ML20214E242
| ML20214E242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#186-381 OL, NUDOCS 8603070215 | |
| Download: ML20214E242 (300) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:OlGINAL O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-400 OL 50-401 01 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY i NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power P1 ant) O . LOCATION: RALEIGH, FORTH CAROLINA PAGES: 10434 - 10711 DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1986
/
, O {)
0\ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. O OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street , 5o0707onir 050004 Washington, D.C. 20001 l eDH Aocca onoooaoo (202)347-3700 PDH NADONWIDE COVERACE t
r CR26042.0 CRT/cjg 10434 l' UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA () 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x j 4k :
i 5!j In the Matter of: : Docket Numbers
" CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and :
6 y NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL : 50-400 OL
'! POWER AGENCY : 50-401 OL i 7). -
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power : Plant) : 0h :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x el 9 {N Holiday Inn Downtown 10 . 320 Hillsborough Street j Raleigh, North Carolina 11 0 Tuesday, March 4, 1986 l
12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at () 11 8:30 a.m. 14 15 BEFORE: 16 JAMES L. KELLEY, ESQ., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 ! 18 l 39 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member ; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 20 a Washington, D. C. 20555 l 21 'l, j GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member ! 22 !! Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l I 23 0 Washington, D. C. 20555 l l ,.. a ..., ... q ; j 25 ' -- continued -- ' i d L. - - - o , - . . ~ - m,_ . . _ _ . . . . .__m -
l 10435 I APPEARANCES: I On behalf of the Applicants: l 3 ; THOMAS A. BAXTER, ESQ. l l 4 j, DELISSA A. RIDGWAY, ESQ. l
' Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
5l Washington, D. C. 6h DALE HOLLAR, ESQ. p Associate General Counsel 7 d Carolina Power & Light Company
! P. O. Box 1551 8
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 i! 9 i On behalf of Frderal Emergency Management Agency:. 10 STEVEN ROCHLIS, ESQ. Regional Counsel, Region IV i 11 ,' Atlanta, Georgia
! Appearing Pro Set i
()' 33 14 WELLS EDDLEMAN 812 Yancey Street Durhaim, North Carolina 27701 15 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 16 Commission Staff: l ,' JANICE E. MOORE, ESQ. - Office of the Executive Legal Director i ! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 l 16 Washington, D. C. 20555 ; 19 { On behalf of the State of North Carolina I 20 FRED R. GAMIN, ESQ. ! '! Assistant Attorney General i l State of North Carolina l Trade & Commerce Division l 22 a/ i j Department of Justice i P. O. Box 629 { l
, 23 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 kwF Rworten. f M. \l f
4 25 ! I i s i i T_~_'_,"T.E E E Z[_****1_E T_'E'_~ E E T 'E~**IT E7IIT Y EEE^'7-~I-ETIU-'J" E f M 'I M IT27 T~'~~~~ ~
10436 I CONTENTS 2 l WITNESSES EXAM DIRECT . CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 David N. Keast , and ' 4, Karl D. Kryter by Mr. Baxter 10467 5 by Mr. Rochlis 10474 ' by Judge Carpenter 10484 6j. by Judge Kelley 10558
;t by Judge Carpenter 10571 :
7/ by Mr. Gamin 10574 by Mr. Eddleman 10698 gd by Mr. Gamin (Resumed) 10621 ji by Mr. Eddleman (Continued) 10625 by Mr. Baxter 10667 9
! by Mr. Gamin 10668
?! by Mr. Eddleman 10669 10 by Judge Carpenter 10674 e by Mr. Eddleman 10679 11 1 t
12 3 13 NOON - 10542 14 15 EXH I BITS 16 EXHIBIT-DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED RECEIVED ' 1 g Applicant's exhibit 46-A - Shearon Harris 10468 Flume Exposure Pathway Revised, 2/6/86 IS Eddleman Exhibit 75 - Testimony of Mr. Riley 10685 ! , 19
! l 20 , ;
j l 21 i !
