .
| |
| i 12 ' notifies the state authorities.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Is that the first thing he does?
| |
| 14 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) I think it's almost 15 simultaneously. He notifies them and also what they refer 16 to as the EOC offsite contact point who is the person that 17 initiates the VANS alert and dispatch.
| |
| 18 So you have those two activities taking place 19 simultaneously.
| |
| 20 JUDGE BLOCH: It's like two buttons he pushes?
| |
| 21 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) Excuse me.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: It's like two buttons he pushes?
| |
| e 23 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) No. I believe there's a 24 communication system that's employed. Not a button type 25 system.
| |
| 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| L-_______-__-___-_:_______L__-_-_-__-__-___. _ _ . -- _ _ -- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
| |
| | |
| 4 ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS '421
| |
| \_/ 'l JUDGE.BLOCH: He simultaneously communicates.with
| |
| .2- the governor and with the -- i 3 THE WITNESS: (Kantor) It's almost ,
| |
| 4 simultaneously. I would say -- actually, I'm not that clear
| |
| '5 on exactly _how they have it set up in their control room.
| |
| 6 There's a communicator in the control room. The 7 shift supervisor would maybe tell him to contact EOC contact 8 ' point and tell him that we have this emergency.
| |
| 9 And.at the same time the shift supervisor would 10 then, probably by some. sort of telephone, contact the State 11 of Massachusetts authorities, according to their procedures.
| |
| _12 ' JUDGE BLOCH: I can't see that he can do it at the 13 same time. But I can see that he can do it immediately 14 afterwards.
| |
| L 15 Do you know which comes first?
| |
| 16 THE WITNESS:- (Kantor) I would have to review 17 their procedures. I would say that upon the declaration of 18 an emergency there is a person on shift designated as a 19 communicator. The shift supervisor would say to him, please 20 ' contact the EOC contact point. At the same time the shift 21 supervisor would be reaching for a telephone.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
| |
| 23 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I don't know if that is 24 of interest to the Board. The fact is it is done 25 concurrently. One phone immediately cuts into New i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| __ _._.-m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 422 )
| |
| () 1 Hampshire / Massachusetts end of the ORO.
| |
| 1 2 May I have the liberty of a few more questions? I j 3 said that I was through, but with your permission.
| |
| 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Sure.
| |
| 5 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 7 Q I just want to be sure I understand, Mr. Kantor, 8 the two~ clocks you talked about.
| |
| 9- The first 15-minute clock is the requirement in 10 Appendix E that an Applicant had the capability of notifying i 11 state-and local officials within 15-minutes after the 12- Applicant has declared that they've got an emergency 13 situation on their hands; isn't that correct?
| |
| 14 A (Kantor) That's correct.
| |
| 15 Q .And the second 15-minute clock is the one we're 16 really talking about here.
| |
| 17 A (Mantor) Yes.
| |
| 18 Q Which is 15-minutes from the time that the 19 cognizant official makes the decision to notify the public 20 that that can be accomplished?
| |
| 21 A (Kantor) Yes, sir. That's clock time.
| |
| 22 O' That's the second clock?
| |
| 23 A (Kantor) Right.
| |
| 24 Q Dr. Eldred, I just wanted to ask you one question.
| |
| 25 You discussed with my learned friend from the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| s ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 423
| |
| ) 1 Attorney General's Office certain data in an article by Dr.
| |
| 2 Beranek, and you referred to it as.the Silverman data, in 3 your judgment.
| |
| 4 Were you also able to ascertain from the document 5 in front of you that data was taken with earphones being 1
| |
| 6 placed on the subjects; is that correct? I 7 A (Eldred) That is correct.
| |
| 8 Q Which is the fact of the Silverman experiment.
| |
| 9 Do you concur in testimony that I heard the other 10 day that in fact if discomfort is felt at a given level with 11 earphones that one would expect in the free-field the same 12 level of discomfort to be experienced at a sound pressure k
| |
| 13- level of 5 dB less than utilized with --
| |
| 14 A (Eldred) I am not knowledgeable as to that point.
| |
| 15 I would say one comment'on the Silverman 16 experiment. It was clearly designed to find out what is the 17 maximum level that would be comfortable for hearing aids.
| |
| 18 Q It indeed was an experiment designed to get data 19 for the design of hearing aids --
| |
| 20 A (Eldred) For the design of hearing aids.
| |
| 21 Q -- for the clinical choice of what hearing aid 22 people should utilize?
| |
| 23 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| 24 And it's very clearly stated in his paper. And !
| |
| 25 for that reason they used many handicapped subjects rather !
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation 1
| |
| (202) 628-4888 f
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 424
| |
| ()_ 1 than mainly naive subjects. Normally in psychoacoustic 2 experiments you use people with good hearing. In this case 3 he wanted to look at people who had hearing handicaps.
| |
| l 4 So his whole use of discomfort to my technical j
| |
| )
| |
| 5 review is for the specific purpose of the hearing aid I
| |
| 6 design, which is a problem quite different from the j 7 momentary -- from the application of discomfort in this 8 warning system concept.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, do we know that? Do we know 10 that there's any difference in the discomfort level for 11 normal hearing subjects as opposed to handicapped hearing 12 subjects?
| |
| 13 (Pause)
| |
| I~h 14 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) I think the entire context 1
| |
| O 15 -- what I'm saying is the context of the experiment was to 16 determine what would be discomfortable --
| |
| 17 JUDGE BLOCH: I understood that.
| |
| 18 Do we know --
| |
| 19 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) If you were to hear it 20 over and over again or used as a design point as opposed to 21 just hearing it once in a while, I don't think that his 22 question actually -- his subjects goes to the question we l 23 have here.
| |
| l
| |
| ; 24 JUDGE BLOCH: I see.
| |
| 25 I thought you were addressing that it was for C)
| |
| \' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| n, < ,
| |
| r ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 425
| |
| ) 1 handicapped people. You're saying it also is not addressed 2 to the first time you hear something?
| |
| 3 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) The purpose of his 4 experiment was to find out what would be considered 5 discomfort -- what was the maximum level to be' comfortable 6 to have as a hearing aid that you would be wearing.all the 7 time''rather than an experiment where you were asked, what l 8 would be comfortable or discomfortable, if you were to hear l
| |
| 9 this once as part of a warning system. I would suspect you l
| |
| 10 would get quite a-different answer.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Were those in fact his directions to 12 the people? That was the directions that the people 13 received,.you should say it's uncomfortable if you were to 14 receive this level all the time?
| |
| : 15. THE WITNESS: (Eldred) I would have to look at 16 the.
| |
| l' 17 (Pause while witness locates document.)
| |
| l 18 THE WITNESS: (Eldred)' I have a copy of the paper 19 entitled " Tolerance For Pure Tones and Speech In Normal and 20 Defective Hearing" by Silverman. And this is from the 21 " Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology," 56658-677, 22 1947, 23 It says, "The investigation" -- I'll just read a 24 couple --
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: What I'm interested in is the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 426 A
| |
| (_) 1 direction to the subjects, that's all; The directions to j 2 the subjects.
| |
| 3 I'll disclose that this is the first time I've l 4 professionally used my undergraduate degree in experimental l- 5 Psych. '
| |
| 6 MR. JONAS: If it would help out, it's on page 7 662.
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) "The subject was seated in i
| |
| 9 a comfortable chair situated within the sound chamber.
| |
| 10 Instructions were communicated directly except in cases of j 11 severe deafness, when the instruction microphone was used to 12 insure accurate understanding of directions.
| |
| 13 The Precise instructions for the three thresholds
| |
| (} 14 were as follows: )
| |
| 15 (1) discomfort, you will hear a tone which will 16 get louder and louder. Tell me when you reach the point 17 when the tor a is uncomfortable, that is, when you would no 18 longer care to listen or when you would feel like removing 19 the earphone from your ear.
| |
| 20 When the uncomfortable point is reached, say 21 " uncomfortable" and I will shut off the tone. We shall then 22 repeat the procedure with another tone. Are you ready."
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Now, do we have any information as 24 to whether non-handicapped subjects given the same 25 instruction would oe more or less tolerant of sound levels?
| |
| i
| |
| \
| |
| /^/
| |
| \- Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
| |
| (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| 1 ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS . 427
| |
| () 1- THE WITNESS: (Eldred) I think that was testified 2 to. He does differentiate between handicapped and normal 3 hearing. He points out that the tolerance threshold for 4 the, quote, " normal ears" increased with experience in the 5 test.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Normal ears? j 7 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) For normal ears.
| |
| 8 MR. JONAS: Your Honor.
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) But I think Dr. Kryter I 10 would be more competent to testify as to that particular 11 question.
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, may I ask a question or 13 two?
| |
| 14 JUDGE BLOCH: It depends. It's still Mr. Dignan's
| |
| ; ^3
| |
| (\./ -
| |
| 15 question.
| |
| 16 MR. JONAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
| |
| 17 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 18 Q The Chairman asked you a couple of questions about 19 how high could we go with this thing and I guess I maybe 20 missed the direct answer.
| |
| 21 But I'm asking you to assume that it is the ,
| |
| 22 configuration we are utilizing and utilizing it in the i
| |
| 23 method design. That is to say, let's start with at 51 feet 24 and rotating.
| |
| 25 How high would you allow the design of the siren
| |
| ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 428
| |
| ?O 1' to be? My understanding being that the figure you're going
| |
| (,/
| |
| 2 to give me is the dBC figure of somebody directly in the 3 access 100 feet away, which as I understand has been 4 designed convention. How high would you allow the siren to 5 be rated? At a maximum?
| |
| 6 (Pause) 7 TEE WITNESS: (Eldred) I'm a little confused by 8 your question.
| |
| 9 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 10 Q All right.
| |
| 1 11 A (Eldred) I thought you were asking a question !
| |
| 12 about how loud I would allow someone to be exposed to this.
| |
| 13 Q That's going to be the_second question. I 14 But right now I want to know how high you would 15 allow the siren to be rated, because that's a concrete 16 number I can get my hands on. As soon as we go into ,
| |
| 1 17 decibels I get in trouble unless I can anchor it to 18 something.
| |
| 19 A (Eldred) Let me answer this way: I have not 20 computed the maximum level to which my suggested criteria 21 would enable someone to be exposed.
| |
| 22 But that level is certainly greater than any level 23 that would expose a person under the configuration of the l 24 dual 4,000. ,
| |
| 25 So that the 134 dBC on axis would certainly fall
| |
| (~\
| |
| (./ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 429 tO
| |
| ( /- 1 -within that criteria and be acceptable.
| |
| 2 Q What you're saying is that you do not think that 3 even if somebody was in the axis of one of these sirens that 4 there would be permanent damage; is that what you're telling 5 me?
| |
| 6 Or are you taking account of the fact that the l
| |
| 7 siren will be 51 feet high? That's what I'm just trying to i 8 nail down.
| |
| 9 Let me put it directly this way. Let us assume a 10 five second exposure of the human ear to 139 decibels; 11 permanent damage or not?
| |
| 12' A (Eldred) I don't think so.
| |
| 13 Q 140 decibels?
| |
| (} 14 A (Eldred) I don't think so.
| |
| 15 I have not calculated in this region. But at some 16 point 140 you will get into a situation of pain.
| |
| 17 Q Pain?
| |
| 18 A (Eldred) That's right.
| |
| 19 Q Does pain necessarily mean permanent damage?
| |
| 20 A (Eldred) i.. ;acessarily. But it would probably 21 be a threshold that one would not wish to cross in coming up 22 with a higher standard.
| |
| 23 MR. DIGNAN: That's all I have.
| |
| 24 Thank you very much, Your Honor.
| |
| 25 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I could skip asking these O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| I ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 430 1 questions. It really has to do with some of the other 2 features of the Silverman article. We can just introduce 3 the thing and have it admitted.
| |
| 4 MR. DIGNAN: (Negative Response.)
| |
| 5 MR. JONAS: No? All right.
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: At this point.
| |
| 7 Perhaps when your witnesses take the stand I may ,
| |
| 8 have a different view.
| |
| > 9- MR.'JONAS: Let me ask some of the questions.
| |
| 10 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 12 Q Do you have the Silverman article in front of you?
| |
| 13 A (Eldred) I do have it in front of me.
| |
| (} 14 Q Could you turn to page 6607 15 A (Eldred) I have not read the entire Silverman 16 article in detail. That's why I suggested that someone 17 else, such as Dr. Kryter, would be more competent to testify 18 as to any meaning that it has.
| |
| 19 Q Well you did some testifying about it before.
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: You were the one that opened it up.
| |
| 21 You asked him about it. I didn't. I just followed you.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's ask questions and let's not --
| |
| 23 if the question is asked and there's an obiection, it will 24 be up to counsel to object and let's go that way.
| |
| l 25 MR. JONAS: Fine.
| |
| (~%
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 431
| |
| ) '
| |
| 1 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| : 2. Q Do you see page 660?
| |
| 1 3 A (Eldred) Yes.
| |
| 4 Q The paragraph, " Organization of experiments" or ,
| |
| I 5 the section called " Organization of experiments?" .
| |
| i 6 A (Eldred) Right. I 7 Q And " Pure tone tolerance?"
| |
| 8 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| 9 Q "The subjec's e were divided into two groups: normal 10 hearing and hard-of-hearing?"
| |
| 11 A (Eldtad) Correct.
| |
| 12 0 "There were 16 ears in each group exposed to the 13 complete experimental procedure;" correct?
| |
| 14 A (Eldred) That's what it says.
| |
| 15 JUDGE BLOCH: 16 ears?.
| |
| 16 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 8 people but 16 ears or 17 something.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HARBOUR: Careful, I'm one person with one 19 ear.
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: That's what I was wondering, if some 21 subjects had one normal and one abnormal. )
| |
| 22 THE WITNESS: (Eldred) Well, some subjects 23 probably were sufficiently handicapped in one of their ears 24 that was not usable. I don't know.
| |
| 25
| |
| ( Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| , (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - I
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - CROSS 432
| |
| ' ' - 1 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 2 Q Skipping to page 675.
| |
| 3 A (Eldred) I have not read page 675.
| |
| 4 But go ahead.
| |
| 5 Q Is there a table on 6757 6 A (Eldred) There is.
| |
| 7 Q~ Entitled " Initial and final thresholds in normal 8 and defective hearing for pure tones and speech?"
| |
| 9 A (Eldred) Right.
| |
| 1 10 Q And there's a column for " discomfort initial" --
| |
| 11 an " initial" column and a " final" column?
| |
| 12 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| 13 Q And there is on the other side of it " normal 14 hearing?"
| |
| 15 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| 16 Q " Pure tones?"
| |
| 17 A (Eldred) Correct.
| |
| 18- Q 109.9 initial discomfort; is that right?
| |
| 19 A (Eldred) That's correct.
| |
| 20 0 120.0 final discomfort?
| |
| 21 A (Eldred) That's correct. ,
| |
| 22 MR. JONAS: I don't have any other questions.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Berry, do you have redirect?
| |
| 24 MR. BERRY: Briefly, Your Honor.
| |
| 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| s l l
| |
| 1
| |
| )
| |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - REDIRECT 433
| |
| '1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION I
| |
| 2 BY MR. BERRY: ]
| |
| 3 Q Mr. Kantor, you were asked some questions by Mr.
| |
| 4 4 Jonas earlier regarding the Board's summary disposition l
| |
| _t 5 ' decision.
| |
| i 6 Let me direct your attention to page 20 and 21 of i 7 the Board's summary disposition decision.
| |
| 8 Do you have that, Mr. Kantor?
| |
| 9 A (Kantor) Yes, I do.
| |
| 10 Q The last paragraph on page 20 the one started-11' "Over years of plant operation."
| |
| 12 Do you see that?
| |
| 13 A (Kantor) Yes, I do.
| |
| (} 14 Q Do you recall Mr. Jonas asked you some questions
| |
| 'of each of those items in there; and then he would ask you, 15 16 well, to your knowledge did FEMA consider those things?
| |
| 17 Do you remember that line of questioning?
| |
| 18 A (Kantor) Yes, I do.
| |
| 19 Q I believe Mr. Jonas, he stopped at the portion of 20 that order where the Board states: "We note that the actual 21 personnel procedures to be used have not been made available 22 .to us.' It is'possible that those procedures would provide 23 such measures as advanced alerting of personnel as would 24 assure us that our concerns about driver readiness are not 25 realistic."
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - REDIRECT 434
| |
| .. ) 11 Do you see that?
| |
| 2 A (Kantor) Yes,.I do.
| |
| l 3 Q Have you had an. opportunity, Mr. Kantor, to review 4 - -- first , are there any such procedures that govern the 5 alert notification of the VANS operators?
| |
| 6 A (Kantor) Yes, there are.
| |
| 7 And as' reflected in my testimony the drivers will 8 be notified, put on standby,. at a notification of unusual 9 event classification which is the lowest emergency 10 classification level. ,
| |
| 11- Q Based on your review of those procedures, Mr.
| |
| 12 Kantor, do you have a position as to whether the Board's 13 concerns about driver readiness are realistic or not?
| |
| j 14 A (Kantor) Based on the information I have reviewed 15 including the procedures, I believe from the Staff's 16 viewpoints there is reasonable assurance that the VANS 17 ~ drivers will respond in a timely manner to an emergency.
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Kantor, the question was whether 19 or not the Board's concerns are realistic?
| |
| 20 MR. BERRY: I think he answered my question.
| |
| 21 JUDGE BLOCH: All right, let's leave it with that.
| |
| 22 (Laughter) 23 MR. BERRY: Thank you.
| |
| 24 BY MR. BERRY:
| |
| 25 Q You stated, Mr. Kantor, that there was reasonable l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j 1
| |
| 1
| |
| (
| |
| 1
| |
| 'ven .
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| ELDRED, KANTOR - REDIRECT 435 1 assurance in your last answer. You didn t say absolute l I
| |
| 2 assurance, is there a reason for that? I
| |
| ~3 A (Kantor) That's correct. The emergency planning j l
| |
| 4 regulations require reasonable assurance. There is no way 5 by regulations we can guarantee an absolute certainty or 100 ,
| |
| . 45 percent response in any situation.
| |
| 7 Q Mr. Eldred, I direct your attention to page 12 of 8 your testimony, question and answer 15.
| |
| 9 You were asked a question by Mr. Jonas as to 10 whether you were rewriting NUREG-0654 in this answer.
| |
| 11 I would ask you, was that your purpose in 12 answering this question, Mr. Eldred, to rewrite the 13 regulation?
| |
| 14 MR. JONAS: I'm not sure I understand what that
| |
| }
| |
| 15 question was again.
| |
| 16 JUDGE BLOCH: You're asking about his intention? ,
| |
| 1 17 MR. BERRY: I'm asking -- I'll rephrase the j i'
| |
| 18 question, Your Honor.
| |
| 1 19 BY MR. BERRY:
| |
| 20 Q Mr. Eldred, what question were you answering? !
| |
| 21 A (Eldred) I was attempting to answer your question 22 at Q-15 which states: "That the Applicants assert that the ,
| |
| 1 23 limit for discomfort should be equal to the threshold of 24 hearing damage for which they suggest should be expressed in 25 terms of sound level frequency and time duration, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l ELDRED, KANTOR - REDIRECT 436 1 specifically TTS-2. Do you agree?" i l
| |
| 2 My answer was: "Yes, I 'do," and then'I continued. )
| |
| V \
| |
| 3 So my comment referred to that question.
| |
| i 4 MR. BERRY: That's all the questions that I have, 5 Your Honor.
| |
| 6- MR. JONAS: I don't have any other questions.-
| |
| 7 MR. DIGNAN: No, Your Honor.
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to thank the witnesses 9 for their participation, and excuse them.
| |
| 10 (The witnesses were excused.)