! l i
22 lI l , 23 l l
] 24 [
Ass. FLU Reporters, Inc. ' 25 ; l l i
- _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . ~ . _ ...-.....,_..-..._...,_,____..,..._._....--..-._......J
l 26042.0 10437 BRT i PROCEEDI NGS 1 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning, my name is James 3 Kelley, I'm chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 4 Board. To my left is Judge Bright. On my right, Judge 5 James Carpenter. Judge Carpenter is handing out some 6 material that will relate to sor.e cuestions he would like I 7 to put to the witness. 8 We are here this morning in response to the 9 board's order of January 16th, reopening the hearing on 10 this contention of Mr. Eddleman's 57-C-3 relating to 11 arousing people in the EPZ in the nighttime hours. 12 l The hearing this morning -- today, tomorrow, I ) 13 however long it takes -- will be confined to the issues 14 raised in that order of reopening. l 15 Let us next get everybody introduced for the 16 record. Ms. Ridgway, do you want to start from your side l 17 of the room? 18 i MS. RIDGWAY: Thank you, your Honor. Delissa A. I 19 i Ridgway, appearing for Applicants Carolina Power & Light. 20 I'm from the law firm of Shau, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 21 in Washington, D.C. 22 l MR. BAXTER: Also for the Applicants, Thomas A. 23 Baxter from the same firm. I 24 , MR. HOLLAR: For the Applicants, Dale Hollar, I (')J 25 associate general counsel of CP&L. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6 4 6
26042.0 10438 BRT 1 l 1 MR. ROCHLIS: Steven Rochlis, from the Federal l 2 Emergency Management Agency. 3 MS. MOORE: Janice Moore, NRC Staff. l 4 JUDGE KELLEY: And then the other lady and 5 gentleman with you? 6 MS. MOORE: To my left is Dr. Kryter. And to 7 Mr. Rochlis' right is Edie Becker, a legal technician. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm Wells Eddleman, new address, 9 12 Yancy Street, Durham, North Carolina, representing l 10 myself. 1 11 MR. GAMIN: I'm Fred Gamin, I'm an assistant 12 Attorney General for the State of North Carolina. I ( 13 represent the using and consumi.g public of North Carolina. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Gamin. Could you i 15
] spell your name?
16 MR. GAMIN: G-a-m-i-n. i - 17 ! JUDGE KELLEY: We'll expect to be getting right l' l 18 to the witnesses, but we just have a couple of things to 19 note first and we'll see if the parties have anything, also. 20 We'll first acknowledge receipt of certain items 21 that we've received from the parties since the last 22 telephone conference last week. 23 Mr. Eddleman has served us with proposed l l 24 testimony of Mr. Jesse Riley and also with an outline of I l 25 areas of potential questioning with respect to Mr. Black of ; [} i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3*00 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 c .. : , - . . . , , . - . . . - . -- - - -
i 26042.0 10439 BRT I 1 CP&L. The Applicants served us with a copy of an order 2 from the Court of Appeals which involved an appeal that we 3 had not heretofore been aware of by the Duke Power Company, 4 in connection with their attempt to seek changes in the 5 emergency notification rule back in, I think, 1981. 5 , Mr. Baxter might, when we get to that point, expand on the 7 order and what he believes it represents. But we do have 8 that document. We assume the other parties -- Mr. Eddleman, l 9 do you have that paper? i 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. I have received it l 11 yesterday. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We have with us some 13 additional notes, field notes that are an outgrowth of - 14 Mr. Eddleman's discovery request to FEMA and the Staff 15 l under his two emergency planning exercise contentions, i 16 l numbers 2 and 8. We had previously had disclosed on an in i 17 j camera basis some field notes of FEMA people and we had i 18 I heard the parties back, I think on February 5, with respect 19 to the disclosure, or not, of those papers. 20 We were under the impression at the time that 21 that was it as f ar as existing papers responsive to the 22 request were concerned. As I understand it, though, later, 23 ' there stas some contract work done by the Argonne National 24 Laboratory in connection with the exercise and there were () 25 several people from Argonne at the exercise who took some ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10440 BRT O 1 field notes and they did not come to light until later. 2 We have been provided with copies of those notes, 3 again, on an in camera basis by Ms. Moore, through FEMA. I 4 would like to note, number one, that we had them, and 5 number two, that we would like to address that question 6 sometime later on today. Near the end of the day, perhaps. 7 Mr. Rochlis, is that all right with you? 8 MR. ROCHLIS: That will be fine, your Honor. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, is that all right 10 with you? 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's okay or we could' take it up
^
12 , now. It makes no difference with me. . () 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we'll just- et started 14 with the witnesses and then get started.when, we can. , 15 l One just final note from the, board, before we. i - 16 ! get started. We think it would be helpful before we get to I 17 ! the homework portion of the case, which'would be the panel 1 18 l coming after the first panel, as I understand it, if the 19 board and the parties had some discussion about ~he t scope 20 of that hearing, specifically whether we either are 21 required to or, as a matter of discretion, ou'ght to get 22 into a discussion in any depth of the telephones. The l 23 board's tentative inclination is the answer to that 24 question is no. We had some discussion of this on the phone last weck, but it was just general discuss' ion and {} 25 ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4N6 .,-- n . w -_e . e g -- . u. c :m ; ..rn .. .. --. .- , - . .- . - - - ~ - - - - - - - -
26042,0 10441 BRT i
~'
1 didn't relate to any bottom line. 2 It seems to us that in light of where we are on 3 some of the proposed testimony, that some clarification of 4 that question might be in order. We could, of course, just 5 take it question by question and see where it goes, but it 6 seems to us that some general discussion before we get into 7 ; the topic might be useful. So we want to alert you that we 8 have that in mind. 9 More specifically, we do have some views on the 10 question, as indicated by our view that it is not a proper l 11 subject for any in-depth treatment. What we propose to do 12 is lay that out for you later on this morning, and then let
. /m
(,) 13 you reflect on what we've said. Then we can hear from the 14 j parties before we get to the first panel. 15 i
; Does that seem satisfactory?
16 MR. BAXTER: We have no objection to that, i 17 ' Mr. Chairman. I would note that I had planned to make an I 18 oral motion seeking a declaratory ruling from the board l 19 that testimony on alternatives to the tone alert system is 20 outside the scope of the hearing, and I was prepared to do 21 that at the outset this morning so that the parties could 22 think about it, respond later if they'd like. 23 The raason I had in mind asking for a 24 declaratory ruling is that we would then not of fer the (~3 25 portions of our panel's testimony that has to do with the us l i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26042.0 5 10442 ' BRT ( ( ) 1 telephones, but we would want a ruling today that that same 2 principle would apply to Mr. Riley, so we are not stuck -- 3 we would want to go forward with his testimony, if we want 4 to, if the telephone is. going to be in for him. I can also 5 wait for later. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: If you are prepared to make an 7 oral motion now, it would just give the other parties a 8 little more time to reflect on it. Would that take very l 9 long? I expect not. 10 MR. BAXTER: Five minutes. l 7 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, any objection to our 12 hearing Mr. Baxter's motion now, and then that will give () 13 the parties time to think, and the board also. 14 MR. GAMIN: Judge Kelley, will you want a 15 l response at this time? l h ! 16 JUDGE KELLEY: No. Not unless you want to give l 17 ; it. The thought would be -- there's a bit of history on i 1 18 this. I think the issue has been working in the wings for 19 sometime. There was some discussion last week. So it's 20 fair to say that right now the waters are a little muddy 21 and the board is sensitive to that, as I think;I indicated. 22 Mr. Baxter has a position on behalf of CP&L. I would 23 suggest we simply hear Mr. Baxter's motion and then 24 everybody, all parties and the board, too, could react to i 25 it at the next break or sometime later in the morning. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natwnwide Coverage 800 336 6646
._ , c - . . . . , . . ; , ; .; , . ~ .,.,.g...,,..
,..,e_. _a .. , , , . . . . .. ....