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Off the record.
| |
| 12 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| 13
| |
| )
| |
| j 15 1
| |
| 16 17 18 19 20 21
| |
| , 22
| |
| )
| |
| 23 24 25 O
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-
| |
| | |
| 437 t'g
| |
| (/ 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan, do you want to make an 2 oral statement about this or is the paper sufficient?
| |
| 3 MR. DIGNAN: I have nothing to add to the paper, 4 Your Honor. If Your Honor has an questions, we, of course, 5 will address them.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: No.
| |
| 7 Mr. Jonas?
| |
| 8 MR. JONAS: Thers are two issues here as the Board 9 can see from the papers. The first concerning the issue of 10 ground reflection. And my only point with respect to that 11 is that it appears from the testimony yesterday that there 12 was some consideration given to ground reflection. So I'm 13 not sure that this issue is a live one in any event, and 14 it's of little preference to me how you would like to handle
| |
| (']
| |
| \.
| |
| 15 that particular issue.
| |
| 16 JUDGE BLOCH: So you are satisfied if I grant that 17 portion of thi. motion.
| |
| l 18 MR. JONAS: That's fine. I don't think there is 1
| |
| 19 any great dispute about what happened here with respect to 20 ground reflection.
| |
| 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So we do grant that portion 22 of the motion unless the Staff is objecting?
| |
| f 23 MR. BERRY: No , the Staff has no dog in this l
| |
| l 24 fight.
| |
| 25 MR. JONAS: So it will be granted with respect to l
| |
| l r~s l k-) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| \
| |
| m 438
| |
| ( 1 page 10, the middle paragraph; is that right?'
| |
| 2 JUDGE BLOCH: The middle paragraph beginning 3 "moreover" is what's been indicated. I haver.'t checked to 1
| |
| 4 see if that's the whole thing. )
| |
| 5 MR. JONAS: I should point actually that it does !
| |
| 6 cause other portions of the testimony to be revised. l 7 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.
| |
| 8 MR. JONAS: And tht.t is at pages 12 through 13.
| |
| 9 MR. DIGNAN: Am I correct what it would 10 essentially do, and maybe you can I could work it out by 11 stipulation, but it would essentially drop all the 12 references on the three to eight business to one to six?
| |
| 13 MR. JONAS: No. Actually it would be three to
| |
| (} 14 six.
| |
| 15 MR. DIGNAN: Three to six, okay.
| |
| 16 Yes, it would take the.-- the eight figure is the 17 one that would come down to six.
| |
| 18 MR. JONAS: That's right.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: So we will understand that the --
| |
| 20 MR. JONAS: We can work that out between us and 21 come to a stipulation about it, I think. ,
| |
| l 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Is it just the two places on page l
| |
| l~
| |
| l 23 12?
| |
| I 24 MR. JONAS: And then what that would also do is 25 take some of the -- would it take the 139 down to 136?
| |
| O- Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 439
| |
| ( :
| |
| 1 MR. JONAS: Okay, I can read these in right now.
| |
| 2 On page 12, that first full paragraph, it changes the 8 dB 3 to 6 dB.
| |
| 4 JUDGE BLOCH: That's on the fourth line -- third 5 line.
| |
| 6 MR. JONAS: Third line of that paragraph.
| |
| 7 Then skipping four lines from there it changes the 8 139 dBC to 137 dBC. Four linea down from there it changes 9 the 130 dBC to 128 dBC. Two lines from there it changes the 10 115 to 117. One line'down from there it changes the 8 to 6.
| |
| i 11 Into the next paragraph, the second line -- this 4 12 is the third line up from the bottom of the page. It 13 changes the 8 to 6. Next line, it changes the 126 to 128.
| |
| (} 14 On to the next page, the first line of that page 15 it would change the 16 to 14, and the 118 to 120.
| |
| 16 I think that does it.
| |
| 17 MR. DIGNAN: And is it your plan to have the one 18 that's given to the reporter show those new figures? !
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: Yes, that's fine.
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. Fine. Good.
| |
| 21 MR. JONAS: Does that settle that part of the l 22 motion to strike?
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| 24 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, just as a mechanical 25 matter then. As I understand, the copy that will be bound f'\
| |
| 'd Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| | |
| 1 440 f 1 into.the transcript will indicate just mechanically the i
| |
| 2 excision of that second paragraph on page 10 plus those ]
| |
| 3 numbered changes that my brother just recited; is that 4 correct?
| |
| 5 MR. JONAS: That's right.
| |
| , .6 JUDGE BLOCH: Good.
| |
| 7 ' MR . JONAS: With respect to the second section of 8 the motion to strike dealing with behavioral issues, I think 9- that Mr. Dignan is talking about apples and the direct 10 testimony is dealing with oranges. I'm not sure that it 11 hits quite at what'we intended to say in that direct 12 testimony.
| |
| 13 The portions of the direct testimony which
| |
| () 14 15 Professor Perrow is here to defend deal with the issues T. aid out by the Board on informational messages at pages 23 to 16 24. The point that Professor Perrow was trying to make in 17 those pages, as well as in the two previous pages, which are 18 part of his direct testimony, is in fact that there are a 19 number of features that complicate the problem of getting 20 that initial notification message to the population. And o
| |
| 21 those features are set forth in the direct testimony.
| |
| 22 The purpose of the offer is not to suggest that 23 people are not going to tune into their radios, although 24 that, I suppose, not in this proceeding is a legitimate 25 question, but I recognize that that's not a question in this O Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| i
| |
| _ __ _ ______a
| |
| | |
| 4 o
| |
| 441-1 proceeding.
| |
| i 2 I also recognize what Mr. Dignan is say3ng,-that 3 siren systems and the subsequent tune into the EBS messages 4 is an accepted process. And we're not suggesting otherwise 5- in that direct test 3 mony. All we are suggesting there is, ,
| |
| l 6 in order to figure out the answers to the questions that the L 7 Board posed, there are a number of factors that have to be 8 played into it, and those factors are set forth in the 9 testimony.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. And so would you be concerned 11 if we limited this testimony to our determination concerning 12 how much time will lapse before the informational message is i
| |
| 13 received? 1 (J 14 MR. JOMAS: That is the only purpose of.the offer.
| |
| 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So we would limit it to that.
| |
| 16 But with that understanding, we then find it relevant to the 17 questions in the case.
| |
| 18 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I be briefly heard l 19 in response before you make your final ruling?
| |
| 20 My only concern is this. I understand the 21 limitation, and I understand i:f that's the Board's ruling, 22 and I can work with it. But I would respectfully direct 23 Your Honor's attention, for instance, particularly to page 24 23 of the testimony. And you will see the paragraph, the 25 second paragraph that begins on that page, begins, "under r Heritage Reporting Corporation I
| |
| (202) 628-4888 j
| |
| | |
| y 442 r
| |
| l 1- the stress". If Your Honor would direct your attention, I 2' respectfully,.to that. 2 3 This doesn't get to when a message will be out and 4 ' receivable. This just gets into testimony as to whether or 5 not having received this message, or having received a siren ;
| |
| 6 alert what people are going.to do. I understand my
| |
| .7 brother's desire to limit and to get it in.
| |
| But you just B can't put that under the rubric of being relevant to the 9 issue that I understand to be before this Board.
| |
| 10 This is straight testimony by a psychologist of 11 how people will react under stress, in his judgment. And 12 calling'it or limiting it to something else doesn't change 13 that fact.
| |
| 14 Now, it may well be that a portion-of it could be j
| |
| [}
| |
| 15 limited in the way Your Honor has suggested, and do it. But 1
| |
| 16 I just draw that to your attention. If the' ruling is made, 17 I don't mean to reargue. I just draw it to your attention.
| |
| 18 That is an example of some of the stuff that is in here that 19 seems to me to be straight testimony on how human beings are 20 . going toLreact to a siren. And I think that's a far piece 21 from the carrow issue I understand to be before this Board.
| |
| 22 And alco as I indicated in my original argument, I 23 don't mean to repeat it, the fact of the matter is it's L 24 capability to notify that we have to show. We are not 25 responsible for demonstrating how people will react to the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 4.4.3 1 notification.
| |
| 2 (The Board confers.)
| |
| 3-4- ,
| |
| 0 j
| |
| '1 .
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8' l 9
| |
| 10' 11 n 12 13 0 15
| |
| '16 17 18 19 20'-
| |
| 21-22 23 .x s
| |
| 24
| |
| -25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888-
| |
| ___l___-__-____
| |
| | |
| 444
| |
| ) 1 JUDGE ~BLOCH: I would like to modify'what I said 2 slightly. On page 21, second paragraph, this'particular 3 ' example seems irrelevant about people sleeping in shifts at 4' Three Mile Island. That's a situation where clearly the !
| |
| k 5 VANS-sirens would be out. And we've not'got any problem l 6 about the 15-minutes.
| |
| 7 So we'll strike that one paragraph.
| |
| 8 And I would like to say that on page 23 the 9 paragraph beginning, "Under the stress of an emergency,"
| |
| 10 will clearly be given very low weight. The only thing we're 11 going to consider that for is if it can be tied in, in some 12 way, to some time delay for people.
| |
| 13 Let's continue with that understanding. We'll 14 just strike that one paragraph on Three Mile Island.
| |
| }
| |
| 15 Mr. Jonas, if you would like to call your 16 witnesses.
| |
| 17 MR. JONAS: Before I do that I just want to inform 18 the Board as I just informed Mr. Dignan about the status of 19 Mr. .Tocci, one of the witnesses. We are perfectly willing 20 to have the panel called now. We believe that the testimony 21 is divisible.
| |
| 22 We just reached Mr. Tocci about 15 minutes ago who 23- indicated he was in his car and on the way here. He said he 24 would be here in an hour which would put it at quarter to 25 1:00.
| |
| i l
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| i (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i 445 1 1
| |
| 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me ask a question to Mr. Dignan.
| |
| 2 MR. JONAS: I can only apologize for the delay.
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan, given what's -- you 4 still don't know whether you're going to need a rebuttal 5 witness?. .
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: No, I don't.
| |
| 7 Obviously, I don't need a rebuttal witness on the 8 one that went out all the way.
| |
| 9 The question of whether or not I will need a 1
| |
| 10 rebuttal witness with respect to the remaining part, I would 1 11 like the right to make that decision finally after I have 12 cross-examined the professor.
| |
| 13 I will be candid with the Board, however, right 14 now my thinking is, no, I will not.
| |
| -{ } '
| |
| 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's go off the record.
| |
| 16 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Have tha parties agreed to the 18 schedule for the filings of findings of fact?
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: Mr. Dignan has made me an offer which !
| |
| 20 I have not yet gotten back to him. But I'm about to refuse.
| |
| 21 I think what I would prefer to do is take it --
| |
| 22 MR. DIGNAN: By the reg.
| |
| 23 MR. JONAS: -- by the reg. His offer was 24 generous, I appreciate it. But given the timing of things 25 related to thic case, I would prefer to do it by the reg.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| .. _ _ _ _ _ i
| |
| | |
| l 446 l
| |
| ('s , 1
| |
| (-) 1 JUDGE BLOCH: If the parties could actually state 2 the dates that that involves for us, that would be helpful.
| |
| 3 Do you know that now or would you rather do it j 4 later?
| |
| 5 MR. DIGNAN: Well, it's the 3040.50 rule after you 6 set the order, assuming you set it today.
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Not the number of days; the dates?
| |
| 8 MR. DIoNAN: Yes. I'm saying, after you set it l 9 today -- assuming you set it today, today is May 3rd. So 10 that 30 days is May 33rd, which translates to June 2nd. Now I 11 somebody tell me whether that's a Saturday or Sunday.
| |
| 12 It's a Friday, okay. So that's June 2nd for us.
| |
| 13 Then 10 days later is the 12th. What's that?
| |
| (} 14 MR. JONAS: I think that's a Monday.
| |
| 15 MR. DIGNAN: Then the 12th for the Commonwealth, 16 June 12th.
| |
| 17 And that would make the Staff the 22nd unless it's 18 a weekend day. Thursday the 22nd for the Staff.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Good.
| |
| 20 Is that agreed?
| |
| 21 MR. BERRY: With the provision that all the 22 filings will be made Express Mail as we've been doing.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Express Mail or hand delivered, yes.
| |
| 24 MR. DIGNAN: In other words my -- let's be sure of L 25 that. My understanding then is that the deadline date it's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l 1 i
| |
| | |
| 447 (9
| |
| _/ .1 to_be in the hands of the opposition on that date. That's 2 the intent of your order.
| |
| i 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Should be in the hands of the
| |
| : 4 opposition on that date, which means the Express Mail date 5 is the day before.
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Or the hand delivery day is that 8 day. l l
| |
| 9 MR. DIGNAN: That's right.
| |
| 10 MR. JONAS: So my date is June 12th which means it !
| |
| 11 has to be finished on June lith. It has to be finished on 12 June 9th.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Would you like to make your date
| |
| (} 14 June 13th?
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: Yes.
| |
| 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any objection to that?
| |
| 17 Because it's a Monday.
| |
| 18 MR. DIGNAN: No problem.
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: Thank you.
| |
| 20 JUDGE BLOCH: So it's the June 2nd, June 13th and 21 June 22nd. ,
| |
| i 22 Having accomplished that business it's 12:06, ,
| |
| 23 let's be back at 1:15.
| |
| 24 MR. DIGNAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That 25 June 22nd just kind of gave the Staff the shaft.
| |
| f}'
| |
| %- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I-l-
| |
| 1 448' f~)
| |
| \_/ 1 JUDGE BLOCH: They lost a day.
| |
| i 2 MR. DIGNAN: They lost' day. j l
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Does the Staff care? l 4 MR. BERRY: Every day helps, Your Honor. j 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Is June 23rd a weekday?
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: And then, Your Honor --
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Is June 23rd a weekday?
| |
| 8 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
| |
| 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So you have June 23rd. j 10 MR..DIGNAN: And the other date you should fix 11- under the reg I guess is the five days after the Staff j
| |
| )
| |
| 12 filing for the Applicant to file replies if it elects to.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Which is -- it could be June 28th.
| |
| (} 14 MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| JUDGE BLOCH:
| |
| The 28th and that's a weekday.
| |
| And you'll let us know promptly if 15 16 you're not going to reply?
| |
| 17 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, yes, I will.
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: It's 12:07, we will be back from i
| |
| 19 lunch at 1:15 sharp.
| |
| 20 (Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m. the hearing was recessed 21 to reconvene at 1:15 p.m. this same day, Wednesday, 22 May 3, 1989.)
| |
| 23 24 25 O
| |
| \/ Heritage Reporting Corporation i l
| |
| (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| f I
| |
| | |
| o l
| |
| v 449-ye) -
| |
| (.) . 1 AEIEBHQQH EEEE1QH .
| |
| 2 (1:15 p.m.)
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Good afternoon.
| |
| i 4 Mr. Jonas. !
| |
| 5 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, one other preliminary 6 matter before we get sterted. I'm not stalling. In fact, 7' we have'found the fourth. But I do want to make a couple.
| |
| 8 other corrections.
| |
| 9 I think to try to make the ground reflection issue l 10 complete and accurate in the record there were a couple of 11 changes that we would need to make to our direct testimony 12 in response to-the motion to strike.
| |
| 13 Page 12, the first full paragraph on that page ]
| |
| () 14' where it says: " Accounting for ground and building It should be: " Accounting for building 15 reflections."
| |
| (
| |
| '16 reflection." So what was " ground and building reflections,"
| |
| 17 should be " building reflection."
| |
| 18 MR. DIGNAN: So take out " ground and," and take l 19 the "s" off of reflections.
| |
| 20 MR. JONAS: Take the "s" off reflections.
| |
| 21 Three lines dewn at the beginning of the line: !
| |
| 22 " Reflection plus ground reflection," you should take out 23 "plus ground reflection." j 24 Ard then the next page, page 13, the first full 25 paragraph, ninth line dcyn into that paragraph the words Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| l l
| |
| l I
| |
| | |
| 450
| |
| () 1 "and no ground reflection" should-be taken out.
| |
| 2 JUDGE BLOCH: 'The "s" should be taken off ,
| |
| I 3- " building reflections." Just for consistency. You took it 4 off the other place.
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 5 MR. JONAS: Oh, fine. j
| |
| {
| |
| 6 Thank you.
| |
| 7 So it will be " building reflection, but calls on 8 the board and so on." I think that completes the response 9 to the motion to strike. With that I ask the Board to allow 10 Pamela Talbot to introduce our panel.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Certainly.
| |
| 12 MS. TALBOT: Thank you.
| |
| 13 (Panel takes witness table.)
| |
| 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Please remain standing for a second.
| |
| -(]}
| |
| 15 Whereupon, ;
| |
| 1 16 RUTH KANFER I
| |
| 17 KARL S. PEARSONS I 18 CHARLES B. PERROW 19 GREGORY C. TOCCI 20 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness 21 herein, and was examined and testified as follows:
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: Let the record reflect that all the l
| |
| l 23 witnesses answered in the affirmative.
| |
| 24 Welcome to the hearing.
| |
| 25 i l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l l l
| |
| | |
| l'
| |
| . KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 451-
| |
| .g f 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MS. TALBOT: J l
| |
| 3 Q Good afternoon, Panel.
| |
| 4 For the record, could each of you state your name 5 and occupation please?
| |
| 6 A (Tocci) Yes. My name is Gregory Tocci, I'm j 7 President of Cavanaugh Tocci Associates. I'm an acoustical 8 engineer. i 9 A (Kanfer) My name is Ruth Kanfer, I'm Assistant 10 Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota.-
| |
| f h 11 A (Pearsons) My name is Karl Pearsons and I'm an 12 acoustical consultant for Acentech, Incorporated.
| |
| 13 A (Perrow) Charles Perrow, I'm a Professor at Yale
| |
| (} 14 University, Sociology Department.
| |
| 15 Q Thank you.
| |
| 16 Panel, I believe each of you has in front of you a 17 copy of the corrected Massachusetts Attorney General direct 18 testimony regarding prompt alert and notification system 19 issues, dated May 3rd, 1988.
| |
| 20 Is that correct?
| |
| 21 A (Perrow) Yes. I 22- A (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| 23 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| :24 A (Tocci) Yes.
| |
| 25 Q Have you each reviewed this testimony? !
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l:
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 452
| |
| ( l' A -(Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 2 A (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| 3 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 4 A (Tocci) Yes, 5 Q To the best of your knowledge is this testimony 6 true and correct?
| |
| 7 A~ (Perrow) Yes, it is.
| |
| 8 A (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| 9 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 10 A (Tocci) I have a change.
| |
| 11 Q Certainly.
| |
| 12 A (Tocci) There were a number of changes made in my.
| |
| 13 testimony which have already been entered into the record.
| |
| (} 14 There is one additional change I would like to 15 make on page 10 of the testimony, part three, page 10.
| |
| 16 In view of Dr. Sutherland's testimony regarding 17 Appendix H which is a definition of the siren directivity, I 18 would like to strike the first paragraph on page 10 from my 19 testimony.
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: This is the paragraph that begins:
| |
| 21 "Moreover Attachment H?"
| |
| 22 THE WITNESS: (Tocci) I'm sorry, no.
| |
| 23 It begins: "The source of these data is not
| |
| ;24 explained."
| |
| 25 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, I see.
| |
| l.
| |
| f'\
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l 1
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 453
| |
| .g 1 s,) 1 JUDGE BLOCE: Could you -- now that I've read ths 2 paragraph, could you say what your reason is for striking it 3 again, so I can understand it better?
| |
| 4 THE WITNESS: (Tocci) Yes.
| |
| 5 Originally Appendix H was given to us but we had 6 no clear explanation as to where it came from. Where this 7 information came from.
| |
| 8 And so our response was that the presentation of 9 speaker directivity information should be on the basis of 10 standard presentation format defined by the American 11 National Standards Institute. .
| |
| 12 The testimony, as I understand, as it was gi;ven 13 earlier during these hearings was that a number of
| |
| (} 14 measurements were made at various distances from the siren 15 and at various heigPts. And that the data collected in 16 these measurements was interpolated and extrapolated in 17 order to come up with the matrix of sound pressure levels 18 chown in Attachment H.
| |
| 19 I feel that serves our purposes for analysis.
| |
| 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
| |
| 21 BY MS. TALBOT:
| |
| 22 Q Panel, with Mr. Tocci's correction having been 23 made, is this the testimony you wish to offer?
| |
| 24 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 25 A (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| O b/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 454 A
| |
| '\_) 1 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 2 A (Tocci) Yes. I 3 MS. TALBOT: Your Honor, at this point 4 Massachusetts Attorney General would offer into evidence the 5 corrected direct testimony, dated May 3rd, 1988.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you actually have a fully 7 conformed copy of that testimony to give to the reporter?
| |
| 8 MS. TALBOT: As we speak now, Your Honor, we will 9 any minute.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. Are there any objections?
| |
| 11 MR. DIGNAN: No objection, Your Honor.
| |
| 12 MR. BERRY: No objection from the Staff, Your 13 Honor. j
| |
| (~h 14 JUDGE BLOCH: There being none the testimony is V
| |
| 15 admitted and ordered to be bound into the transcript.
| |
| 16 (The corrected Massachusetts 17 Attorney General direct 18 testimony regarding prompt 19 alert and notification 20 system issues of panel 21 members: Ruth Kanfer; 22 Karl S. Pearsons; Charles 23 B. Perrow; and Gregory C.
| |
| 24 Tocci follows:)
| |
| 25 ,
| |
| 1 l (~\
| |
| ll Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 V
| |
| h' 455 L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
| |
| Peter Bloch, Chairman Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour
| |
| )
| |
| In the Matter of )
| |
| )
| |
| PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket 1k). (s)
| |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) On-site EP
| |
| ) May 3, 1989
| |
| )
| |
| CORRECTED MASS AG DIRECT TESTIMONY REGARDING PROMPT ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM ISSUES Eanel Members: Ruth Kanfer, Professor University of Minnesota Karl Ss Pearsons, Senior Consultant, Acentech, Inc.
| |
| Charles B. Perrow, Professor Yale University I Gregory C. Tocci, President, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates m,__r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - "
| |
| | |
| e 456 I. INTRODUCTION
| |
| ! l In its Memorandum and Order (Summary Disposition),
| |
| LBP-89-09, dated March 3, 1989, the Board ruled that a number of genuine issues of material fact with respect to the Applicants' VANS system remain for hearing. Pursuant to'the Board's scheduling order the Applicants filed their Direct Testimony on the remaining issues on April 3, 1989. The testimony of the Mass AG addresses the issues identified by the Board, as well as the Applicants' Direct Testimony.
| |
| Section II below addresses the questions designated by the Board as A.1-1 and A.1-2. Section III below addresses the questions designated by the Board as A.1-3 and A.1-4. Section IV below addresses the question designated by the Board as
| |
| [}
| |
| A.5-1. Section V below addresses the questions designated by the Board as A.5-3 and A.5-4.
| |
| II. 123 DBC LIMIT / DISCOMFORT STANDARD The Board in its Memorandum and Order at 9-10, found the following general issues of material fact:
| |
| A. 1-1 Whether sound levels in excess of 123 dBC cause l
| |
| enough discomfort so that the Board should not approve the use of sirens at a high level.of sound.
| |
| A. 1-2 If there is some level higher than 123 dBC that the Board should allow, what is that level?
| |
| l O
| |
| l 1.
| |
| | |
| f
| |
| (_)j 457 by taking the position '
| |
| The Applicants answer the questions the 123 dBC limit without that the VANS system meer1 i a) that This is based principally on two cla ms:
| |
| alteration. h that exposure will be the height of the siran speaker is isuc and would only briefly less than 123 dBC for normal operat on and b) the " discomfort" i
| |
| exceed 123 dBC'for 25 foot operat on; ditory fatigue or standard should be viewed in terms of auso viewed the output of temporary threshold shifts and when VANS sirens is acceptable. to the Board that The purpose here is to demonstrate is a separate l
| |
| discomfort due to excessive sound leve sr even hearing damag !
| |
| r^s phenomenon from auditory fatigue o discomfort and
| |
| ()
| |
| those levels.
| |
| NUREG-0654 uses the standard of dBC. There is substantial sets a timit of less than 123 level as an upper bound support for setting the limit at thatif no fatigue or damage .
| |
| of discomfort to individuals, even results. ffect people in a Sound levels of varying magnitude a se High levels of sound exposure can cau s, variety of ways. hifts, either immediately or l
| |
| l temporary and permanent threshold sat high enough exposu over a long period of time. f rt and create " tickle" or sound can also cause pain or discom o At lower levels sound can cause annoyance, Many
| |
| " feeling". and disturb sleep.
| |
| interfere with speech communication, depend both on the frequ l
| |
| of the effects of sounds on people 1
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| t content of the sound as well as their duration. However, 458 discomfort and pain do not depend on frequency within the frequency range from 200 to 2000 Hz, and are reported by
| |
| ~1bjects very soon after the onset of the sound.
| |
| Textbooks and articles discussing tolerance to sound have cited levels in the vicinity of 120 dBC as causing discomfort and 140 dBC as causing pain. Although these levels or even lower levels have been cited in many references,1# the levels 1/ References citing 140 dB or lower as thresholds for pain are:
| |
| L. Beranek, Acoustirs (New York: Acoustical Society of America, 1954, 1986)
| |
| L. Doelle, EDviIDDmantal Acqustics (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1972) (125 dB)
| |
| O
| |
| \/ M. Egan, Architectural Acoustics (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1988) (130dB)
| |
| {
| |
| R. Gales, " Hearing Characteristics, " Handbook of Noise Con _tInl, 2d Ed. ed. C. Harris (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. !
| |
| 1979)
| |
| T. Rossing, The_Srience of Sound (Reading, MA:
| |
| Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc. 1982) i A. Peterson and E. Gross, Jr., Handbook of Noise Me.aattisment, 7th Ed. (Concord, MA: General Radio, 1963,
| |
| .1967, 1972)
| |
| J. Sataloff and P. Michael, Hearina conservation (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1973)
| |
| References citing 120 dB or lower as thresholds for discomfort are:
| |
| Beranek (above) (110 dB)
| |
| P. Cheremisinoff and P. Cheremisinoff, Indutttial Noign CLQni cal _Ha ndbook (Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Publishers, Inc.,
| |
| rg 1977) (115 dB)
| |
| V (footnote continued)
| |
| | |
| l,,
| |
| 459 causing discomfort seem to be based mainly on a study conducted by Silverman, Harrison, and Lane, " Tolerance for Pure Tone and for Speech in Normal and Hard-of-Hearing Ears," (St. Louis:
| |
| Central Institute for the Deaf, OSRD Report 6303, 1946).
| |
| Silverman, et al., investigated tolerance levels for both pure tones and speech in individuals with normal and defective hearing. The study reported "three clearly distinguishable
| |
| -thresholds," identified as follows in the published article:
| |
| : 1. DiscDmfort thre.s.hnld, defined as the point at which the subject feels he would cease to listen because the stimulus was uncomfortable.
| |
| : 2. Ilc.kle thr.eshold, defined as the point at which the subject experiences a definite tickling sensation in the ear.
| |
| - 3. Pain _thigshold, defined.as.the point at which the subject experiences a definite sensation of sharp pain, as opposed to more discomfort deep in the ear.
| |
| Thresholds for discomfort, tickle, and pain, using pure ;
| |
| tone and speech, were determined over a 6-week period for 46 normal ears and 46 hard-of-hearing ears. A total of 16,000 observations were made during the course of the investigation.
| |
| Since the main focus of this review is discomfort, it is
| |
| ' footnote continued)
| |
| Gales (above)
| |
| K. Kryter, The Effects of Noise on Man, 1st Ed. and 2d Ed. I (Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. 1985)
| |
| A. Petterson and E. Gross, Jr. (above)
| |
| | |
| instrtictive 'to include the actual instructions given to the460 subjects as follows:
| |
| "You will hear a tone which will get louder and louder. Tell me when you reach the point where the tone is uncomfortable, that is, when you would no longer care to listen or when you feel like removing the earphone from your ear. When the uncomfortable point is reached, say.
| |
| ' uncomfortable' and I will shut off the tone.
| |
| We shall then repeat the procedure with another tone. Are you ready?"
| |
| The signals were presented as "an ascending staircase" with each level being 2 dB higher than the preceding one. The duration at each level was 1.5 seconds with no off time between successive levels.
| |
| Average discomfort threshold levels ranged from 110 dBC at the start of the tests to 122 dBC at the end of the final series. There is a slight frequency effect in that a minimum existod in the levels at 1400 to 4000 Hz which was 3 dB below the average at all frequencies tested. However, the levels around 500 Hz were well represented by the average values.
| |
| Thus, at the beginning of the 6-week test the threshold of discomfort was 110 dBU and at the end the average-threshold was i 120 dBC. Evidently, people changed their threshold by 10 dB after being exposed to high level sounds. Such an influence I was also observed within a test trial. For example, the entire test series was repeated during each test session and the average threshold of discomfort increased by as much as 8 dB in the repeated test. However, at the start of each weekly test
| |
| () !
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| () session the threshold of discomfort dropped from the final 461 value of the previous week's session.
| |
| In summary, the average discomfort level threshold, for people with normal hearing that are unaccustomed to high noise levels, is 110 dBC.for sounds lasting 1.5 seconds, the duration of the sounds under test. For individuals with a history of exposure to high noise levels, this threshold might be raised to 120 dBC. An average level for the threshold of discomfort is 115 dBC. This level is also approximately equal to the average discomfort level determined at the start of each weekly session. It should be pointed out that the 115 dBC threshold of discomfort level is an average level. The threshold of discomfort for some individuals would be higher than 115 dBC and lower for others.
| |
| One measure of the range of levels across subjects may be expressed as the standard deviation of the threshold levels obtained from the experiment. Unfortunately, values of the standard deviation of threshold levels were not reported by Silverman, et al. For audibility thresholds, a standard deviation of 6.5 dB has been observed for a 500 Hz tone (Dadson and King, "A Determination of the Normal Threshold of Hearing and its Relation to the Standardization of Audiometers,"
| |
| Journal of Larynaoloay vol. 66, page 366 (1952)). In a test to determine the threshold of " feeling", the standard deviation at 500 Hz can be calculated from reported levels (D. Lierle and S.
| |
| l
| |
| ()
| |
| a e
| |
| )'
| |
| Reger, " Threshold'of' Feeling in the Ear in Relation to Sound 62 ~
| |
| pressures," Arch. Otolaryng, 23:653 (June 1936)) to be 6 dB for 38 ears. Since the threshold of discomfort might exhibit a greater variation in levels, a standard deviation of 8 to 10 dB might be representative. If these values were characteristic of the distribution of threshold levels of discomfort about some average value, then an estimate can be made of the percentage of people whose threshold of disccmfort level would be exceeded by a 123 dBC tone at 550 Hz such as generated by a siren. .Thus, for'a 10 dB standard deviation, the percentage of people whose. threshold of discomfort would be exceeded would be 79%. Similarly, for an 8 dB standard deviation, the percentage of people whose threshold of discomfort would be exceeded would
| |
| - be 84%.
| |
| In conclusion, the 123 dBC level is already on the high side of the range of discomfort for most individuals. 'That
| |
| ' level represents a sound and appropriate standard.for discomfort and should be followed for the VANS sirens.A The actual sound levels likely to be received by members of the public from the VANS speakers is addressed below.
| |
| 2/ The Mass AG refers the Board to its brief on the relevance of discomfort for an analysis of the legal issues presented by application of the NUREG-0654 standard.
| |
| 1 1
| |
| (:) l
| |
| _.__--._____--_-.________m.-_.__2--__ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _____..____m. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ -_ _ - . - . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
| |
| | |
| a I*
| |
| I I) I'II. SOUND COVERAGE /123 dBC LIMIT 463 i
| |
| The Board, in its Memorandum and Order at 10, found the following two genuine issues of fact:
| |
| A.1-3. Whether Applicants sirens can provide adequate coverage if used at sound levels that are not unduly uncomfortable.
| |
| A.1-4. Whether Applicants' position on the sound level resulting from their sirens is an underestimate because of sound reflection from
| |
| -buildings.
| |
| The Applicants have attempted to address these issues in two ways. First, they claim that the vertical directivity pattern of each of the Whelan WS 4000 (Dual) Sirens is such-that no bystander could be exposed to sound greater than 123 dBC when the siren is raised to its full height (and would be minimally exposed at the 25 foot height). Ene Attachment H to 0- Applicants' Direct Testimony. Second, they also claim that while sound reflections from buildings could increase listener exposure by up to 6 dB, this possibility "is of very limited concern" and need not be considered "[f] rom a planning standpoint." Applicants' Direct Testimony at 16-17.
| |
| An analysis of these claims begins with a review of Attachment H to the Direct Testimony entitled " Contours of Constant C-Weighted Sound pressure Level at 550 Hz in Vertical plane Near Whelen WS 4000 (Dual) Siren Mounted 45 ft. Above the Ground". This figure presents a matrix of sound pressure levels at 5 foot height and 10 foot distance intervals.
| |
| () !
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| . l
| |
| () ~La avutce vi Linese dolo I: 70t capleined, but 'Pra'r 'f4 l be a th retical (or computer driven) estimat e Audio gk ,gg Engineering iety and American N al Standards Institute standards suggest
| |
| * Inition of' directivity patterns based on actual nd level m urements. Apparently, no such l 2__ = cmc.m t r ve re t a ken bor
| |
| ^ iscvvet, at t avinneni ii appea t a Lv 23nviu de yicu- -
| |
| reflec ion of siren sound. The effect of this r ection wauld i
| |
| be to inc ase siren sound levels by up to B at 5 feet above the ground s face (ear height) at som ocations and reduce jy sound levels at others to produce slightly fluctuating sound I
| |
| $3 level as one proce ds away fr the siren. This phenomenon hb would exist over sou r ective surfaces (including pavement, hard ground and sho g ass surfaces) likely to be predominant O in residential r populat areas. The phenomenon would not exist over ensely wooded or rough terrain (espec* ally with tall 9 sses or dense plant gr th) areas. In short, At chment H will underestimate s ind levels at ear height for cert i:. ccm:,cn cres Ly oo ;- uch ~ 2 4 At locations close to buildings, reflections of siren sound can also amplify sound levels by as much as 6dB. Sag i
| |
| Applicants' Direct Testimony at 16-17. The Applicants discount !
| |
| this as being "of very limited concern" because of the small l
| |
| area potentially effected and the supposed low probability that the recipient would be properly positioned or that necessary O ___ ___ _ _
| |
| | |
| .o .
| |
| i
| |
| ,m, atmospheric conditions would exist. In our view this discounting is not appropriate. In fact, increased sound levels due to building reflection can and will occur at a number of areas and under all atmospheric conditions. In particular, several VANS locations have residences between approximately 150 and 300 feet from the acoustic locations.
| |
| Those distances correspond to the highest sound levels for the listener, according to Attachment H.
| |
| The Applicants go on ,to point to 5 factors which could effect the actual amount of the building reflection increase.
| |
| Eee. Applicants' Direct Testimony at 17. What they fail to point out, as they should, is that under most circumstances there will be at least a 3dB amplification and under many g
| |
| (j circumstances the amplification would be even greater.
| |
| Applicants' factor (5) implies that many building surfaces are sound absorptive. But, in fact most building surfaces are highly sound reflective. With respect to Applicants' factor (3), the relative distances between siren, structura an.
| |
| l listener are important. Nevertheless, persons sittated in [
| |
| front of building surfaces having line of sight to a ciren will experience increased siren sound levels as a result of sound reflecting from building facades. When a siren is lined up perpendicular to a building facade, the area over which sound reflections cause the greatest amplification extends to a distance of approximately 1/2 of the shorter of the building l
| |
| | |
| t l
| |
| i I height or width. Therefore, for a 3* story building with a 466 l
| |
| -height of 30 feet and a width greater than 30 feet the area of i greatest amplification will extend to 15 feet from the 1
| |
| )
| |
| I building. In short, amplification due to building reflection l l
| |
| is not theoretical only and should be addressed by the Board. l Accounting for ;;;und end building reflections, siren sound levels in the vicinity of building surfaces having direct line G
| |
| 'J of sight to sirens would be 3 to 44B higher (building
| |
| . [E,Y
| |
| -h h[ reflection phs v;"ad scficct.lsa) than estimated based on data in Attachment H. If the speaker were at 25 feet above the ground, the sound levels received by members of the public 13 7 would actually be between 134 dBC and TSR dBC, presuming the ,
| |
| i s
| |
| accuracy of Attachment H in the absence of either type of reflection. If the speaker were at 50 feet, the sound levels received by members of the public would actually be between 125 IAT dBC andmESS dBC with the same presumption. put differently, siren sound levels at buildings would need to be shown in ll'?
| |
| Attachment H as less than 144 to 120 dBC (123 dBC at 5 feet 5
| |
| abovethegroundminus3tokdB) to ensure that the 123 dBC limit is not reached for any particular recipient exposed to siren sound reflections.
| |
| Assuming the siren speaker is at 50 feet above the ground, the siren sound level would need to be reduced by 3 to dB or 12 8 to TS4 to 131 dBC at 100 feet on axis. Assuming the speaker 1:
| |
| at 25 feet above the ground, the siren sound levels would need i
| |
| () - -
| |
| | |
| t .
| |
| l
| |
| : j. 14/ l.a.o 4'67 i d'
| |
| to oe reduced by 11 to M dB or to ' tis to 123 dBC at 100 fe857
| |
| $//$ .
| |
| on axis.
| |
| I This could lead to-the conclusion that siren sound output
| |
| - should be tailored to account for buildings at (and even their distances from) each VANS acoustic location. Obviously, this would pose significant problems for managing the system. In our view, a prudent conclusion would be to reduce the 100 feet on axis sound levels to 123 dBC for the VANS sirens. We believe that this conclusion is prudent because it accounts for less than maximum likely amplification associated with building reflections tmd ne g rc=d ref' _ L wus, but calls on the Board fe\lW[78l to assess sound levels at the 25 foot height which the j Applicants should build into their procedure for meeting the 15 1
| |
| minute design objective.
| |
| O The result of an 11 dB reduction from the 134 dBC level to l
| |
| I c-123 dBC level would be to reduce. coverage by approximately 63% using calculations consistent with WYLE RESEARCH REPORT WR I 88-9, Siren Ranging Model, dated April, 1988. The effect of this reduction is depicted for 60 dBC and 70 dBC siren sound contours in Appendices 9 and 10 to the Affidavit of Thomas G. Bouliane submitted along with the Answer of Massachusetts Attorney General in Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Amended Contention on Notification System, dated October 11, 1988. Copies are attached hereto, l
| |
| :O l 4
| |
| ____________m_______.
| |
| | |
| ~O: 1v. 02se^rca r ne<a18tvza. 8aaroxss
| |
| - o 4e8 In'its Memorandum and order at 20-21, the Board posed the-question: "Over years of plant operation, how likely is it that each of the VANS operators will be actually available and alert (emgt, not in the rest rooms, not away from post on !
| |
| break, not believing that the situation is a false alarm) at j the time an alert message is received?" The Board also noted j the " Applicants have misinterpreted the requirement for conservative calculations with respect to dispatch time." The Board questioned both whether the Applicants' repetitious calculations built in a practive bias and whether the tests themselves "where the operators were aware that they would be repeatedly called, are a fair prediction of what would actually j
| |
| () happen in an event with no forewarning." Mamarandum and orde.L at 20.
| |
| The Applicants' responses to these inquiries appear in Implementing Procedures 2.16, step-5.1.1 as well as pages 21-25 ,
| |
| of their Direct Testimony. Their attempt to ensure driver readiness takes the following forms:
| |
| (a) training of VANS operators in Ip 2.16 and
| |
| ' proper use of the equipment; (b) requiring VANS operators to perform daily non-emergency actions; j (c) 24 hour staffing with shifts of one supervisor, twenty primary VANS operators, and I four backup VANS operators; !
| |
| \
| |
| | |
| l s
| |
| (^')
| |
| (d) a rule that VANS operators are not to leave 469 their duty station until relieved; (e) priori tized dispatch; and (f) the VACS system. !
| |
| i Notwithstanding the actions taken by the Applicants, the problems alluded to by the Board, as well as similar problems, are real and likely to occur over time. The fundamental issue y is that the job of VANS operator is an excessively boring one.
| |
| Individuals, in similar job circumstances to those here, typically find ways to alleviate their boredom which may well conflict with the objectives of the job. In this case those I objectives are to be alert and ready to respond in a timely way. What makes this job particularly problematic is that its most significant function and indeed its very reason for.being C is to respond to a single signal which has a very low J
| |
| 1 likelihood of occurence. In other words, job performance is ultimately measured by the capacity to respond in a timely fashion to an event of extremely low probability.
| |
| This kind of issue has been studied before in different circumstances. Research on vigilance indicates that attention level declines over time in monotonous, monitoring tasks. For example, Bakan found that persons performing a vigilance task were unable to sustain continuous task concentration despite high motivation. (P. Bakan "An Analysis of Retrospective Reports Following An Auditory Vigilance Task," Viailantel__A SXm29sium, ed. D.N. Buckner, J.J. McGrath (1963)) In this
| |
| (~)'
| |
| u 1
| |
| | |
| i 4 70 \
| |
| study, over two-thirds of the participants reported lapses 1q]0 attention and making active attempts to combat drowsiness even when highly motivated to perform the task well. These results, cbtained in a brief vigilance task involving signal presentations at a much more frequenc rate than that presumed to occur for VANS operators, suggest that VANS operators will engage in activities to counteract boredom with varying degrees of success (e.g. telephone calls, going outside of the staging area, leaving the area altogether). As Bakan indicates, there are substantial individual differences in ability to sustain i alertness over time in a monitoring task.
| |
| The manifestations of this boredom are likely to be absenteeism problems, engaging in non work-related activities, i e'% including leaving the staging areas for extended periods of l k/
| |
| l time for activities which are not work-related. Over time, the l
| |
| routine, repetitive nature of the VANS operators daily duties are likely tc result in a reduced desire to attend work relative to the desire to engage in non work activities.
| |
| Motivation to attend work, motivation to arrive at work on time and motivation to conduct work-related activities only is likely to dealine over time relative to the motivation to engage in other activities.
| |
| This is complicated and becomes more problematic because of two additional factors. First, there is a single VANS supervisor who is obviously not capable of effectively
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| ' ,- 47/
| |
| kJ overseeina the VANS operators for this kind of problem. ThiS71
| |
| ~
| |
| limitation on surveillance makes it more likely that off-site activities will occur. Second, the low probability of emergency action translates into e low perceived probability that engaging in non work-related activities will result in negative consequences. Self regulation - in which the VANS operators would forego an immediate pleasing or personally important activity in favor of a long term positive outcome -
| |
| is substantially weakened when the likelihood that an em" "ency wi'' occur is extremely low. In addition, the extremely luw probability occurrence of a true emergency means that VANS operators may perceive the signal as a false alarm if it does occur, since they have come to expect that such a signal is not
| |
| (} likely to occur. In short the boredom of this job coupled with the other factors mentioned above make it unrealistic to expect dispatch times over the life of the VANS system to be consistent with the tested dispatch times presented by the Applicants.