26042.0 10443 BRT 1 MR. GAMIN: Thank you. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, go ahead. 3 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, the Applicants move 4 that the board rule in a declaratory fashion at this time 5 that testimony on telephone systems is irrelevant and 6 outside the scope of this proceeding. The regulatory 7 scheme that governs the design of public alert and 8 notification systems fairly contemplates that regarding the 9 l physical means of alert, the means of alert is at the 10 option of the licensee. It is our position that the basic 11 issue before the house is whether the system proposed by 12 the Applicants, which now consists of sirens throughout the i i 13 ! EPZ, and tone or re.dios in the first five miles, does or 14 does not meet Commission regulations. i 15 If it is the board's ultimate determination that 16 that system does not meet the regulations, it is then up to 17 ; us, not the board, Mr. Eddleman, or anyone else, to propose l 18 a new system or an augmen'tation of the system to meet 19 Commission regulations. 20 This principle is consistent with longstanding 21 NRC case law on the application of the Atomic Energy Act 22 standards to the health and safety aspects of licensing. 23 Back in 1972, the Atomic Safety and Licensing i 24 ! Appeal Board in Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point I
25 Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, ALAB-78, 5A.E.C., 319 at 330, s I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10444 BRT
\ #
1 quote as follows: "The Intervenor's claim that the 2 Licensing Board erred in refusing to subpoena Babcock and 3 Wilcox witnesses as requested by the Intervenors to 4 introduce evidence concerning iodine spray removal systems. 5 Intervenors claim they wished to show both the superiority 6 of the sodium thiosulfate iodine removal system used by B&W 7 and the insufficiency of the sodium hydroxide system being 8 used by the Applicants in this case." 9 As we read this exception, the only issue it 10 raises is one of comparative technology. The Commission's 11 health and safety regulations require that a proposed 12 reactor satisfy applicable licensing requirements. The I p .
'( ,) 13 I fact that other systems might be used for a particular task 14 in other reactors is not relevant.
15 l In a similar vein, 4A.E.C., 197, Consumers Power , i 16 ) Company Midland case, the Appeal Board ruled: "The 17 Licensing Board must be satisfied that the proposed spray l l 18 system will operate to meet AEC reactor licensing 19 requirements. If the Applicant sustains its burden of l 20 proof in this regard, it will be nonsense to consider the 21 spray system of another reactor, as proposed by the 22 l Intervenor." 23 We have similar holdings in ALAB-188 7 HEC 323, 24 Indian Point, where the Appeal Board held that, "where the (') x_' 25 l Commission's requirements are met, the fact that they may l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6M6
26042.0 10445 BRT ' l 1 i also be satisfied, perhaps even in a more satisfactory 2 manner by some other alternative, is legally irrelevant." 3 These principles have been applied as well to 1 4 emergency planning which also is governed by the Atomic 5 Energy Act jurisdiction of the NRC. 6 Catawba Licensing Board, in 1984, at 20 NRC 940 1 7 ' said: "We are a body of limited authority with a 8 responsibility to determine if the emergency response 9 planning is in conformity with regulatory standards. 10 Although we recognize Intervenor's desire that the level of 11 emergency preparedness for those residing near the Catawba 12 , nuclear station be enhanced to the maximum extent possible, ( 13 our function is not to require that measures be taken which 14 exceed the Commission's requirements." 15 ; We think this line of case law is clear and puts l 16 j the burden on us to show that our proposed system meets 17 j Commission regulations, but eliminates the consideration of I 18 alternatives unless -- well, eliminates the cunsideration 19 of alternatives. If we lose it's up to us come back. 20 ' We did file on February 18 some testimony which 21 identifies telephones, and we did that because we had 22 thought that the board's January 16 order directed us to do 23 so and even though we thought that was incorrect, we 24 proceeded to prefile the testimony. (} 25 In the way the history unfolded, of course, at l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 _e_=_________. _ _ _ _. ._ _ _ - - . - . _ - _ .__ - --- - - . ._
26042.0 10446 BRT
~'s !