| |
| The steps taken by the Applicants will be effective in only limited respects. First, the training of VANS operators in implementing procedures and the proper use of equipment is procedural and cognitive, testing abilities and skills, and is not motivational. In short, it will do nothing to solve these problems. Second, requiring VAKS operators to perform daily non emergency actions is helpful. However, the actions as I
| |
| l
| |
| \ (~ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| l V72
| |
| ,O described in Implementing procedure 2.16 appear to be limitedr7:2 in rciation to the total shift time of eight hours and will do little over the life of the system to mitigate these problems. l Third, the 24-hour staffing, prioritized dispatch and -
| |
| sophisticated communication system are effective only to the extent that VANS operators remain at the stagistg areas. They' will help to achieve a dispatch time consistent with the Applicants estimate if the VANS operators can be reached by the communications system or can return within 5 minutes (for purposes of a prioritized dispatch). These steps do nothing for VANS operators who come into work late or leave the site s during the course of their work, both likely events over the life of the system, as suggested by the Board. Moreover, the-assumed Sispatch time of 40 seconds is so limited (and in some
| |
| () respects speculative because the staging areas have not been built) that it-is doubtful the communications system or the prioritized dispatch will ensure compliance. For example, the prioritized dispatch itself proceeds from the hopeful asumption that not only are all operators at the staging area but all but one operator is in a position to respond immediately. Finally,'
| |
| the Applicants rely on the apparently barren rule that VANS
| |
| . operators remain at the station until they are relieved. It is well settled based on a number of studies of similar jobs that recognized negative consequences of breaking that rule aids compliance. Nothing filed by the Applicants suggests that that would be the case.
| |
| (:) f l
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| /"}
| |
| (s V. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT 473
| |
| \
| |
| The Board noted that the " Applicants conclusion that they j can complete initial notification in the non-winter months in 14 minutes and 50 seconds does not permit any accommodation for l EBS or other instructional messages." Memorandum and Order at 1
| |
| : 23. The Board goes on to say "there is a genuine issue of fact concerning how much time ould be added for this notification function," and significantly notes that a person must hear the signal before tuning in, not all will hear it at the same time. ,
| |
| not all will tune in their radio immediately, or tune in at the beginning of a broadcast. As the Board notes, the " question is apparently not simple." Id.
| |
| The Applicants hope to satisfy this concern by simultaneous activation of the sirens and the EBS broadcast.
| |
| Applicants' Direct Testimony at 30-31. They imply that the time to read the EBS message should not " count" for purposes of the 15 minute requirement because of the simultaneous broadcast.
| |
| While the procedure of simultaneous activation, three plays of the initial message plus additional repetitions at 15 minute intervals is acceptable, the conclusion the Toplicants draw from it, in terms of the 15 minute requirement, is not. The substance of the requirement is to provide an alert signal and an informational and instructional message within 15 minutes.
| |
| Egg NUREG-0654 at 3-3. Under their scheme, the Applicants assume that the population is ready at hand to hear the siren, 7-
| |
| \ !
| |
| i
| |
| !\
| |
| | |
| 4/79
| |
| () interoret its meaning, has immediate access to a working rad 9dI, immediately tunes in to hear the message and hears a full EBS a
| |
| message. This is all supposed to occur for the Massachusetts EpZ population within the three minute alert signal period. It cannot happen.
| |
| As an initial matter, unless three of the four conditions l occur immediately, an obviously impossible event for all of the population, the population which quickly tunes into the EBS station will do so into the first run of the message, since anyone tuning in after the siren has started will not hear the first full message. The next repetition will not end until at 1 cast one minute after the siren sounding is complete, assuming 2 minute EDS messages, as the Applicants do. Therefore, except
| |
| ,s for the proportion of the population listening to the EBS i
| |
| stations at the time of siren activation, notification will not be complete for members of the population until at least 1 minute after the siren sounding is complete. In fact, an analysis of the four conditions listed above leads to the conlusion that the notification process for a substantial portion of the population will not be complete until after that. It should be noted that these are four conditions that must obtain for the Applicants system to succeed in the time they set forth. One can legitimately question all four, and any one of them can significantly postpone notification for a substantial portion of the population.
| |
| O -2o-
| |
| | |
| 1 I
| |
| I Taking each in turn, the first question is whether the sirens will actually be heard. Examples of potential problems are limitless. They all stem from the fact that substantial I
| |
| numbers of the population will be in settings where the siren sound will not reach immediately.
| |
| 1 Take the example of two elderly people living a few hundred yards from Unit 2 at Three Mile Island, during the emergency there. They had to sleep in shifts, one awake, the other i
| |
| asleep, because they could not be sure that the plant siren would wake them up. (Edward Walsh, Democracy in the Shadows; Citizen Mobilization in the Wake of the Accident at Three Mile Island, Westport, dreenwood press, 1988, p. 43. This chapter details the unexpected interactions of small failures during the emergency evacuation.)
| |
| (
| |
| The second question is whether the signal will be interpreted correctly. A good deal of psychological research has demonstrated that people place stimuli such as a siren or a warning into a context or " frame;" and the frame, not the signal, determines whether it will be interpreted correctly, or even attended to.
| |
| This is particularly true for novel, unexpected and potentially ambiguous signals. (See the collection of articles in Daniel Kahneman, paul Slovic and Amos Tversky, Judgement under Uncertainty; Heuristics and biases, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1982.)
| |
| This particular problem is compounded by the fact that residents will likely have experience hearing other sirens n
| |
| (_) 1
| |
| | |
| 6 f~)
| |
| i s_-
| |
| (police, fire engine, ambulance, noon siren, air raid tests /.76 The nuclear plant siren is a relatively long one and it is reasonable to expect that those who hear it will eventually.
| |
| distinguish it from others. The point is that one of the means of doing so is the length of the signal. This means that one ,
| |
| I can expect a substantial portion of the population to properly !
| |
| interpret the signal (and take the necessary subsequent actions), well into (or even after the completion of) the siren.
| |
| A question related to that of interpretation is whether the population will act appropriately once the siren is recognized i
| |
| for what it is. It is assumed that the Applicants' public information calendar is completely distributed. The problem is that, particularly over the life of the Seabrook plant, much of t'3 the population will forget what to do upon hearing the sirens V
| |
| and will long since have forgotten where the emergency information is.
| |
| Next, there is the question of whether the persons hearing ,
| |
| the siren have immediate access to a radio. Activities in the area are likely to have many residents away from the house, and most certainly more than an armlength from the radio. If they l get back to the house and tune in the radio just three minutes after the siren finishes, they will have missed all three j initial broadcasts of the message. Access to the radio (assuming that every necessary radio is working) must be virtually instantaneous to stay within the 15 minute period f
| |
| 5, - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _
| |
| | |
| '()- under the Applicants' assumptions. Ironically, the Applicants 477 )
| |
| j I
| |
| allow for VANS operators occasionally to be " indisposed," but I l
| |
| never for the public to be so.
| |
| Compounding the problematical nature of these steps is the presence of anxiety, fear or panic. Under time pressures that people would be very aware of, we can expect strong psychological reactions that have counter productive consequences. The literature on stress is clear on that, and more limited literature on the role of time pressures in carrying out tasks or making decisions, also suggests that decisions and abilities decay under these pressures.
| |
| Under the stress of an emergency, the consequences for decision making by the citizens could be substantial, given the
| |
| () degradation of decision quality under time pressure reported in the literature. (E.g., Dan Zakay and Stuart Wooler, " Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness," Eraonomics, 1984, vol. 27, no. 3, 273-84, who cite six studies to the effect.that "under stress, cognitive functioning and decision-making processes deteriorate." Page 275). Time pressures in particular result in suboptimal decision making, and can even remove the advantage of training, as is indicated by three additional studies (cited by Zakey and Wooler. Egg alan the review by Paul Slovic, " Judgment and decision making in emergency situations," Eugene, Ore., Decision Research, l February 1988 who cites an additional six studies on time pressures and the decay in optimal decision making.)
| |
| _ -- __ - - - o
| |
| | |
| 9
| |
| ,m k_) The reason for this concern is that unusual stimuli are 478 inherently ambiguous. Sirens are rare, but also used for diverse things, making their meaning on the rare occasion they are heard ambiguous. An emergency sounding may be perceived as "just a test." Even if recognized as emanating from a Seabrook siren the Applicants assume that every message will be interpreted immediately and correctly. If it is acknowledged that there might be errors in the operation of the plant, it should be acknowledged that an untrained population two or ten or twenty years into Seabrook's operation might make errors regarding the sirens. No matter how tighly run nuclear plants may be, daily life is full of errors and delays and misunderstandings. This is particularly evident when '
| |
| 4} unexpected and unfamiliar events occur, and most particularly l when they raise expectations of danger.
| |
| As can be seen, none of this is capable of precise quantification. It does, however, support the conclusion that a substantial portion of the population will not hear a full EBS message during the siren activation. The Applicants' conclusions, therefore, are erroneous. We suggest that the most prudent way to calculate the time to complete the initial notification is to assume that notification is completed when the initial series of three EBS messages, with at least one full message broadcast after the siren activation is completed, ,
| |
| ceases.
| |
| c-(_s/ 1
| |
| )
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 479-
| |
| '( ) 1 MS. TALBOT:. Thank you, Your Honor.
| |
| 2 One more item, Your Honor, there was an attachment 3 to the' testimony in the form of two maps. And I would like 4 to also get those maps into evidence through Mr. Tocci.
| |
| 5 BY MS. TALBOT:
| |
| 6 Q Mr. Tocci, I believe you have before you two maps 7 designated as 60 dB and 70 dB respectively.
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: .May I ask for a second. There was a 9 stipulation yesterday that the coverage would not be 10 -complete if the --
| |
| l 11 151. DIGNAN: Sirens were rated at 123 dBC, 100 12 feet in the access of the siren.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: So the question is whether you still
| |
| . 14 need the maps?
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: As I recall what happened yesterday, 16 Mr. Sutherland was not prepared to answer either the direct 17 question about what percentage of coverage would exist if 18 you lowered the decibel level. Or whether these maps were-19 in fact accurate. And that is what led to that offered 20 stipulation.
| |
| 21 Our witnesses are prepared to testify that they 22 are accurate estimations of what the effect on coverage l 23 would be. !
| |
| i 24 JUDGE BLOCH: We can do that. But the stipulation
| |
| {
| |
| 25 was, it would not be adequate. I think that's all you're
| |
| 'k ) Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 480 L 1 trying to prove.
| |
| 2 MR. JONAS: That is certainly the sum of what 3 we're trying to prove. We're trying to put a little more 4 precise information in front of the Board. We do think it's 5 relevant.
| |
| 6 I know that the Applicants don't debate that if 7 they have to go down to that level they won't have adequate 8 coverage. .But I wanted to put more precise information in 9 front of the Board.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: 'But we have nothing before us that 11 would allow us to reduce the volume of the sirens at all.
| |
| 12 So if you want to put it in, it feels redundant to 13 me, but I won't. object without the parties objecting. But
| |
| ( (} 14 it just seems like a waste of time.
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: Is there any. objection from the 16 parties?
| |
| 17 MR. DIGNAN: I assume you're representing to me 18 that Mr. Tocci would identify them as his firm's work and 19 that he was prepared to defend them. On that basis I have 20 no objection.
| |
| 21 MR. JONAS: Then why don't we just -- can we have 22 those marked Mass AG A-1 and A-2.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: They may be so marked.
| |
| 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
| |
| (
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| i KANFER, et al., PANEL - DIRECT 481
| |
| ,~ .
| |
| 1 (The document referred 2 to was marked for i
| |
| 3 identification as i 4 Mass AG Exhibit A-1 5 and A-2,)
| |
| 6 MS. TALBOT: Thank you, Your Honor.
| |
| 7' MR. DIGNAN: Which is which?
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Which is which, yes.
| |
| 9 MR. JONAS: We'll do 60 dB A-1; and 70 dB A-2.
| |
| 10 JUDGE HARBOUR: They are also identified in the 11 caption box of Appendix 9 and Appendix 10.
| |
| i 12 MS. TALBOT: That's correct, Your Honor.
| |
| 13 Those, I believe, had been predesignated when we i
| |
| {} 14 received them as Appendix 9 and 10.
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: The one that's marked Appendix 9, 60 16 dB contours would be A-1. And the one that's marked 17 Appendix 10, 70 dB contours would be A-2, 18 JUDGE HARBOUR: Might I inquire as to whether 19 there's anything other than the protective order that 20 results in the proprietary informat3 m designation on 21 Massachusetts Attorney General's Exhibit A-17 22 MR. JONAS: There is nothing proprietary from the 23 Mass AG's point of view. That proprietary information stamp 24 came from^the map that that is a copy of; and that 25 underlying map came from the Applicants. So I think the i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 ]
| |
| 1 1
| |
| I J
| |
| l i
| |
| u________________ - _ . . -
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| .KANFER, et al.f. PANEL - DIRECT 482 1 question-is better directed --
| |
| 2 MR. DIGNAN: My understanding is the proprietary I 3 stamp got on the map because they disclosed the acousticel 4 locations. And so it was to protect -- the lifting of the 5 protective order lifts any obligation anybody has to it.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Just to clarf.fy this, I would like i
| |
| 7 that word " proprietary" struck in the copy of the j 8 transcript.
| |
| 9 MR. JONAS: Fine.
| |
| 10 'With that the panel is available for cross-11 examination. j 12 JUDGE BLOCH: I didn't rule on the admissibility. !
| |
| 13 MR. DIGNAM: I didn't think. ,
| |
| 14 JUDGE BLOCH: You moved that they be admitted?
| |
| }
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: Is there any objections?
| |
| 16 MR.-DIGNAN: No objection to the map. No 17 objection to the testimony.
| |
| 18 MR. BERRY: None from the Staff, Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: The testimony I already bound, I 20 think. The map may now also be admitted, but given its bulk 21 it may be kept as an exhibit rather than being bound in.
| |
| 22 23 24 i 25 O' .
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PAhEL - CROSS 483 I) 1 (The document referred 2 to, having been previously 3 marked for identification 4 as Mass AG Exhibits A-1 5 and A-2, were received 6 in evidence.)
| |
| 7 MR. JONAS: Thank you.
| |
| 8 Now I think the panel is available for cross.
| |
| 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 11 Q Dr. Kanfer, gentlemen, my name is Tom Dignan, I am 12 one of the counsel for the Applicants in this proceeding.
| |
| 13 I would like to_begin.this cross-examination by
| |
| [} 14 15-referring to section 2 of the testimony, pages two through eight. )
| |
| b 16 It's my understanding, Mr. Pearsons, that you were k 17 primarily responsible for that testimony; is that correct, 18 sir?
| |
| i 19 A (Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| 20 Q And, Mr. Tocci, I have been advised that possibly I 21 you would have some contributions in this area.
| |
| 22 I will direct my questions to Mr. Pearsons, but if 23 at any time you feel you want to add something to an answer, 24 please feel free to do so.
| |
| 25 A (Tocci) Yes. {
| |
| J
| |
| )
| |
| O Horitage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| KANFER,,et al., PANEL - CROSS 484 '
| |
| )
| |
| ,() 1 Q- The second thing, I should tell you all.I'am not
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 technically trained. Before I got into'this business I-was 1
| |
| 3 a philosophy major. If I misuse a technical term, I hope 4 you will all help me out by pointing out to me that I have 5 misused it. If I ask a question that is unclear to you 6 technically, please feel free to stop me right there and' ]
| |
| 4 1
| |
| 7 straighten me out. 1 8 Now, looking at overall section 2, Mr. Pearsons, 9 as-I understand the thrust of this testimony it is that the 10 123 dB level, which is referenced in NUREG-0654 is on the 11 high side of discomfort for most individuals.
| |
| 12 And that this testimony is based in large part on 13 the work of Dr. Silverman that we have discussed earlier in 14 this proceeding.
| |
| 15 Is that correct?
| |
| 16 A (Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| 17 Q Do you have a copy with you of the Silverman 18 article?
| |
| : 19. A (Pearsons) Yes, I do.
| |
| 20 Q Could you get it out, it might facilitate things.
| |
| 21 And this is an article, the first page of which I 22 guess is page 658 in a larger publication?
| |
| 23 A -(Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| {
| |
| 24 Q Now, could you turn please to page five of your 25 direct testimony, sir.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 485
| |
| :lsr%) 1 And on page five you purport to quote the 2 definition of the discomfort threshold that Dr. Silverman 3 used; is that correct?
| |
| 4 A '(Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| 5 Q You left a couple of words out, didn't you?
| |
| 6 A (Pearsons) If I did it was not intentional.
| |
| 7 Q I assumed 30 wasn't. But what does appear in the 8 definition as it's eet forth at page 660 in his article is 9 the words "to care" appear just before the words "to 10 listen."
| |
| 11 Isn't that correct?
| |
| 12 A (Pearsons) That's. correct.
| |
| 13 You've got me.
| |
| 14 Q No, I'm not trying to catch you. Because I knew 15 it was inadvertent because subsequently you quote the 16 instructions and you left the "to care" in there. But it ;
| |
| 17 was important for me to get that in. I 18 Now, on page six you accurately quote the 19 instructions to the subject with the "to care" language in, j 20 And my question to you here is, using a definition as 21 defining it as the point at which the subject feels he would 22 cease to care to listen because the stimulus 23 was uncomfortable, is it fair for me in layman's terms to 24 assume that thic is a somewhat subjective standard that the 1
| |
| 25 subje't is being given to apply?
| |
| O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| | |
| 1 s-I KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 486 l )' 1 A (Pearsons) Yes, it is subjective.
| |
| 2~ Q Now, on the first page of this Silverman article 3 -there'is a footnote that says and I quote: "This paper is 4' an abstract of OSRD report number 6303, 31 July 1946.
| |
| 5- Completed under a contract between the Office of Scientific 6 Research and Development in the Central Institute for the 7 Deaf." Then it goes on to.give the title of the original 8 report, this article being an abstract of it.
| |
| 9 And my question to you is, have you got a copy of 10 the original report?
| |
| 11 A (Pearsons) I was not able to get a copy, no.
| |
| 12 Q Have you ever read it?
| |
| 13 A (Pearsons) No.
| |
| 14 Q I fortunately have been able to get a copy.
| |
| [
| |
| 15 MR. DIGNAN: I think I have copies for everyone.
| |
| 16 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 17 Q I will represent to you, Mr. Pearsons, that Dr.
| |
| 18 Silverman himself has advised me that that is the original 19 article. But I wish you would take a moment to look at the 20 document I put to you and see if you can satisfy yourself 21 that this is the original report of which the -- what we 22 have been referring to as the Silverman article'~as an 23 anstract. And take all the time you need to do that, sir.
| |
| 24 (Document proffered to panel.)
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Is he also going to need to have l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 487
| |
| 'l some knowledge in-depth of the article -- of this original?
| |
| 2 MR. DIGNAN: I don't believe so.
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Just to verify that it is in fact 4 the original from.which'the article was taken.
| |
| 5 (Pause) 6 THE WITNESS: (Pearsons) It appears to be that 7 article, yes.
| |
| I 8 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, sir.
| |
| 9 Your Honor, at this time I would like to simply 10 mark it-for identification so we'll all know what we're
| |
| : 11. talking-about. And this will be, I believe, Applicants' 12 . Exhibit 12 for identification with Your Honor's permission.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: It may be so marked.
| |
| (} 14 (The document referred .
| |
| .15 to was marked for 16 identification as 17 Applicants' Exhibit 12.)
| |
| 18 ~ JUDGE HARBOUR: Applicants' 12.
| |
| 19 MR. DIGNAN: Applicants' 12, yes. j j
| |
| 20 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 21 Q Mr. Pearsons, would you be kind enough to turn 22 with me to page 92 of what we have marked as Applicants' 12 23 for identification.
| |
| 24 And I would like to respectfully direct your l l
| |
| 25 attention to the fourth paragraph thereof which I will read L
| |
| l>
| |
| Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _.____._m__.__._.m____
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 488 ]
| |
| r~
| |
| l( 1 into the' record at this time. And before you answer any l
| |
| 2 _ questions, please feel free to look to the entire context l 3 because I want'you to be comfortable that you have it in j 4 context.
| |
| 5 But let'me read this into the record and then I'll 6 have a' couple of' questions.
| |
| 7 That paragraph reads: "Furthermore, the curves in 8 figure 43 suggest that the discomfort threshold is limited 9 by the tickle threshold which shows relatively little.
| |
| 10 elevation with any of our procedures. It will be recalled 11 that the tickle sensation for speech is definite and 12 persistent." And then this is in emphasis in the original:
| |
| 13 "The tickle. threshold seems to be a " biological constant" 14 which is approached but never exceeded by the discomfort-
| |
| _/}.
| |
| 15 threshold. Again, the mean of the asymptotes of the tickle 16 threshold'for both of the new procedures combined is 133.6 17~ dB, which is almost precisely the value obtained as a result 18 of the original testing procedure. Dispersion for any of 19 the end points of the tickle threshold could not be computed 20 because of many values lying beyond the limits of the 21 apparatus."
| |
| 22 Now my question, sir, is this. Concentrating in j 23 particular on the sentence of the paragraph that begins "The 24 tickle threshold," which is set out with emphasis, to a 25 layman the thought that was being conveyed was that while l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| ~ _ . _ . _ -_____m_.-__:_--__m- __
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 489 llh 1 for a given individual the discomfort level would be 2 subjective, as you indicated previously, the tickle level 3 would probably be a more objective standard for a given 4 subject.
| |
| 5 Am I correctly understanding Dr. Silverman in so 6 stating?
| |
| 7 A (Pearsons) I believe that's correct. ,
| |
| 8 Q Incidentally, and it may be more convenient for 9 you to look at page 665 of the shorter version of the i
| |
| 10 article, because that's where I got the information from 11 originally at least.
| |
| 12 As I read the graph on that page, Dr. Silverman 13 finds that the tickle range on normal ears seems to lie at, 14 begin at around 135 decibels and run up from there.
| |
| ggg 15 Have I correctly read that graph?
| |
| 16 A (Pearsons) I'm sorry, could you say -- I see the 17 135 at the start of the test.
| |
| 18 Q Yes. And that's the beginning, as I understand 19 this graph that's telling us that his experiment showed that 20 was the mean cf .lere tickle began to show up and that it 21 runs up there. So that the lower level of the tickle 22 threshold based on mean data was 135 dB.
| |
| 23 Do I correctly understand him saying that, in that 24 graph?
| |
| 25 A (Pearsons) That's right.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| . 1 KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 490 j) 1. JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan,'I don't know if~it 2 matters. I would be'less confused'if you called these
| |
| '? psychological and physiological. because they're all q 4 subjective. They have to do with the-individual. .
| |
| 5 But.if you want to use subjective-and objective,
| |
| -6 it's okay. It just sounds to me like the only difference 7 is,Eit's always'within the person.
| |
| 8 MR. DIGNAN: It's always within the. person but the 9 distinction I'm trying to draw, Your Honor, and I will take 10 any terminology one wants, is that if you ask me to tell you 11 when I care to cease cross-examining, that probably is right 12 now. I'd rather go have a martini, 13 If you ask me an objective question which is, when 14' ,do you think you got the job done, that's a much.more
| |
| : 16. objective judgment for me to make. That's my only point.
| |
| 16 JUDGE BLOCH: I hope that clarifies.
| |
| 17 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor's terms would be, what?
| |
| 18 Because if it's.one thing I learned --
| |
| l 19 JUDGE BLOCH: I call it psychological because it's 20 subjective.
| |
| 21 MR. DIGNAN: Psychological. And what was the k
| |
| 22 other one?-
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: The other one I call physiological.
| |
| 24 MR. DIGNAN: Physiological.
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: And therefore it's more constant. l l
| |
| l l
| |
| O omica. -,-u.e co- eun.
| |
| (202) 628-4888 o
| |
| u
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 491
| |
| 'O
| |
| (_) 1 There appears to be something about the structure lof the i 2 nerves.
| |
| 3 MR. DIGNAN: I told you when we started, I'm not 4 technically trained.
| |
| 5 JUDGE BLOCH: That's okay, i
| |
| 6 MR. DIGNAN: Subjective and objective they taught 7 me in law school.
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought this was philosophy.
| |
| 9 (Laughter) '
| |
| 10 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 11 Q Now again, Mr. Pearsons, you point out at page 12 seven of your testimony that the Silverman data shows the 13 average discomfort level threshold for people with normal 14 hearing as 110 decibels; is that correct?
| |
| (}
| |
| 15 This is at the top of the page? For sounds 16 lasting 1.5 seconds.
| |
| 17 A (Pearsons) And also for those unaccustomed to 18 high noise, yes.
| |
| 19 Q Now in the Silverman's study the version that we 20 have marked as Applicants' Exhibit 12 for identification, if 21 you would turn to page 31 of that document with me.
| |
| 22 THE WITNESS: (Tocci) Excuse me, sir.
| |
| 23 Would it be possible for me to have a copy of that )
| |
| 1 24 document as well.
| |
| 25 MR. DIGNAN: Certainly. j l
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| n KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 492 f(% ). 1 (Document proffered to witness.)
| |
| 2 THE WITNESS: (Tocci) Thank you.
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: You might want to share it because 4 otherwise the other people will get very bored.
| |
| 5 6
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9' 10 l 11 1
| |
| t 12 l
| |
| 13 O 4
| |
| } 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| a : - .
| |
| _._______1_____1__.__
| |
| | |
| KANFER,'et al., PANEL - CROSS 493 1- BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 2 Q On tha' 3 age 31 there is a Table-6. And my 3 understanding of-_aw I read that table, it shows me in the 4 left-hand two columns the' initial and final levels at which 5 discomfort was felt. And I understand these to be the mean 6 'of all frequencies for the individual subjects.
| |
| 7 And am I correct in understanding that this table 8 tells.me that for some of his subjects the discomfort level 9 was as low as 95.8 decibels for one year?
| |
| 10 And I'm looking at the entry next to H.T. and 11 right ear. I 12 A (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| 13 Q And, indeed, that some, as one would expect since 3
| |
| 14 we were dealing in means all the way, in the cas e of some i w l 15 eight of the 16 normal ears he did tests with, the threshold 16 was below the 110 figure; is that correct?
| |
| 17 A (Pearsons)- That's correct.
| |
| 18 Q Now we had some testimony yesterday to the.effect.
| |
| 19 that if'the Silverman experiments instead of being conducted 20 as they were with earphones, were conducted in what I gather 21 you experts refer to as the free field, the various levels 22 would on average be five decibels lower for thresholds than 23 that ascertained with earphones.
| |
| i 24 Do you agree with that basic rule? )
| |
| 25 A (Pearsons) It could be that order. I wouldn't
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| w_ _ _ - - _
| |
| | |
| i' KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 494
| |
| ( 11 exactly assign that value to it, but I don't have 2 .necessarily.a better one.
| |
| '3- Q Let me ask you this. In any event, it would be jl i
| |
| 4 lower?
| |
| 5 A (Pearsons) It would be lower or the same, yes.
| |
| 6 Q -Yes, okay.
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: I notice on this cable that the 8- tickle threshold actually goes up after you are exposed. So 9- I don't know what that say1 about what we were talkirg about 10 before. It starts out at a lower level than after you are 11 exposed.
| |
| 12 MR. DIGNAN: I don't follow, Your Honor.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: The tickle threshold changes with
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 exposure when you are not naive.
| |
| 15 MR. DIGNAN: This is on Table 67 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes.
| |
| ~
| |
| 17 MR. DIGNAN: Those are individual subjects, Your 18 Honor.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: For every one of them the tickle 7
| |
| 20 threshold went up.
| |
| 21 MR. DIGNAN: I'm not following. But then again as 22 I said, I'm not technically trained.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, as I read th; table, the 24 initial tickle threshold for H.L. is 120.8, and the final 25 was 143.4. And for every one of the other subjects, it Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ll l'
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 495 lI .1 also goes up from initial to final.
| |
| 2 Is that correct, sir?
| |
| 3_ THE WITNESS: (Pearsons) Yes, that's correct.
| |
| 4 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 5 Q That means that on the final test the tickle 6 thre.nhold had been raised to 143 from 120.8 for the subject 7 H.L in the right ear?
| |
| 8 A (Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| 9 Q Okay. And, of course, the discomfort level showed 10 the same phenomena?
| |
| I 11 A (Pearsons) There was an increase also, yes. !
| |
| 12 Q Now keeping in mind, as you have indicatede that 13 in the free field the levels Dr. Silverman would have found
| |
| (} 14 would be the same or lower, and assuming that one was
| |
| .15 familiar with and correctly comprehended the Silverman data, 16 one.would indeed be hard pressed in my mind to describe the 17 sound pressure level of 123 dB as "the level which may cause 18 discomfort to individucis".
| |
| 19 Would you agree?
| |
| 20 A (Pearsons) Perhaps I don't understand the 21 question.
| |
| 22 O Well, if the Silverman data shows discomfort 23 caused at as low a level as 95.8, and if one is making the 24 assertion or looking for the decibel level which is the l 25 lowest level which might cause discomfort to individuals, Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| o i KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS .
| |
| 196 k 1. one would'not pick 123 dB if they were familiar with the j 2 Silverman data, would they? j 3 A (Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| 4 Q Because according to Silverman a level of as low 5 as'95.8 would cause discomfort at-least to one individual he 6 tested; is'that right?
| |
| 7 A (Pearsons) That's what is stated in Table 6, yes.
| |
| 8' Q Now, if everybody'will be patient with me while I 9 do some math.
| |
| 10 ,
| |
| (Pause . )
| |
| i l
| |
| 11 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 12 Q If you will accept my calculation that 95.8 13 number, if translated to 96, is 27 decibels below 123, do we
| |
| {) 14 agree on that?
| |
| A 15 (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| li6 Q Now it's my understanding, Mr. Pearsons, and 17 > please correct me if I'm wrong, that an increase in sound 18 pressure level of 10 decibels equates to approximately a 19 doubling of the loudness perceived by the human ear of.that 20 sound; is that-correct?
| |
| 21 A (Pearsons) That seems to be the approximate 22 number at least that is used.
| |
| 23 Q Juld that means that if a sound level is raised 30 i- 24 decibels or a source is raised 30 decibels, the sound which 25 the individual would hear is eight times as great as it i
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation ]
| |
| (202) 628-4888 1
| |
| l l
| |
| J
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 497
| |
| <~
| |
| k_) 1 would be at the lower, 30 decibel lower level; is that 2 right?
| |
| 3 A (Pearsons) That's correct.
| |
| 4 Q So that means that the 123 decibel level that 5 appears in NUREG-0654 represents a perceived loudness of 6 almost eight times greater than the perceived loudness of 7 the sound which Dr. Silverman used to generate discomfort in 8 the individual H.T. on this table; isn't that right?
| |
| 9 A (Pearsons) In that one individual, that's 10 correct.
| |
| 11 Q That's right.
| |
| 12 JUDGE BLOCH: In the initial column.
| |
| 13 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
| |
| 14 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| []
| |
| s-15 Q Now on the basis of this discussion that we've 16 just had, Mr. Pearsons, I submit that the statement in 17 NUREG-0654 which appears at page 3-8 of that document to the 18 effect -- at the bottom of that page -- that 123 dB is the 19 level which may cause discomfort to individuals, "the" level 20 which may cause, that statement is just plain wrong as a 21 matter of fact, isn't it?
| |
| l 22 Because we know discomfort can be caused at a much 23 lower level than 123, isn't that true?
| |
| 24 A (Pearsons) That's right.
| |
| 25 Q At least in some individuals, ex J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l 1
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| i KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 498
| |
| (). 1 A (Pearsons) But I guess, in addition, 123 dB --
| |
| 2 the statement is still correct, but it does not say that 3 there isn't a lower level which also may cause.
| |
| 4 Q And, indeed, from the Silverman data we find that 5 sounds in loudness eight times softer, if that's the right 6 word and you give me the right one, can cause discomfort in 7 individuals; isn't that right?
| |
| 8 A (Pearsons) From the Silverman data, it indicated 9 that in at least one individual, yes.
| |
| 10 Q Would you agree with me that it would be an 11 improper statement to say that 123 dB is the lowest level 12 which may cause discomfort to individuals?
| |
| 13 A (Pearsons) That is -- yes.
| |
| l 14 Say it again. I think your statement is correct.
| |
| 15 Q That 123 dB is the lowest level that would cause i 16 discomfort to individuals?
| |
| 17 A (Pearsons) That is not a correct statement.
| |
| 18 Q Do you think that sentence was probably written by 19 a lawyer instead of a technically competent individual?
| |
| 20 MR. JONAS: Objection.
| |
| 21 THE WITNESS: (Pearsons) I don't think I'm 22 qualified to answer that.
| |
| 23 MR. DIGNAN: All right.
| |
| 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me ask about "the" level. Is ,
| |
| 25 there any such thing as "the" level which may cause l
| |
| (., Heritage Reporting Corporation {
| |
| (202) 628-4888 j 1
| |
| l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 1 KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 499
| |
| ) 1 discomfort?
| |
| 2 (Pause . )
| |
| 3 THE WITNESS: (Pearsons) If a level were picked 4' high enough, I'm sure it would be certainly "a" level that 5 would cause discomfort.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: That's my problem. It seems to 'rme 7 there are a lot of levels. There couldn't be one "the" 8 level, could there be?
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Pearsons) There is certainly not 10 one level that causes discomfort in everybody, that's 11- correct.
| |
| 12 JUDGE DLOCH: So if was done by a lawyer, he 13 wasn't too good a lawyer either.
| |
| I
| |
| () 14 15 (Laughter)
| |
| MR. DIGNAN: You know, it's only us lawyers that i 16 get hung up in it.
| |
| I.
| |
| 17 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 18 Q I would now like to turn to Section 3, and I'm I
| |
| 19 going to -- and, Mr. Tocci, I understand that is your work.
| |
| h 20 A (Tocci) Yes.
| |
| l 21 Q I'm sorry, I have just been advised I l 22 mispronounced your name. Is Tocci the correct 23 pronunciation?
| |
| 24 A (Tocci) Tocci is the correct pronunciation.
| |
| 25 0 I apologize, sir. Having a name that is often O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| I
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ l
| |
| | |
| ~-
| |
| , .a KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 500 1 mispronounced myself, I'm sensitive to that, and I do 1
| |
| 2 apologize.
| |
| 3 If you would co;ae with me to page 12 of that ;
| |
| j 4 testimony, and I'm looking at-it with inked in corrections, !
| |
| 5 Mr. Tocci. The highest number that I see on that page is about in the center where you are speaking of the case where i 6-7 the speaker is at 25 feet. And you indicate the possibility 8 that taking account of ground reflection a sound pressure 9 level of as much as 137 dBC could be sustained by a member 10 of the public, presumably --
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan, is that --
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: It's building reflection.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I thought everything on ground
| |
| {) 14 15 reflection was taken out.
| |
| MR..DIGNAN: I'm sorry. If I said ground 16 reflection, I erred.
| |
| 17 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 18' Q Assuming building reflection is taken into 19 account, 137 dBC could be received by someone.
| |
| 20 Am I correct that's the high number in the 21 testimony now?
| |
| 22 A (Tocci) Yes, that's correct. That's the highest 23 number that would be received as a result of the proper i
| |
| 24 location and the presence of a building reflection.
| |
| 25 Q Mr. Tocci or Mr. Pearsons, either one of you or l
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation i
| |
| 1 (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| 1 j
| |
| - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - . _. i
| |
| | |
| l:
| |
| L KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 501
| |
| ( 1 .both of you, I'have been advised by our technical people 2 _that unlike some physical phenomena affecting human beings, 3 that the ear is not an organ which can be adversely affected 4 by sound in a child at a lower level than an adult.
| |
| 5 Do you concur in that? In other words, what I'm 6 getting at is, is there any phenomena that children's ears 7 are not well developed so that a sound can affect them more 0 easily, a too loud sound, than an adult?
| |
| 9 I am told that that's not so. That the mature 10 ears is a mature ear on the three year old child or a 30-11 year old man. Am I right or wrong in that understanding?
| |
| 12 A (Pearsons) In terms of what? I'm sorry. In 13 terms of any kind of a possible effect?
| |
| 14 Q Well, I'm talking about a loud sound causing
| |
| ("/)-
| |
| N 15 damage.
| |
| 16 Is a child more susceptible to such damage than an 17 adult from the same sound?
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: First, do you know?
| |
| 19 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 20 Q Do you know, yes, that's a fact?
| |
| 21 If nobody knows, we go on from there.
| |
| 22 A (Pearsons) I don't know.
| |
| 23 Q You don't.
| |
| l 24 Mr. Tocci, have you ever --
| |
| 25 A (Tocci) I don't know.
| |
| ,/
| |
| \ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ - - _ - _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 502
| |
| ]
| |
| ( 1 Q Okay. Let'me try a hypothetical on you in this.
| |
| 1 2 Taking that 137, let us assume that my little four year old 3 daughter, Mary Clair, is hit for something around four 4 seconds with 137 dB.
| |
| 5 Do either of you think there would be any 6 permanent damage as a result of that for four seconds at 137 7 dB?
| |
| 8' A (Tocci) At 550 hertz. No, I don't believe so.
| |
| 9 Q Okay, I should have put that in. Four seconds at 10 550 hertr.
| |
| 11 Mr. rearsons, what is your --
| |
| 12 A (Pearsons) I don't think so either.
| |
| 13 Q Now let me ask you another question.
| |
| Assume that this' little girl does what she does
| |
| (} 14 15 when daddy yells at her and she perceives this sound and 16 immediately goes --
| |
| : 17. (Mr ., Dignan makes gesture) 18 MR. DIGNAN: And let ''e record show that the 19 lawyer just put his hands over his ears.
| |
| 20 BY MR. DIGMAN: !
| |
| 21 Q How much will that drop the sound pressure level 22 in her ears, approximately? I understand you can't give me 23 an exact figure. ,
| |
| 24 A (Pearsons) Again at 550 hertz.
| |
| 25 Q Yes, the same 500, 137 dB.
| |
| i O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| __ - _ \
| |
| | |
| KANFER,-et al., PANEL - CROSS 503
| |
| .q (mj 1 (Pause . )
| |
| 2 A (Pearsons) I'm sure it would reduce it some. I'm 3 not exactly sure of the magnitude. And I wouldn't even 4 hazard a guess.
| |
| 5- Q Mr. Tocci, do you have a feel for a number?
| |
| 6 A (Tocci) I can't give you a specific. number, but.I 7 would guess it would be perhaps in the order of 10 decibels.
| |
| 8 Q That squares with what I was told. That depending 9 upon how tight the seal was, the order of 10 to 12.
| |
| 10 So that this 137 would then be perceived as around 11 127, give or take, in the example I gave you?
| |
| 12 A (Tocci) That's correct.
| |
| 13 Q Incidentally, it is not an uncommon reaction for
| |
| (} 14 people, if they are bothered by a sound, to do just that 15 even.if they aren't four-year old little girls, put their 16 hands over their ears; isn't that true?
| |
| 17 .A. (Tocci) That's correct.
| |
| 18 f
| |
| 19 20 21 22 23 L 24 25 O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| r
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 504 sa.
| |
| (,) 1 Q I guess I would like to put a general question to 2 both of you. Forget the regulations. Forget all the 3 lawyers' arguments about 123 or this document or that 4 document. But keeping in mind the talk we have just had 5 about a little girl receiving 137.
| |
| 6 Are we really worrying about anything worth j 7 worrying about?
| |
| 8 And in addressing that question, I would ask you 9 to keep in mind that what we are dealing with here is 10 setting up a siren system, the function of which is to warn i 11 the public of a potentially life-threatening situation.
| |
| 12 Do any of you think that the siren levels we are i
| |
| 13 talking about really are going to cause a societal problem I
| |
| (} 14 of any nature?
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I am going to object to 16 the question. If there is a more precise question which 17 goes to the testimony we have here, then that's fine. I 18 don't think that anything in the testimony purports to speak 19 to societal problems. Rather, just whether a particular 20 guidance document has been met.
| |
| 21 JUDGE BLOCH: I was kind of interested in the 22 answer, but it sounds like it doesn't.
| |
| 23 MR. DIGNAN: No. Well, may I be heard before you 24 rule?
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Sure.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 505 o
| |
| !, ,)
| |
| 1 MR. DIGNAN: Here is the problem, Your Honor.
| |
| 2 Your Honor, and correctly so, has phrased a question, if 123 3 isn't the number, what number should we allow.
| |
| 4 Now the testimony elicited from these witnesses so I
| |
| )
| |
| 5 far, which while anyone can argue what it, is essentially, I 1 6 believe, persuasive to the effect that whoever wrote 7 NUREG-0654, that statement just isn't so that's in there. I 8 So what I want to do is take two good experts and 9 say, now, look, am I worrying about something -" they have 10 told me that my four-year old daughter could be hit with the 11 kind of sound we're talking about, and there would be no
| |
| ) 12 permanent damage.
| |
| 13 They have told that if she claps her hands over
| |
| /'% 14 her years it's going to come down another 10 decibels from V
| |
| 15 that number.
| |
| 16 I really want to hear from them, are we dealing 17 with something where people are going to be injured, hurt or 18 otherwise society discombobulated if the Seabrook sirens 19 operate as we say. And I think that is a fair question now 20 that the reg guide is, let us say, bent if not broken in 21 that respect, because I think that we should just get it out i
| |
| 22 on the table.
| |
| 23 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, the questions phrased by l.
| |
| 24 the Board's order that we were supposed to be dealing with 25 in this proceeding are fairly clear. They go to issues of i
| |
| f\
| |
| \/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
| |
| l j
| |
| | |
| F KANFER, et'al., PANEL-- CROSS 506
| |
| ( 1 discomfort and they go to issues of sound pressure levels.
| |
| -2 -I didn't think that the purpose of this proceeding 3 was to-set societal policy as a general matter. But rather, 4 whether there were real palpable effects with these sound 5 pressure levels.
| |
| 6 There has been testimony that they won't cause 7 permanent hearing damage, but that they are on the upper end 8 of the discomfort threshold. I just don't see the point, 9 the relevance of asking questions of this sort.
| |
| 10 JUDGE BLOCH: I guess the dilemma here is that we 11 are talking about guidance anyway. And really this job of 12 deciding whether to vary from the guidance is partly a 13 policy problem, and I don't see there is any way around l
| |
| (} 14 that.
| |
| What I would like to do is to allow the question 15 16 and-then permit you to address in your brief whether it's 17 improper to considor it, which I can do as a judge. If we 18 had a jury here, we would have a problem.