1 the time the board wrote its January 16 order, it had no 2 proposal from the Applicants to supplement the system. We 3 announced that to you on January 23rd, and we heard in last 4 Wednesday's telephone conference Chairman Kelley indicate 5 that the board did not intend to mandate testimony on that I 6 ! subject. 7 In light of these developments, we would propose, I 8 if the board rules as we suggest, to withdraw the portion 9 l of our panel's testimony that compares the two systems, and l 10 simply address and describe the tone alert radio system 11 that we've proposed. 12 , I recognize Mr. Eddleman feels that because l r~N I l (_) 13 j telephones are mentioned in this contention that he thinks 14 he has a right to put testimony on and to cross-examine on 15 that cubject. My response to that is that by the wording 16 of his contention he cannot alter the Applicant's burden of 17 f proof on the contention. And the fact that that is I 18 , mentioned in the contention does not change and cannot 1 l 19 alter the board's jurisdiction or the case law I'm 20 describing, and that the operative part of the contention 21 ! is whether or not our proposed system, in light of the 1 22 conditions he poses -- nighttime sleeping -- does or does 23 not meet Commission regulations. 24 , That's all. Thank you. (~) 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a comment on your comment on Y- l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
26042.0 10447 BRT O V 1 what I said last week. I reread our order after the 2 telephone conversation. I think the board, frankly, 3 muddied the water. The board did tell you to look at the 4 telephones and tell us how much they cost. 5 I At the time we didn't know but what you wouldn't 6 be looking at telephones. We assumed you looked at them 7 anyway from a practical standpoint. But a better written 8 order consistent with our general views on thi" subject 9 would have said you might come up with an alternative. 10 Whatever you think is best. You can come and tell us about 11 that. 12 But the order, I think, fairly read, calls for ( 13 telephone testimony, whatever you choose. And I think in 14 that respect the order is incorrect. I 15 We've heard Mr. BaxterJs motion. I leave it to 16 the parties, whether we want to go ahead and hear everybody 17 on this or whether you want to have some time this morning l 18 to think about it and then respond later in the day. What i 19 do you think, Mr. Eddleman? 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm prepared to respond now, , 21 Judge. 1 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis? 1 l 23 MR. ROCHLIS: We are ready to respond at this 24 time. (} 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Gamin? 4 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
26042.0 10448 BRT l 1 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I'm ready to respond now; 2 however, I believe the course of the development of the 3 first part of the hearing may have some effect on the final 4 response. So if I only have a chance to talk once, I 5 prefer to wait until later. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's hear from everybody now. 7 We'll take a few minutes to do that. Then, if it's 8 appropriate to reopen later, we can consider that. We 9 won't guarantee you extended later response, but some later 10 response, if you think.it's appropriate. 11 Mr. Eddleman? Would you like to go ahead? 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: If you would like to hear from () 13 j the Staff first. 14 MR. ROCHLIS: Your Honor, I believe Catawba is 15 most on point because it deals with emergency planning and 16 I think it specifically dealt with the alerting issue, 17 where the board ruled in Catawba that no more than the 18 regulations is essentially required. 19 Essentially, I think in this case what we have 1 20 is this nighttime contention of Mr. Eddleman's and the 21 testimony of the Applicants, with the tone alert system ; 22 i that they propose -- I think that's the key, whether or not 23 that meets the Commission's standards and regulations. If 1 24 it does, telephone alerting, whether it is better or not is 25 really not relevant. l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646 l 1 ~
? M _.: : = T K ___~_-_:_~ -_______- __-- _ . _ ~
~'
- V: ~
l
26042.0 10449 BRT O 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Would you say, in answer to 2 myself, Mr. Rochlis, about situations in NRC law, where one 3 does get into comparing alternatives, what is better? 4 Obviously we do it in NEPA issues, which we don't have here. 5 What came to mind to me in thinking about this 5 in the radiation exposure area, we have this ALARA concept, 7 which means as low as reasonably achievable, where I assume. 8 one then compares how much things cost and whether it's 9 worth it to reduce exposure by a certain number of man-rems 10 or person-rems, as they are now called. But I don't 11 understand the emergency planning requirements to embody a 12 concept like ALARA. ( 13 I If the requirement is alert 90 percent or 14 whatever it is, 90 is 90. And if what you propose will 15 ! give you 91 and something else might have given you 95, you ' I 16 can go with 91. Is that your understanding? j 17 l MR. ROCHLIS: Especially in light of the fact i 18 i that the regs, or at least the regulatory guidance, leaves 19 its to the Applicant to propose the system. If they meet 20 those requirements, whatever that standard number is, I i 21 would concur with what you said. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you find it in any ALARA 23 concept, Mr. Baxter, in this area? 24 MR. BAXTER: No. I do not. I i 25 l JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman? [} 1 l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nationwkle Coverage 800 336 4646 ...m._. . . . .. . . . . , .