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: What is the question again?
| |
| 20 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 21 Q The question, gentlemen, and I'm giving it to you 22 just as -- I'm violating every rule I was taught in law 23 school and by my mentors about wide open questions. ,
| |
| i 24 Are we really worrying about a problem that you f 25 two gentlemen think is a problem for human beings in society O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| I KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 507 '
| |
| rm
| |
| (_) ' 1 with this siren system in terms of the loudness?
| |
| 2 And Mr. Pearsons, if you want to go first, or Mr. l 4
| |
| 3 Tocci, either one of you.
| |
| l 4 A (Pearsons) I guess if there were a simple answer, 5 we probably wouldn't all be here. I find it so difficult to 6 answer that I don't know how to answer it.
| |
| 7 I guess certainly on the basis of what I had 8 talked about, as you mentioned also, it is on the.high side 9 of discomfort. Weighing that against whatever other options 10 there are,'that becomes very difficult. I can still state 11 that it's, as I stated before and stated in my testimony, it 12 is on the high side of discomfort.
| |
| 13 I would agree that it does not cause any hearing
| |
| (
| |
| () 14 damage. Beyond that, I just find it difficult to answer.
| |
| 15 O Mr. Tocci?
| |
| l t
| |
| 16 A (Tocci) Yes. First, I'm an expert in children 17 having four of them, and I do know one thing. They won't 18 put their hands over their ears. And certainly as parents 19 you wouldn'* get a chance to either.
| |
| 20 0 Gee, my little girl does, let me tell you.
| |
| 21 A (Tocci) But my kids don't. Maybe I don't yell !
| |
| 22 loud enough.
| |
| 23 You have posed a question which is really very 24 different from the course of study that I have been involved I 25 in this project. My involvement ir this project has been to l' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w_--______ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 508 l' investigate very specific issues related to the siren system j 2 and to pose arguments and provide a technical basis for l 3 arguments along very specific lines.
| |
| 4 By asking a question like that, you open up the 5 . consideration of many other types of phenomena that I have 6 not considered and perhaps I'm not even qualified to 7 consider.
| |
| 8 Q That's fair enough.
| |
| o 9 I would like now to turn to Section 4 of the 10 testimony which I unde'; stand is primarily your work, Mr.
| |
| 11 Kanfer; is that true?
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: Dr. Kanfer, can you pull the 13 microphone closer? Yes.
| |
| 14 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| .(])
| |
| 15 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 16 Q Dr. Kanfer, again if I may fairly summarize your 17 testimony, what you are raising is the concern that persons 18 either on duty and they fail to respond appropriately as a 19 VANS driver, or in the alternative, you also raise a second i 20 question which is the boredom and so forth might result in 21 their being absent or otherwise unavailable when called 22 upon.
| |
| 23 Is that a fair summary of the points you are 24 making here?
| |
| 25 A (Kanfer) Yes. It's with reference to the two o
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 509 ;
| |
| (f 1 criteria of alertness and readiness to respond. J 2 MR. DIGNAN: On, incidentally, Your Honor, at this l
| |
| 3 time I would like to offer Applicants' Exhibit 12 for i d
| |
| 4 identification into evidence for the purpose of showing the j 5 full scope and reach of the Silverman work.
| |
| 6 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, could I offer -- I'm 7 sorry.
| |
| 8 MR. DIGNAN: And for that purpose only.
| |
| 9 MR. JONAS: Could we have both versions, both the 10 versicn that Mr. Dignan is going to offer and the version, 11 the abstracted version in so that the Board can take a look 12 at the two and admit them both into evidence?
| |
| 13 MR. DIGNAN: I have no problem with that. I l
| |
| {} 14 15 cr.n -- well, maybe I should let a witness do it.
| |
| obviously spent time with the long one.
| |
| I Everything in the j
| |
| l 16 short one is in the long one. But if you want the two 17 versions, I have no objection.
| |
| 18 MR. JONAS: Why don't we just put the two of them 19 in.
| |
| 20 .Okay, I would move to have the shorter version 21 admitted as well.
| |
| 22 JUDGE BLOCH: It might be easier to interpret the 23 record with it.
| |
| 24 MR. DIGNAN: Okay, Your Honor, I would suggest 25 then that we admit -- the longer version is Applicants' l
| |
| \ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| _ _ . l
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et.al., PANEL - CROSS -510' 1 Exhibit 12-A,.and the shorter version as Applicants' Exhibit 2 12-B,. if that's ' agreeable to Your U0nor.
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes, I so order.
| |
| 4 (The documents referred to 5 were marked for identification 6 as Applicants' Exhibit Nos.
| |
| 7 12-A~and 12-B and were 8 received into evidence.)
| |
| 9 10 11 12-13 14 15 16 17 18 19.
| |
| 20 21 22 23 24.
| |
| 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 511 t
| |
| o t
| |
| u) 1 JUDGE BLOCH: What I would like to ask is because 2 of their length that neither of them be bound in, however.
| |
| l 3 MR. DIGNAN: No , I'm offering them as exhibits.
| |
| 4 We are giving three copies of each to the reporter, Your i 5 Honor, as exhibits. )
| |
| 1 6 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 7 Q Dr. Kanfer, as I reviewed your testimony in 8 dealing with the first of your points, that is to say the 9 fact that operators though present may not react correctly, 10 the major article you rely on, as I understand it, is an 11 article by Paul Bakan; is that correct?
| |
| 12 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 13 Q Do you have a copy of that with you here today?
| |
| "% 14 A (Kanfer) Y'.a.
| |
| (V 15 Q It might make it easier if you got it out just to 16 review some things.
| |
| 17 JUDGE BLOCH: What page is that cited on?
| |
| 18 MR. DIGNAN: It's actually cited on 15 at the 19 bottom, Your Honor.
| |
| 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.
| |
| 21 Bakan is spelled B-A-K-A-N.
| |
| 22 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 23 Q Now, Dr. Kanfer, as I understand from reading this 24 article, what Bakan did was that they took 100 Royal Air 25 Force recruits and they set them down for a period of 48 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| --- -__-______. _ _ l
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 512
| |
| (^\
| |
| (-) 1 minutes; is that correct? That was the length of the test.
| |
| 2 And a tape recorder was played to them which recited single 3 digits at the rate of one per second.
| |
| 4 And you ascribe to everything I have said, Doctor?
| |
| 5 Is that right?
| |
| 6 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 7 Q And then what the subjects were to do is to detect l 8 what the article refers to as a signal, and they define the l 9 signal as detecting when they heard three odd digits in a 10 row and all different; is that correct?
| |
| 11 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 12 Q So that one had to sit there and concentrate, 13 listening to a digit a second. And every time they !
| |
| ("T 14 perceived three odd digits all different in a row they were s/ 1 15 to write down something on a piece of paper; is that right?
| |
| 16 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 17 Q And thtn they went on in their experiment, which I 18 guess is not altogether relevant to what we are doing, they 19 gave them 78 questions to answer about the test and they 20 derived certain data from that; is that right?
| |
| 21 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 22 Q Now I must confess, Doctor, that intuitively I 23 would assume that if I was sat down for 48 minutes, read a 24 single digit a second and had to pick out every time I heard 25 three odd ones, none of which are the same, so I had to be
| |
| ,''i 5J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 513
| |
| /''N
| |
| () 1 referring back, I would really blow it a few times before 48 2 minutes were over. l l
| |
| 3 Am I intuitively correct? l l
| |
| 4 A (Kanfer) No. !
| |
| 5 Q No?
| |
| 6 I notice some of the cadet amazingly did it every 7 time.
| |
| 8 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 9 Q I assumed they were from the jet pilot school. But 10 I intuitively assumed that that would so fatigue, and as 11 Bakan found, that the ability to continue this task went 12 down with time; isn't that right?
| |
| 13 A (Kanfer) There are vigilance decrements.
| |
| f 4 14 Q Right.
| |
| (~'/
| |
| N-l 15 A (Kanfer) But not necessarily due to the fatigue r
| |
| 16 associated with the performance of the particular task.
| |
| 17 Q It was also because it was boring.
| |
| 18 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 19 Q Incidentally, do you think it really was a test of 20 boredom to put 48 RAF recruits in a room and do this when 21 they were under training possibly to be pilots, or would 22 they look at this as something that they had better be I
| |
| 23 pretty sharp on?
| |
| 24 A (Kanfer) Motivation to perform was very high.
| |
| 25 Nonetheless, it was boring.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 514 j
| |
| (~T 1 Right. Now what's going to happen, as I'm sure
| |
| (_/ Q j 2 you know, with a VANS driver is he's going to be sitting 3 there let's say reading Playboy magazine for all I know, and 4 a horn is going to go off, and lights are going to go on, )
| |
| 1 5 and he's going to have been instructed that when the horn 1
| |
| 6 goes off and the lights go off, get in the truck, drive to a
| |
| ]
| |
| 7 certain location, push a button, put out some more records 8 and push another button so the siren will go up.
| |
| 9 Do you think that's an analogous situation to this
| |
| !- 10 experiment of Bakan's?
| |
| 11 A (Kanfer) Reading Playboy magazine?
| |
| 12 I'm not sure I understand.
| |
| 13 (Laughter)
| |
| (} 14 Q No. Being stimulated to do your job.by a hort- hnd 15 lights as opposed to sitting 48 minutes trying to pick out i
| |
| 16 three' odd numbers in a row every time it came up in random 17 fashion.
| |
| 18 Do you find those analogous situations, Doctor?
| |
| 19 A (Kanfer) They are not fully analogous. This is 20 not --
| |
| 21 Q Well, they aren't even close, are they, Doctor?
| |
| 22 A (Kanfer) Yes, it's a vigilance task.
| |
| 23 Q Is it your testimony that those are close in
| |
| ]
| |
| l 24 analogy as vigilance tasks? '
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: You may finish answering. There is O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i i
| |
| l
| |
| .- I
| |
| | |
| 4 l-KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 515
| |
| ) 1 no reason to be interrupted.
| |
| 2 THE WITNESS: (Pearsons) Okay. This is a 3 vigilance task. If you are asleep,.you are responding to a 4 signal. The criterion is to respond to a signal no matter 5 how loud or visual or auditory, how that signal is 1
| |
| 6 presented. You need to respond to a signal. And failure to 1
| |
| 7 respond to the signal leads to a miss.
| |
| 8 And in that sense it can be defined as a vigilance 9 task where the frequency of the signal is extremely low.
| |
| 10 Q Do you understand that the VANS drivers are to be 11 allowed to sleep while they are on shift?
| |
| 12 A (Kanfer) I heard testimony today indicating to me I
| |
| 13 that it wasn't clear that they were to stay alert. I don't
| |
| (} 14 know from what I've read whether they are allowed to sleep 15 or not.
| |
| 16 Q Let us assume that they are not allowed to sleep, 17 that they are not expected to sleep, that they come for 18 eight hours and go home like everybody else.
| |
| 19 Does that change your view as to whether the Bakan 20 situation is analogous to the VANS driver situation?
| |
| l 21 A (Kanfer) No.
| |
| l 22 Q It doesn't.
| |
| 23 I interrupted you. Did you have more to say in 24 that prior answer?
| |
| : 25. A (Kanfer) No. I wanted to indicate that the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 516 (3/
| |
| 1 1 -tradition and classic vigilance research has a frequency of l
| |
| )
| |
| 2 signals. And that the issue is signal detection. And the j 3 frequency of signals is quite a bit more than you would ,
| |
| 4 4 expect in the VANS operator situation.
| |
| 5 Nonetheless, it's my understanding that a critical 6 dimension of performance on this task is to detect and 7 respond to the signal in a timely fashion.
| |
| 8 Q And respond correctly.
| |
| 9 A (Kanfer) Yes, and to respond correctly, that's 10 right. And here the issue of responding correctly isn't the 11 primary focus of this article, and neither, as I understand
| |
| ) 12 it, is the issue that's been asked here, is assuming that I? pretraining will lead them to correct responses. The 34 question is whether or not those responses are activated to
| |
| [])
| |
| 15 a signal --
| |
| 16 Q Doctor --
| |
| 17 A (Kanfer) -- within a period of time.
| |
| 18 Q I'm sorry.
| |
| 19 Doctor, we can agree that reacting to a horn, 20 getting in a truck, driving a few miles, pressing two button 21 is not something that requires the qualifications of a 22 rocket scientist, can't we? l 23 A (Kanfer) They can be pretrained, yes.
| |
| 24 0 Yes. Now let's assume somebody has been a VANS j 25 operator for six or eight years, and finally the horn goes
| |
| (}
| |
| \ Heritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| c XANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 517 e
| |
| k_m) 1 off.
| |
| 2 Do you think they are going to miss it?
| |
| 3 A (Kanfer) If they are there.
| |
| 4 Q Well, that's the second point which we will get to 5 in a minute. We are assuming they are there.
| |
| 6 A (Kanfer) If they are in the staging area, my 7 assumption has been, and the reading that I have done is 8 that there will be enough multi-modal cues that if they are 9 literally where they are supposed to be, they will respond.
| |
| 10 Q They will react. And they will react properly, 11 won't they?
| |
| 2 12 A (Kanfer) That raises another question about what 13 the expectations are of that signal, what that signal means.
| |
| () 14 Q Well, these are people who have been trained to 15 understand that if that signal goes off there is a nuclear 16 accident possible at Seabrook Station.
| |
| 17 A (Kanfer) That's right.
| |
| 18 Q Possibly imminent. That they are supposed to get 19 in a truck, drive it a certain number of miles to a certain 20 location, push a button to level it as I understand it, and 21 push another button to raise the siren.
| |
| 22 Now in your professional opinion, aren't these 23 people going to react properly?
| |
| 24 A (Kanfer) In military settings where they go 25 through periodic drills and alert and danger situations, and i
| |
| \ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 518 f~s L
| |
| d- -1 I've talk.to my colleagues about similar settings, one of -
| |
| b 2- the things that they worry about is'that people in fact-3 believe the signals to be false alarms. And that they
| |
| .4 respond, but the rapidity with which they respond is not the 5 same as you might get-under maximum motivation conditions 6 when they know that in fact it's either a real alert that 7 will be timed and so-there~is some consequence to them for 8 how they respond, or they have reason to believe that it 9 - might be the real thing. And it is a concern.
| |
| 10 Q Is this work, incidentally, done with the people
| |
| -11 who man the missile silos?
| |
| 12 A (Kanfer) Some of that, yes.
| |
| 13 Q And one of the concerns there is that when the 14 teletype goes off or the siren goes off or whatever
| |
| (}
| |
| 15 classified system the country uses to tell people the 1 <6 President has decided to go to war, that they won't in fact 17 push the button.
| |
| la Isn't that the concern of the people who have 19 studied that?
| |
| 20 A (Kanfer) It's not the consequence of-the behavior 21 of pushing the button I'm talking about. It's the belief j 22 that in fact you are under the condition in which you are
| |
| ~23 supposed to respond. !
| |
| ')
| |
| 24 Q And the problem that people who have studied the q l
| |
| 25 phenomenon of the missile silo operators and the concern is .
| |
| O Beritage Reporting Corporation 1
| |
| (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 519 9k 1 that these people know full well that when they push that 2 button 80,000 people or so are going to die on the other end 3 of the missile and the possibility is they will be so
| |
| : 4. terrified they just simply don't want to believe that this 5 is the real thing.
| |
| 6 Isn't that one of the worries that that research 7 has been bringing out? l i
| |
| 8 A (Kanfer) It's part of it, yes. j 9 0 Yes. Now, of course, in this situation the VANS-1 10 operator knows that his job is not to push a button and kill l
| |
| l 11 20,000 people. His job is to get in a truck, drive to a 12 spot and sound a siren so that people's lives may be saved 13 from an event.
| |
| (} 14 Isn't that right?
| |
| 15 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 16 O So he's not going to have anything working on him 17 to say, oh, my god, I don't want to believe this because 18 people are going to die once I act.
| |
| 19 A (Kanfer) He's dispatched, as I understand it, not 20 necessarily because there has been an emergency, but because 21 there is an alert. If my understanding is correct, he --- 1 22 Q Oh, yes. Well, if everybody -- l 23 A (Kanfer) -- be dispatched for an alert. ;
| |
| 24 Q Everybody agrees that if there is an alert well 25 ahead of this thing, we've got no problems because not only 9EP Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| t KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 520 i r~
| |
| '(_)s - 1 can we dispatch them, we can check on them and do a lot of 2 other things. But you've got to understand my friends over l 3 at the other table want to talk about one thing, and that's 1
| |
| 4 the big accident that happens all at once. So that's the I i
| |
| 5 case we are talking about here. And there is not going to 6 be anything operating on those VANS drivers to cause them 7 not to want to do their job, is there?
| |
| 8 They are in the business of saving people at that 9 point, not killing them.
| |
| 10 A (Kanfer) Do you want an answer? j 11 Q Yes.
| |
| It seems to me that under a very big !
| |
| 12 A (Kanfer) 13 accident where there was an emergency such that everyone i
| |
| 14 knew that it wasn't a practice and everyone knew that it
| |
| [}
| |
| i 15 wasn't a dispatch, that there would be siren activation, l
| |
| 16 that that information would be communicated immediately, and 17 that people would respond.
| |
| 18 But as I understood it, the responsiveness of the 19 drivers has to do with all conditions. And the question 20 really arises for this issue of expectations. The questions 21 ariso when it is anything less than communicated that it ;
| |
| l 22 would be, and I don't know how that communication would take 23 place. But it certainly can arise about whether or not this 24 is a false alarm.
| |
| 25 Q Well, do I understand then that you are not i l
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 521 I )' 1 concerned about the drivers' response if there is a fast-2 breaking major accident. Your concern is if the accident is 3 something less than that? l 4 A (Kanfer) With a fast-breaking major accident, my 5 concern is primarily with respect to the operators 6 availability, readiness to respond.
| |
| 7 Q That's the --
| |
| 8 A (Kanfer) And that's the next question.
| |
| 9 Q -
| |
| phenomenon No. 2 that we are going to talk 10 about.
| |
| l 11 A (Kanfer) Right. That --
| |
| 12 Q All right, let's go on to that.
| |
| 13 Oh, I'm sorry, please don't let me cut you off.
| |
| 14 A (Kanfer) No , that's all right.
| |
| 15 O Let's go on to that.
| |
| l 16 I read with great interest your concern about 17 people just goofing off or being absent. And as I 18 understood what you were saying, you acknowledge the 19 existence that we have of the rule that a VANS driver is not 20 to leave his post until he is relieved. And that, of ,
| |
| i 21 course, is the same sort of rule th:it an officer of the deck l l
| |
| 1 22 in the Navy operates under; isn't that correct? l 23 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 24 Q You know that from -- yes. l 25 All right, now the point, as I understand it, is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| t I
| |
| l _. - - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ -
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al.,' PANEL - CROSS 522
| |
| ( '1' you said.that you are not satisfied that that rule will~
| |
| 2 operate, and then the statement you made that I focused on, 1
| |
| 3 "Is well-settled based on a number of articles of similar i 4 jobs that recognized negative consequences of breaking that 5 rule aids compliance." {
| |
| 6 Correct? Is that right? .
| |
| I 7 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 8 Q Now you know, or if you don't know I'll ask you to 9 accept hypothetically that we will run drills with these 10 people periodically, and there will be unannounced drills at 11 times.
| |
| 12 A (Kanfer) Yes, I wasn't aware of what -- I 13 Q Let's assume that to be a fact. I'm not asking
| |
| (} 14 you to agree that it's so.
| |
| L 15 A (Kanfer) Okay.
| |
| 16 Q But will you assume with me we will run periodic 17 drills and run them unannounced on these individuals?
| |
| 18 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 19 Q And let's assume the first time we call out there 20 in one of these drills and some guy is having, to use a 21 phrase, a long lunch.
| |
| 22 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 23 Q We fire him the next day.
| |
| 24 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| l 25 Q Is that the kind of negative consequence that you 1
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| c t
| |
| KANFER, et.al., PANEL - CROSS 523 1- would say would get their attention so'that they would stop 2 taking.long lunches or otherwise absenting themselves from 3 their post?
| |
| 4 A (Kanfer) It may. Well, yes. Clearly, for those 5 who know and understand the reason for the' firing. Usually 6 what's meant by --
| |
| 7 Q Assume we publicized to all the VANS drivers that i
| |
| 8 the reason Joe Smith, you old buddy, is out on the street 9' now is because he wasn't at his post when we called. Now 10 let's assume that's what we do. I'm not asking you to l
| |
| 11 accept that we do that in fact. I'm asking you to assume 12 that's what we do.
| |
| 13 Do you agree with me that that wouldn't have to 14 happen very many times before we had a bunch of VANS drivers (J-15 who stayed at their post until relieved?
| |
| 16 A- (Kanfer) No.
| |
| 17 Q You still think after seeing their buddy Joe fired 18 they still take long lunches?
| |
| 19 A (Kanfer) More carefully.
| |
| 20 Q More carefully.
| |
| 21 Meaning? You mean --
| |
| 22 A (Kanfer) Meaning that there is an analogous 23 situation with railroad engineers where it's very clear that 24 if the engineer leaves the cab during the course of driving 25 the train, he will be fired. Engineers continue to leave O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ?
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL . CROSS 524 (f 1. the cab. They use-alerter systems, alerter signal ~ devices 2 where they have to respond. It's a way to enforce 3 compliance. Engineers find ways around those systems. They j
| |
| -q 4 have a lot of time to think about how to work it out. l 5 So what I'm saying is they --
| |
| )
| |
| 6 Q Could you cite me the study of this?
| |
| 1 7- A (Kanfer) There is a technical report by the f i
| |
| 8 Habers, Professor Ralph Haber and Lynn Haber. ;
| |
| 9 Q And where would I find it?
| |
| 10 A (Kanfer) It was submitted to the -- well, I have
| |
| , 11 a reference to it. They have done several technical reports i
| |
| 12 on different things like motormen operators and so on. And ;
| |
| i 13 this one was to the Illinois Institute of -- they are from l I
| |
| 14 the Illinois Institute of Technology. It went to the l
| |
| 15 Illinois Institute of Technical Research. And this was 16 looking at. locomotive engines _s.
| |
| 17 Q Okay. So --
| |
| 18 A (Kanfer) So what they find -- all I want to say 19 is what happens, and the reason I said "no" is because, and 20 it's not clear what frequency, but people do find ways 21 around surveillance systems, and people find ways around --
| |
| 22 the negative consequence is very clear, and certainly people 23 will be careful. But I would not say that it will eliminate 24 long lunches.
| |
| 25 j
| |
| d
| |
| () Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation i
| |
| l
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . i
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 525
| |
| ?>
| |
| (,)
| |
| 1 Q Dr. Kanfer, I'm curious about one thing, and maybe 2 it's just because as a little boy I was fascinated with l 3 trains.
| |
| 4 It doesn't seem to me that driving a train is a 5 boring job; am I wrong on that?
| |
| 6 A (Kanfer) It's become a boring job.
| |
| 7 Q It has?
| |
| 8 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 9 MR. JONAS: You're dating yourself, Mr. Dignan.
| |
| 10 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) It's recent.
| |
| 11 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 12 Q It recently became boring?
| |
| 13 A (Kanfer) No. With the automation that has taken 14 place with the locomotive -- and I can talk about other 1
| |
| (~}
| |
| ' i l 15 occupations, too, where this happens. One of the major l 16 concerns that experts in this area have is that people 17 perform very few tasks over the course of their route. And 18 in fact, there's not much for them to do except to monitor.
| |
| 19 Again, a vigilance type of task.
| |
| 20 So, for example, their work is very important when 21 there's a car on the tracks. But that occurs extremely 22 infrequently. {
| |
| I 23 Q Doctor, let me ask you this. Supposing you were j 1
| |
| 24 given the task for New Hampshire Yankee to do the best you 1
| |
| 25 could to assure this wouldn't happen, what procedure would l s''l
| |
| \"' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l t
| |
| | |
| h
| |
| -KANFER, et al., PANEL CROSS 526
| |
| ~1~ you have us put in place to assure that there wasn't any 2 absenteeism?
| |
| 3 A (Kanfer) Let me make sure I understand.
| |
| 4 -Q Let's assume that you were working for New 5 Hampshire Yankee.
| |
| 6 A' (Kanfer) Right.
| |
| 7 Q And the chief executive officer called you in and 8 said,-Doctor, we're terribly concerned about this problem 9 you've raised, would you give us your best advice on how to 10 assure that we don't have people walking off the job at the 11 VANS. What procedure should we put in place? Should we put 3 12 a tour of foreman through there every two hours?
| |
| 13 You tell me, what would you put in place?
| |
| l
| |
| () 14 A (Kanfer) I would redesign the job.
| |
| 15 Q Redesign the job?
| |
| 16 A (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 17 Q That's difficult.
| |
| I 18 A (Kanfer) I know it is.
| |
| 19 But it's also -- this is -- i 20 Q But tell me how you would redesign the job? I 21 A (Kanfer) They're currently engaged in, and I 22 believe my guess here and I think I've heard it said, where 23 about six hours of no active activity, that's structured by 24 the organization. It's up to them to find something to do.
| |
| 25 I would do a couple of things. One would be to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| [
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 527
| |
| () 1 provide some decision-making and some activity within the 2 bounds of what the organization seeks. Something that would 3 be considered positive instead of potentially negative, 4 having them leave.
| |
| 5 And the recommendations that they make in the 6 engineering -- in the locomotive situation and in the 7 motorman situation, like in BART and systems like that, are 8 the same kinds of recommendations.
| |
| 9 And they're trying to fix those systems now. What 10 they recommend is greater numbers of -- enhance supervision.
| |
| 11 Greater numbers of people to man the shifts so that there 12 can be more relief time. And a redesign of the work to 13 actually put activity back into the work shift.
| |
| (~T 14 Q If I hear you correctly then, you would deem it to
| |
| (>
| |
| 15 be a plus if these VANS drivers had some other tasks to 16 perform as an employee of the company such as -- I think His 17 Honor suggested at one point, accounting -- bookkeeping 18 tasks or something else te keep them busy that was an equal 19 duty and responsibility to their VANS driver responsibility?
| |
| 20 A (Kanfer) If it was not trivial.
| |
| 21 Q If it was not trivial.
| |
| 22 A (Kanfer) If it was perceived to be trivial, it 23 would be as adding insult to injury. And the likelihood 24 that you would have employee personnel problems would l 25 probably go up dramatically.
| |
| P
| |
| (- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 528 i
| |
| () . 1 So when I say redesign it means specifically I l
| |
| 2 because the tasks can't be, make work. They've tried that j l
| |
| 3 in other domains and it doesn't work.
| |
| 1 4 Q All right. I'm going to keep you in this l 5 consultant role.
| |
| 6 What would you have us do with the VANS drivers?
| |
| 7 What do we give them to do?
| |
| 8 A (Kanfer) It's difficult for me to say because I j 9 don't know all of the --
| |
| 10 Q Fair enough.
| |
| 11 Dr. Perrow. Professor Perrow?
| |
| i 12 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 13 Q You are responsible, as I understand it, for l l
| |
| {} 14 section 57 i
| |
| 15 A (Perrow) That's correct.
| |
| (
| |
| [
| |
| l I
| |
| 16 Q And that appears at page 19 through 24.
| |
| 17 First of all I had question, you talk about siren 18 perception. Are you aware or have you been able to l 19 ascertain, is there any siren system up in that area that 20 you know of that's similar to ours or have you even looked 21 at that question?
| |
| 22 A (Perrow)- No, I have not looked at that question.
| |
| 23 Q Would you agree with me that some of the concern 24 of not perceiving what siren their hearing would go away if 25 it was a fact that this siren system was noticeably i
| |
| 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation 1
| |
| l (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| | |
| L !
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 529
| |
| () 1 different than any other kind of siren system people in this .
| |
| 1 2- area might hear? 1 3 A (Perrow) No. Because I don't think there's 4 enough sirens going on in most areas for them to hear 10 of i 5 one kind and then lith one is different. !
| |
| 6 Q Well, there's not many sirens going on at all in ,
| |
| 7 the area is what you mean?
| |
| 8 A (Perrow) Right. l 1
| |
| I 9 Q Now, you cite studies at page 23 of your testimony i
| |
| 10 that show that the decision-making processes suffer under l
| |
| 11 time pressure; is that correct?
| |
| 12 A (Perrow) Right. Correct.
| |
| 13 Q My question to you, sir, is this: what time 14 pressure is the hearer of a siren under? Why does that put q{ )
| |
| l 15 him under time pressure if he hears a siren?
| |
| 16 A (Perrow) A siren is not necessarily a -- usually 17 a discretionary signal to which you can respond to at your 18 leisure. The very fact that there is a siren being emitted !
| |
| 19 means, for most people I hope, emergency. And emergency 20 generally means time pressure. And it means the kids must 21 be gathered up or the grandfather found or somebody is in 22 the shower and they do not hear it. There are a number of j 23 things to do.
| |
| 24 Q So what creates the time pressure, as I understand 25 it, is not the sounding of the siren, but the translation of f l
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l1
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 530
| |
| () 1 that sound in the person's mind and the fact that an 2 emergency has occurred that might affect them; is that 3 correct?
| |
| 4 A (Perrow) Correct. l 5 Q Now what decision does the hearer of the siren l
| |
| 6 have to make? You indicated that it was the decision-making l 7 process that would be affected. What decision is he called 8 upon to make that is of a concern to you?
| |
| )
| |
| i 9 A (Perrow) A person has, I imagine, many choices. j 10 One has to decide whether to flee or to go to the neighbors 11 to find the children, if the children are at the neighbors.
| |
| 12 Or if it's a child that's in the house and the parents are 13 at a neighbor's, the child has to decide whether to go to 14 the parents. Or the child has to decide whether to turn on
| |
| {N.u) 15 the TV or whatever.
| |
| 16 Q Well, from all the answer there I was intrigued by 17 one thing: you apparently have no doubt that having heard 18 the siren the person will know there's an emergency, because 19 all the choices you just gave me were ones that one would be 20 making assuming that they were reacting to an emergency; is 21 that right?
| |
| 22 A (Perrow) No. I could go on further and say 23 another choice is that, oh, it's about noon, they are ;
| |
| 1 24 testing it and I will ignore it.
| |
| 25 Q Well, now do you know if in fact any sirens are
| |
| (~)
| |
| (> Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 )
| |
| {
| |
| | |
| l-KANFER, et al., PANEL - Ch0SS 531 fm
| |
| (;) 1 blown at noor; as a regular thing in this area?
| |
| 2 A (Perrow) No, I do not know.
| |
| 3 Q Let's assume there aren't any. Can we eliminate 4 that one?
| |
| 5 A (Perrow) No.
| |
| 6 Q You mean people might just think that this is the 7 first day and it's near noon and therefore the siren is a 8 test?
| |
| 9 A . (Perrow) No. But it may be their first day in 10 that area. If this is an area in which people come and rent 11 homes for summer or winter vacation and are not familiar 12 with the procedures in the area, have not lived there for a 13 year or two, they may very well interpret the siren as a 14 test at noon or as a fire engine or a police car or perhaps
| |
| [}
| |
| 15 even other things.
| |
| 16 Q All three-minutes of it?
| |
| 17 A (Perrow) All three-minutes of it.
| |
| 18 Q Now, the main article you cite --
| |
| 19 A (Perrow) Could I just add one thing?
| |
| 20 Q Certainly, sir.
| |
| 21 A (Perrow) Many ambulance and fire sirens appear to 22 me to'go on for a very long time.
| |
| 23 Q But they move, don't they?
| |
| 24 A (Perrow) Not if I'm a long distance from them.
| |
| 1 25 Not if they' re coming towards me and not if they' re going ]
| |
| 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| i ,
| |
| L KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 532
| |
| .L: away from me,'they do not appear to move.
| |
| 2 O That may be. 'But the sirens that one normally 3 hears of a' fire truck or an ambulance, at least in my, 4 granted, limited. experience, are close enough so that you 5 know they're moving.
| |
| 6 These sirens are all stationary, aren't they?
| |
| 7 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 8 Q And very loud?
| |
| 9 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 10 Q I mean, the Attorney General is upset they're so 11 loud?
| |
| 12 A (Perrow) Only if you're within a few hundred 13 yards of.them. If you are at the outer edge of the
| |
| () 14 perimeter of those sirens it may go on for three-minutes and 15 you may not be aware of the fact that it's not something 16 that is approaching or stationary as some sirens are when 17 the fire engines arrive at a place and keep going.
| |
| 18 Q Mr. Tocci, if you will permit me a question to 19 you. You have just heard that answer; is it your technical 20 opinion that that's correct?
| |
| 21 A (Tocci) I would like him to repeat his response 22 please.
| |
| 23 A (Perrow) If the point of origin of a siren is 24 sufficiently distant, you cannot determine whether -- l 25 Q The setting of your answer, sir, was up there at i
| |
| i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 533 1 Seabrook with this system, that's what we' re talking about.
| |
| i 2 A (Perrow) Perhaps you could give my answer then. 1 3 Q No, you go ahead. j I
| |
| 4 MR. JONAS: We might even have it read back, if we 1
| |
| 5 wanted to do it accurately.
| |
| 1 6 THE WITNESS: (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 7 MR. JONAS: Do we have the capacity to do that?
| |
| 8 JUDGE BLOCH: We can do that.
| |
| 9 Can we ask the question again. We'll probably get 10 a similar answer.
| |
| 11 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 12 Q The question I'm putting to you is, you said to me 13 that you were afraid people would not know that this siren
| |
| ('} 14 was for real for many reasons.
| |
| 15 A (Perrow) Excuse me, I did not say "for real."
| |
| 16 Q That it was an emergency.
| |
| 17 And you said, you are just at the fact that they 18 might think it was a fire engine or an ambulance.
| |
| 19 And I said to you at that point, wait a minute, 20 fire engines and ambulances move. And at least in my 21 limited experience I can perceive them as moving. That 22 these would be stationary sirens, very loud.
| |
| 23 And you said to me, no, because ambulances and 24 fire engines could be so far away you wouldn't perceive them 25 as moving or that this source could be so far away you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 534 Q(_- 1 wouldn't know whether it was moving or not.
| |
| 2 And I'm just asking Mr. Tocci whether he agrees 3 with that technically, given what he knows about the system.
| |
| 4 A (Perror Let me just be a little more precise on 5 it. If it's sufficiently far away and is coming to you or 6 going away from you, and the distance is great, and it is a 7 police car or a fire engine that is stalled in traffic and 8 not moving at a great rate, you could certainly identify --
| |
| 9 you could certainly assume that that was such a case.
| |
| 10 0 Let me ask Mr. Tocci.
| |
| 11 Mr. Tocci, first of all a simple question. Am I 12 correct in understanding these sirens won't sound much like 13 your average police and fire siren?
| |
| () 14 A (Tocci) That's my understanding. The police 15 siren has a first harmonic around or fundamental frequency 16 around 1,000 hertz generally. This is at 550, so it should 17 sound a little different.
| |
| 18 Q Fair amount different, wouldn't it?
| |
| 19 A (Tocci) Well, yes. Actually, what distinguishes 20 a fire siren from these sirens is a fire siren would have 21 are harmonics that give it a certain character that would l 22 make it sound different.
| |
| 23 Q From your knowledge of the system, are any of 1
| |
| 24 these sirens so far away that they could be confused with a 25 fire siren or an ambulance by a person of average O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 535 1 intelligence?
| |
| 2 A (Tocci). If you're mentioning a siren on a j l
| |
| I l 3 vehicle, an ambulance or a fire truck, the answer is that I 1
| |
| 4 would think that somebody would expect them to sound j 5 different. Yes, they would be able to distinguish between 6 the two.
| |
| 7 There are other stationary sirens, though, that 8 would be in this area. I think if you check all of the fire 9 stations that many of them would have sirens for volunteer 10 fire assistance alert. I know it's the case in my town. I 11 know it's the case in several towns in that crea.
| |
| 12 Q Your town is -- I know your business is in my 13 hometown. Your hometown is which, though, sir?
| |
| ~
| |
| (} 14 A (Tocci) In Franklin, Massachusetts.
| |
| 15 Q Franklin.
| |
| 16 You are aware, are you not, that the towns we're ,
| |
| 17 talking about systematically disabled all their emergency 18 systems in order to stop Seabrook?
| |
| 19 A (Tocci) I understand that.
| |
| 20 Q And indeed the n.ajor CD sirens were all taken 21 down, for example, in the City of Newburyport?
| |
| 22 A (Tocci) I understand that.
| |
| 23 Q I would like to persist with you.
| |
| 24 There aren't any siren systems up there at all 25 now?
| |
| - Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 'l KANFER, et al . , PANEL - CROSS 536 1 A (Tocci) Not for Seabrook emergency warning.
| |
| : 2. _Q- For anything? j 3 A (Tocci) No. I believe that there are -- I recall 4 that there are stationary sirens associated with fire 5 stations because I know my brother is on the fire I
| |
| 6 department.
| |
| 7 Q I am advised there's one siren on Plum Island 8 which is an air horn type siren'and one in downtown l 1
| |
| 9 Newburyport on the fire station.
| |
| 10 Is that the one we're referring to?
| |
| 11 A (Tocci) I have no specific knowledge of that one.
| |
| 12 I recall seeing a siren in the Town of Merrimac on the fire 13 station there.
| |
| () 14 A (Perrow) Could I just add a point to this 15 testimony?
| |
| 16 Q In the area, an expertise of psychology or do you 17 once more wish to step out of your field?
| |
| 18 MR. JONAS: Why don't we just wait for questions 19 here please.
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: I got a feeling I got the siren 21 expert right over there.
| |
| 22 THE WITNESS: (Perrow) Well, I would just like to 23 point out, though, it's not a question of whether they have 24 been disabled in the area, it's whether the people that come 25 to the area and are staying there know that they are
| |
| () Heritage Reporting Corporation .
| |
| (202) 628-4888 l l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 537
| |
| '() 1 disabled. So that then when they hear a fixed point sound 2 that they Know that, well, that could not be the fire ;
| |
| 1 3 station because they have replaced that. '
| |
| 4 And also, we presumably are drawing up guidelines, 5 not just for the average intelligence because then 49 6 percent of the people are going to suffer grievously.
| |
| 7 We want to have guidelines that cover people below 8 average intelligence, too.
| |
| 9 BY MR. DIGNAN:
| |
| 10 Q Do'ctor, the article you cite in making your 11 statements about stress in emergency conditions on page 23 12 is an article by Zakay and Wooler. Do you have a copy of 13 that with you, sir?
| |
| 14 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| )
| |
| 15 Q Could you get it out, it might facilitate the 16 question.
| |
| 17 A (Perrow) Yes, I have it.
| |
| 18 Q Now as I understood that article when I read it, 19 there were 60 subjects involved. And they were each given 20 two tasks to perform.
| |
| 21 The first task was to choose the best refrigerator 22 out of five offered.
| |
| 23 The second task was to choose the best oven out of 24 five offered.
| |
| 25 Is that correct so far?
| |
| ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 538 I 1 A (Perrow) Right.
| |
| 2 Q They were asked to make that decision based on 3 five, what I refer to in the article, as dimensions: cost; 4 size; service quality; electricity consumption; and the 5 brand name.
| |
| 6 Is that correct?
| |
| 7 A (Perrow) Correct.
| |
| 8 Q Three groups were made out of the subjects, 9 presumably I guess 20 in each group. One group was given 10 two minutes to make this monumental decision in each case. ;
| |
| 11 The other group was given 30 seconds. And the other group 12 was given 15 seconds; is that correct?
| |
| 13 A (Perrow) Correct.
| |
| () 14 Q And they were asked to do these two tasks once 15 before certain training was given to them.
| |
| 16 Is that correct, sir?
| |
| 17 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 18 Q And then afterwards they were trained in a thing 19 called, they give it the initials "MAU," which I understand 20 means " multi attribute decision process training."
| |
| 21 Is that correct?
| |
| 22 A (Perrow) Correct.
| |
| 23 Q And they did the task again after all this 24 training; correct? Is that right?
| |
| 25 A (Perrow) Correct.
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l- _ __ _ _ - _-__ __- -__ _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 539
| |
| /%
| |
| t, ) 1 Q And what the results were was that.it turned out, 2 as one intuitively might suppose, that the 15 second group l
| |
| 3 even when trained did a less -- did not go as good a job.at 4 picking out what everybody had decided was the best ,
| |
| I 5 refrigerator and the best oven because of the time pressure, f 1
| |
| 6 Isn't that right?
| |
| 7 A (Perrow) Correct.
| |
| 8 Q I guess, here it is again, they told me not to do 9 this in law school, what possible relevance does that have 10 to do with what we're talking about here, about people 11 reacting to sirens?
| |
| 12 A (Perrow) People are reacting to sirens under time 13 pressures. And the fact that they studied the difference 14 between 15 second and two minute difference, in one ;
| |
| )
| |
| 15 circumstances, doesn't mean that we cannot extrapolate from ;
| |
| 16 that finding to larger time segments. And the fact that 17 they had five different models conditioned to choose from is 18 really quite applicable to many decisions in life.
| |
| 19 You might have five children in five different 20 parts of the house, the barn, the outhouse, and you have to 21 decide upon rounding them up.
| |
| 22 You have a number of situations in life in which 23 you make decisions among different criteria. This was the 24 one that psychologists like to use, because it's a homey I 25 example. It still can be extrapolated to crisis situations I
| |
| )
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| | |
| a
| |
| [ .. .
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 540 1 that I think we're concerned about.
| |
| 2 Then there follows several other articles dealing L
| |
| 3 with time pressures. Some of them more absurd and some of
| |
| : 4. them less.
| |
| 5 Q Well, where do they follow? I missed them, they 6 aren't in the testimony.
| |
| 7 You. refer to the fact that people in Zakay and 8 Wooler cite six more articles.
| |
| 9 A (Perrow) On page 275.
| |
| 10 Q So you believe that a test of an ability to pick 11 the best refrigerator or the best oven is a relevant set of 12 data to look at in determining whether or not people upon 13 hearing a siren will turn on their radio to see what's going
| |
| (). 14 on; 'is that right?
| |
| 15 That's all we care about them doing, is turning on 16 the radio?
| |
| 17 A (Perrow) Yes. I think that is correct.
| |
| 18 You must understand that we make -- we do research 19 on decision-making. We're interested in the subject of
| |
| '20. decision-making and time pressures. The type of decisions 21 that are made in this research taken are less important than 22 the fact that people have to choose among competing criteri.
| |
| 23 and make a selection.
| |
| 24 And both of those cases are analogous in that 25 respect.
| |
| ) Heritage Reporting Corporation l
| |
| (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 541 f%
| |
| ('_) 1 Q Thank you, Doctor.
| |
| 2 Thank you, Dr. Kanfer, gentlemen, I appreciate it.
| |
| 3 MR. DIGNANs That's all I have, Your Honor.
| |
| 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Staff?
| |
| 5 MR. BERRY: One moment, Your Honor.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: While we're waiting, I have two 7 questions of Dr. Kanfer.
| |
| s 8 Do you have an opinion as to whether we're likely 9 to be talking about a high turnover job or a low turnover 10 job?
| |
| 11 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| j 12 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry, I don't know what that 1L was yes to! High or low?
| |
| 14 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) High turnover job.
| |
| )
| |
| 15 I have an opinion and the answer ia<, high 16 turnover,.
| |
| 17 JUDGE BLOCH: And with a high turnover job, do you 18 have an opinion as to the importance of being fired as to 19 motivating the person?
| |
| 20 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) I think in the job that's 21 currently constructed that will not weigh heavily in the act 22 at the time to perhaps not be present.
| |
| 23 It's a long-term consequence and it may be beaten 24 by certain activities. So it's not likely to be a very 25 salient reason for preventing an action.
| |
| (~
| |
| (' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 542 in
| |
| (,) 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Pearsons, I think you're the 2 right person to ask, but if you're not someone else could 3 answer.
| |
| 4 Is the prediction that someone will answer in this 5 setting related to something called the signal-to-noise 6 ratio? Knowing what to do with the siren?
| |
| 7 Who gave the study of the vigilance?
| |
| 8 Dr. Kanfer.
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) Could you say it again, 10 please.
| |
| 11 JUDGE BLOCH: The example that you gave had to do 12 with recognizing digits out of other digits?
| |
| 13 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) Right.
| |
| () 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Wouldn't the likelihood that someone l 15 will respond be related to something called the signal-to-16 noise ratio? l 17 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) Yes.
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Could you explain a little bit about 19 that?
| |
| 20 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) Well, it changes over 21 time. The signal-to-noise ratio is such that when you have 22 more frequent signals what happens, it's easier to detect 23 than when you have less frequent signals. So sonar 24 detector, sonar operators have less frequent signals. One 25 has to stay alert and alertness declines and so your Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 543 1 performance will decline and this gets worse over time.
| |
| 2 Now here, as I understand the task, you have an 3 extremely infrequent' signal. The compensation is that it's 4 a very powerful signal.
| |
| 5 The problem then is whether or not it's a believed 6 signal. So it moves out of the vigilance framework and into i 7 a very different. That's what makes it -- not identical to 8 a vigilance test because it's so low probability, but the 9 signal is so powerful you don't need to detect it from 10 noise.
| |
| 11 But in the interim you have nothing else to do. !
| |
| 12 vigilance operators, typically your operators, have 13 something to do even though they may tire of it. These
| |
| () 14 people have nothing else to do, so they may not even attend.
| |
| 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know the loudness of the 16 siren involved?
| |
| 17 THE WITNESS: (Kanfer) In the staging area?
| |
| 18 No. I assumed it was very loud. And that it 19 would alert everybody right away. That's right. It might, I 20 if people are asleep -- for example, there are studies that 21 show when people get tired and drowsy and go to sleep and l i
| |
| 22 you provide a signal, there's some momentary confusion but )
| |
| 23 it fades usually pretty quickly. And I don't know how long 24 it would be in this case, if they were asleep.
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, i i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PANEL - CROSS 544 1 Mr. Berry?
| |
| 2 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 3 The Staff has no questions.
| |
| 4 5
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 )
| |
| 1 9
| |
| 10 11 12 13 0 14 1 15 16 17 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT 545
| |
| ( 1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 3 Q Mr. Pearsons, there was a question from Mr. Dignan 4 concerning whether there was a single level that'would be 1 i l 5 the threshold of discomfort for every member of the public, 6 or maybe it was from the Chairman.
| |
| 7 Do you recall that question?
| |
| 8 A (Pearsons) Yes.
| |
| 9 Q And your. response was, no, there is'no single 10 level that would so define the threshold of discomfort for
| |
| ' ll every person; is that correct?
| |
| 12 A (Pearsons) That's right.
| |
| 13 Q Is there a single level that defines the threshold
| |
| (')
| |
| \_/
| |
| 14 of pain for every person?
| |
| 15 A (Pearsons) No.
| |
| 16 Q Is there a single level that defines a certain 17 temporary threshold shift duration for every person?
| |
| 18 A (Pearsons) No.
| |
| 19 Q Is there a single level that defines the permanent 20 hearing damage of a certain measure for every person?
| |
| 21 A (Pearsons) No.
| |
| 22 Q Dr. Perrow, we talked a little bit about the study 23 on choosing appliances.
| |
| 24 A (Perrow) Yes.
| |
| 25 Q You recall that.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT 546
| |
| () 1 Is there any way to predict whether decisionmaking 2 at the time that one hears an emergency siren would be 3 better or worse than decisionmaking in the context that that 4 study was done?
| |
| 5 A (Perrow) I'm sorry. Repeat that again.
| |
| 6 Q Okay. The study was of decisionmaking among i
| |
| 7 appliances --
| |
| 8 A (Perrow) Appliances, right. !
| |
| 9 0 -- with limited time periods.
| |
| 10 Is there any way to predict whether the 11 effectiveness of that decisionmaking in that context would' 12 be better or worse than decisionmaking in the context of an 13 emergency alert?
| |
| 14 A (Perrow) Oh, I'm sorry, I missed - yes, I now
| |
| }
| |
| 15 understand your question. l 16 I do not believe there is any research that says 17 that the.nore important the decision to be made, the more 18 fateful oc the more frightening the consequences of your 19 decisior., the more the quality of the decision will go down 20 or be decremented.
| |
| 21 That would be -- and Ruth Kanfer, Professor Kanfer 22 may know some of those studies. There may be some like 23 that. That's what you would be required to have.
| |
| 24 I can venture a guess that the quality of your 25 decision is not going to improve under extreme stress
| |
| (_q / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I I
| |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l
| |
| | |
| i 1
| |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT .547 i .
| |
| -($ 1 circumstances, because we have evidence about that. We have 2 only been talking about time pressures now.
| |
| 3 When you add time pressures to stress, and it's 4 very fairly unstressful to select appliances, although I 5 have a lot of trouble with it - ,
| |
| 6 (Laughter) 7 but it is very stressful to know what to do, how 8 to interpret a siren to remember what you are supposed to do 9 to make a decision about whether to run to the next farm and 10 retrieve your children or not before you turn on the radio.
| |
| 11 Those kind of decisions I think would be hard to handle.
| |
| 12 Q Okay, thank you. L 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Dr. Perrow, of the six follow-up
| |
| () 14 studies, the ones cited in the appliance study,-is there one 15 that would be most helpful to us right now?
| |
| 16 THE WITNESS: (Perrow) I went through them, and 17 they --
| |
| 18 JUDGE BLOCH: One.
| |
| 19 THE WIT ESS: (Perrow) No. I'm sorry. I wish I 20 could have found one. They are all deficient as almost all-21 of our work in the social science is deficient when we 22 really need it. It's better than no work.
| |
| 23 MR. DIGNAN: That's what lawyers always say, too.
| |
| 24 You wind up trying nuclear cases.
| |
| 25 MR. JONAS: I'm not sure "no work" would apply for l
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 1 KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT 548 r"% I
| |
| (_) 1 either side of the table here.
| |
| l l
| |
| 2 (Laughter) '
| |
| 3 MR. JONAS: This isn't yet any way in the nature ,
| |
| 4 of redirect. I did want to try to tie down with Mr. Dignan .
| |
| 5 and Mr. Berry the fate of these surveys that I think were 6 given to the reporter. ,
| |
| 7 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I thought they would go in, but i 8 I thought we wculd get the witnesses off and then do that.
| |
| 9 Did you have questions of them on these?
| |
| 10 MR. JONAS: The one thing I wanted to do and I l 11 know that -- can we go off the record for this?
| |
| 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. Let's go off the record.
| |
| 13 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| {} 14 JUDGE BLOCH: The question we are discussing is 15 the survey map?
| |
| 16 MS. SELLECK: The surveys, I understand, are not 17 objected to.
| |
| 18 MR. DIGNAN: Everybody wants in.
| |
| 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
| |
| 20 MR. JONAS: Everybody wants the surveys.
| |
| 21 MR. DIGNAN: The surveys, I guess what we would 22 like you to do is wave the magic wand over the surveys. You 23 said you would withhold the ruling until today.
| |
| 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Can we mark them with a number?
| |
| 25 MR. DIGNAN: No , you bound them in yesterday.
| |
| I
| |
| \
| |
| ("
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
| |
| E___-------_-__--__----__---------- _ - - -
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT 549 1
| |
| /~
| |
| (\/ 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Are they bound it?
| |
| o 2 MR. DIGNAN: And you were going to give us the 3 ruling on them today.
| |
| 4 JUDGE BLOCH: So there is no objection. I
| |
| )
| |
| 5 MR. DIGNAN: There is no objection.
| |
| 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Therefore, the survey maps that were )
| |
| 1 7 bound in yesterday are admitted into evidence. l l
| |
| 8 (The. survey maps that were ]
| |
| 9 bound into the transcript 10 on May 2, 1989, were 11 received in evidence.)
| |
| 12 MR. JONAS: May I engage in a bit of redirect with 13 Mr. Tocci?
| |
| L () 14 MS. TALBOT: Excuse me. Mr. Dignan, would this be 15' Applicants' Exhibit No. whatever?
| |
| 16 MR. DIGNAN: No, they are just bound into the 17 record.
| |
| 18 MS. TALBOT: Okay. Actually they are TR-232 to 19 244, 20 Which one are we looking at?
| |
| 21 MR. JONAS: Well let me just begin.
| |
| l 22 BY MR. JONAS:
| |
| 23 Q Mr. Tocci, I've put before you three different i
| |
| 24 pieces of poster board with pictures and VANS locations 25 indications above those.
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT 550
| |
| \d' 1 Do'you have those in your hand?
| |
| l 2 A (Tocci) Yes.
| |
| 3 O And can you tell us what those are?
| |
| 4 A (Tocci) Okay. These are 360-degree pictures that 5 were taken with a wide-angle lens by Tom Bouliane, my 6 associate.
| |
| 7 Q Were you present when those pictures were taken?
| |
| J 8 A (Tocci) Yes, I was present when those pictures f 9 were taken.
| |
| 10 Now, we had selected approximately 12 locations, I 11 believe, 12 siren locations at which we went and took 360- l 12 degree pictures from where we thought the siren would be i 13 place.
| |
| () 14 Q And you thought the siren would be placed based on 15 what?
| |
| 16 A (Tocci) -Based on information provided to us 17 earlier, and that was actually through Tom Bouliane, again 18 my associate. ,
| |
| 19 I have to point out that in at least one case the 20 camera location was not at the siren location because of 21 shielding by a large grade separation near Plum Island 22 Bridge. So we had to move to the top of the grade 23 separation in order to get a 360-degree photograph.
| |
| 24 0 Were the means to locate the VANS locations these 25 VANS route maps?
| |
| O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| | |
| I KANFER, et al., PANEL - REDIRECT 551 j v.
| |
| D 1 A (Tocci) Yee. We used the VANS route maps to i
| |
| 2 locate the siren locations. However, the exact location 3 within 50 feet was not possible based on the instructions l l
| |
| 4 and those maps.
| |
| ]
| |
| 5 Q Okay. And based on the information that you had 6 then available to you, do those 360-degree pictures 7 accurately depict the area surrounding each of the 8 designated acoustic locations?
| |
| 9 A (Tocci) They do.
| |
| 10 Q One other point of clarification. We said a 360-11 degree picture. Those are actually a series of pictures 12 taken with a wide-angle lens and put together to give a 360-13 degree effect; is that right?
| |
| 14 A (Tocci) That's correct.
| |
| 15 MR. JONAS: And I would represent to the Board and 16 to the parties that the pictures that I provided in advance 17 of the hearing are the same pictures. In some cases they 18 are sliced out a little bit so that they fit together 19 properly. And I think I also broke them up into VANS i 20 locations.
| |
| 21 I would move that the pictures be admitted into 22 evidence.
| |
| 23 MS. SELLECK: Your Honor, we object.
| |
| 24 JUDGE BLOCH: And the objection is?
| |
| l 25 MS. SELLECK: We would like to examine this Heritage Reporting Corporation !
| |
| (202) 628-4888 l
| |
| l i L _----. l
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - VOIR DIR 552 k- 1 witness as to sor.3 of them in particular. I-can say we have l 2 no objection to certain ones. Again, assuming that the s
| |
| 3 distances on the survey plats are taken as true and not what
| |
| 'l 4 appears to be from the -- Numbers 1, 7, 12, 13 and 15, we i 5 don't have any serious objections to. But all of the others
| |
| }'
| |
| 6 we do.
| |
| 7 JUDGE BLOCH: So would you like to proceed on voir 8 dire?
| |
| 9 MS. SELLECK: Certainly.
| |
| 10 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 11 BY MS. SELLECK:
| |
| 12 Q- Mr. Tocci, the ones you were just holding up can 13 you tell me which acoustic locations they represent?
| |
| () 14 A (Tocci) Yes.
| |
| 15 Q One, 2, 3 and 4, I see them.
| |
| 16 .A (Tocci) They are labeled VL-1, 2, 3, and 4.
| |
| 17 Q Do you have a --
| |
| 18 A (Tocci) I have others by the way.
| |
| 19 Q Okay. Do you have a board before you that would 20 have 16, 11, 10 and 97 21 A (Tocci) I have 16S, 10, 11 and 9, yes.
| |
| 22 Q That's all on one board?
| |
| 23 A (Tocci) No.
| |
| 24 Q Let's look at that board.
| |
| 25 A (Tocci) How are we going to do this? Can you O Heritage Reporting Corporation
| |
| [ (202) 628-4888 I
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| KANFER, et al., PANEL - VOIR DIR 553 r~<
| |
| (-) 1 move it out, please?
| |
| 2 MR. JONAS: You've just cut out the Board from --
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I'll come over here. Why don't we 4 come over here so the witness can see it, too.
| |
| b 5 (The Board relocates to view pictures.)
| |
| 6 BY MS. SELLECK:
| |
| 7 Q And could you also get in front of you, if you 8 have access to one, a copy of y esterday's transcript?
| |
| 9 Do you have that?
| |
| 10 A (Tocci) Yesterday's transcript.
| |
| 11 Q Or the survey maps. They happen to be bound in 12 ' yesterday's transcript.
| |
| 13 A (Tocci) Just one second.
| |
| () 14 I have them.
| |
| I 15 Q Okay, those maps start at page 232.
| |
| i 16 JUDGE BLOCH: We handed them a loose copy.
| |
| 17 MS. SELLECK: Oh, okay.
| |
| .8 BY MS. SELLECK:
| |
| 19 Q Would you turn to the one that has VL 09?
| |
| 20 A (Tocci) What I would like to do als6 is to refer ,
| |
| l 21 to the maps that were given to me. The information shown !
| |
| 22 here, I don't quite recognize it. If I can refer to my ;
| |
| I 23 other set of maps. j 24 MS. SELLECK: Your Honor, I have just been advised 25 there's a difference between what we're looking at there and i
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 554
| |
| [~)
| |
| : s. / 1 what I have in front of me for photographs. I had a set of 2 VL-09 photographs that includes some close-up shots of some 3 brick buildings, and those do not appear on the map before 4 Your Honor.
| |
| l 5 Perhaps we should take a recess so I can check 6 what photographs are being introduced.
| |
| 7 MR. DIGNAN: We are objecting on the basis of what 8 we've got in our hands. And if they aren't the same, maybe 9 we should --
| |
| 10 MS, SELLECK: Yes, it's not the same thing. Then 11 perhaps there is no objection.
| |
| 12 THE WITNESS: (Tocci) There is a point that I 13 might clarify. And that is, our camera location was not l; [g\ 14 where your VL-9 is shown. Our camera location was on the 15 other side of the access road to the parking lot. It 16 essentially was in the Westbury Highway Garage Parking. So 17 it was removed by, oh, approximately maybe as 100 feet over 18 to the west of the present VL-9.
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, may I make a suggestion?
| |
| 20 First of all, I understand the problem that Ms.
| |
| 21 Selleck is talking about. That can be cleared up in about a 22 minute.
| |
| 23 If I could make a suggestion, it might be possible ,
| |
| 24 at a break to have Mr. Tocci just put an X on the various 25 survey documents where the pictures were taken so that the ,
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
| |
| - _-__ - - _ - - - - - i
| |
| | |
| a 555
| |
| ("%'s 1- pictures could-be admitted and put in their proper context 2 with the VANS locations.
| |
| 3 MS. SELLECK: Well, part of my examination would 4 go, for example,'on the photos I have of VL-16. The photos 5 are taken from different locations. But that may not match- l 6 up with what he's got there. There it is, 16S. But see, 7 those are not the photographs I have in front of me. So I 8 don't think we can decide.
| |
| 9 MR. DIGNAN: I suggest we break and let Ms.
| |
| 10 Selleck look at the -- we may not have a problem is my 11 point. Obviously, these photos are different than the ones 12 we were given.
| |
| 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Let's take a 10-minute break. It's
| |
| () 14 3:04. Be back at 3:14, and we might extend it if we need 15 to.
| |
| 16 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
| |
| 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Good afternoon.
| |
| 18 In the off-the-record conversations, counsel 19 consulted with the Chair and ue decided that the survey maps 20 really serve the purpose of showing the location of the 21 various buildings around the VANS locations. And that 22 therefore the photographs would not be necessary. So the 23 purpose for examining the photos during the break was 24 therefore obviated.
| |
| 25 MR. JONAS: With one slight twist to it as usually O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| ,m 556 i
| |
| .\> 1 happens.
| |
| 2 It occurred to me that another reason for offering 3 the photos, and I don't think that we need to do that, was 4 just to establish that these are residences. And that in 1 5 some cases we don't have to establish all of them, that l
| |
| 6 people actually live there. And I was going to go through I 7 Mr. Tocci to talk about that with respect to each acoustic 8 location. But I think the Applicants are prepared to 9 stipulate that in many cases, or in some cases, or in a 10 substantial number of cases these residences are actually 11 occupied. You can choose which one of those.
| |
| 12 I just want something on the record that indicates 13 there are actually people living there l
| |
| ()
| |
| /m 14 MS. SELLECK: The Applicants are willing to 15 stipulate that approximately 50 percent of the structures l 16 noted on the survey plats are residences.
| |
| 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Fifty percent of those on the plats 18 altogether, or 50 percent within a 100 years?
| |
| 19 MR. JONAS: Altogether I think is the --
| |
| 20 MR. DIGNAN: Altogether.
| |
| 21 MS. SELLECK: Yes, altogether, Your Honor.
| |
| 22 MR. JONAS: We'll accept that.
| |
| 23 JUDGE BLOCH: You may continue.
| |
| 24 MR. JONAS: Oh, no, I'm finished. Thank you.
| |
| 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay.
| |
| O V
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 L__________________________
| |
| | |
| 557
| |
| () 1.
| |
| ~
| |
| Is there any other cross?
| |
| 2 MR. BERRY: The Staff has nothing,'Your Honor.
| |
| 3 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to thank the witnesses 4 for their participation, and excuse you from being 5 witnesses. Thank you..
| |
| 6 (The Panel was thereupon excused.)
| |
| 7' JUDGE BLOCH: Is there any other necessary 8 business at this time?
| |
| 9 MR. JONAS: None from the Mass AG. I 10 BGl. DIGNAN;. Nothing from the Applicant, Your 11 Honor.
| |
| 12 MR. BERRY: Nothing occurs to the Staff at this 13 time, Your Honor.
| |
| ) 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I would like to just express 15 a small concern that has been occurring to me which really 16 .isn't directly related to what I'm doing as a judge here.
| |
| 17' But what we are doing is setting up a system in which 120 18 people may be employed for a long veriod of time basically 19 as substitutes for poles. And to me that doesn't show a lot 20 of concern for human life, the way life can go. And it 21 really shows something about how we manage to get into 22 institutional settings in this country where we use up our 23 resources for no purpose.
| |
| 24 I am impressed that everyone who has testified 25 here and who served as a lawyer in this proceeding is O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| 558 l l
| |
| (
| |
| '~' 1 skilled and well meaning and somehow we're managing to use j i
| |
| 2 up an awful lot of our resources in just pushing against 3 each other and in doing things that someone from another l 4 planet would look at and say, "How did they ever do that?"
| |
| 5 So I would just hope that somehow, should this 6 plant be authorized to operate, we won't actually see 120 7 people being employed as substitute for poles.
| |
| 8 And unless there is a comment on what I've said, I 9 plan to adjourn. Thank you.
| |
| 10 (Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was 11 adjourned.)
| |
| 12 13
| |
| ,- m
| |
| (,) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
| |
| 21 22 23 24 25 U
| |
| Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
| |
| | |
| l h
| |
| CERTIFICATE This is to~ certify that the attached proceedings.before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
| |
| Name: .Public Service Company of New Hampshire,_et al. .
| |
| (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
| |
| Docket'No: .50-443-OL-1R2 50-444-OL-1R2 (On-site Emergency Planning)
| |
| Place: Boston, Massachusetts l
| |
| Date: May 3, 1989 I' 'were held as herein appears, and that this is the original-transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
| |
| p I 1 1
| |
| /S/ 1 l (Signature typed) : Donna L. Cook Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation O
| |
| HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888
| |
| .. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ .}}
| |