26042.0 10450 BRT O 1 MR. GAMIN: Judge Kelley? 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. 3 MR. GAMIN: Rick Gamin on behalf of the 4 Department of Justice. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. 6 MR. GAMIN: I think a fair reading of the 7 Applicant's action indicates that the Applicant felt it was 8 appropriate to supplement. Now, when we consider the 9 concept of supplementation, we have to understand the 10 decision was made and that people in the Applicant's staff 11 were the decisionmakers. 12 I certainly think the relevant merits of () 13 telephones and tone alert radios may be a very legitimate 14 area to probe when it comes to determining how the decision 15 was made, what choices were made, and in consideration of [ 16 one other concept, that my understanding is there is no 17 longer any bright line on the second five miles of the EPZ. 18 That is, according to my reading of the board's order, it 19 is an open question whether it ought to be 85 percent, 95 20 percent, or essentially 100 percent. Therefore, as we 21 consider the concept of supplementation, I think the 22 possibility of considering telephones becomes more 23 important in light of nebulous standards we are dealing 24 l with in this area. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, as I understand this, the O I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
.7 -,., .-.. ., ..--_.3_...- _-,a.., , ,. - . . ..
._c
26042.0 10451 BRT O 1 Applicants don't propose any supplementation in the 5-10 2 range. They are simply coming in and saying we've got 3 these sirens and that's enough. 4 MR. GAMIN: Mr. Kelley -- I'm sorry -- I think 5 it's important -- 6 JUDGE KELLEY: They are saying two things. We 7 have these sirens and that's enough and if it turns out 8 that it's not enough, maybe we'll come back with something 9 else, but we think it's enough. 10 MR. GAMIN: I appreciate that. I only have one 11 comment and that is: Is the Applicant making a rational 12 distinction in the use of its tone alert alarms between () 13 4-1/2 miles and 5-1/2 miles. 14 I think when we consider that bright line kind 15 of problem, that it opens the door to a much larger extent l' 16 l than it would otherwise be opened. I 17 j JUDGE KELLEY: At least your argument is the 18 Applicant didn't make the distinction, FEMA did. 19 MR. GAMIN: They seem to endorse it though. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yhat's the name of the game. The 21 Commission decides to rule and they follow the rule. 22 MR. GAMIN: I believe in the Commission's rule 23 that there's no need to consider supplementation in the 24 second five miles -- let me withdraw that. Let me just ! l 25 suggest this. If the real issue here is whether people are O l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nalonwide Coversee 800-336 6646
+ _ m:- . m 3. x. m .:. . . . :: . v _ax ~- -
26042.0 10452 BRT 1 being aroused from their beds in that first five miles and 2 in that second five miles, I can conceive of a situation 3 that we are going to get involved in lines of questioning 4 where the telephone possibility as contrastced to the siren 5 possibilities could become germane. That's my only point. 6 ! JUDGE KELLEY: What kind of line of questioning 7 _ can you conceive where that would be true? 3 MR. GAMIN: Well, the board has asked us to 9 explore the psychoacoustics. I assume, withou'. knowing a 10 lot about psychoacoustics, that that has something to do 11 l with sound on the brain.
, And we have extensive testimony i
12 l from Mr. Keast indicating that there's a lot of concern [ ') 13 ! about sound levels at the pillow, cound levels in the x_/ l 14 bedroom. 15 I When we consider the possibility of sound levels 16 in the bedroom, all areas of background noise can become i 17 f germane and relevant. 18 f JUDGE KELLEY: True enough, but the question is 19 how much background noise is there and is it enough to wake 20 l someone up from a siren, from a radio? l 21 MR. GAMIN: But I believe the decisionmaking i 22 I process of choosing the radio from the telephone can become 1 23 important. i 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Why?
,cy 25 MR. GAMIN: Because a CP&L employee could have l
x J l 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
l l 26042.0 10453 BRT 1 chosen the radio, though being an inadequate alternative, 2 because of cost. 1 3 JUDGE KELLEY: If it's inadequate because it l l 4 doesn't wake enough people up, it doesn't satisfy the l 5 requirements and we are going to look at that, and that's l 6 certainly the issue of the case. l 7 MR. GAMIN: Thank you, your Honor. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Judge, let me take up where 9 Mr. Gamin left off as to cost. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman? 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think the decision of the 12 Commission that we have all been aware of here, does () 13 consider explicitly the consideration of cost / benefit in at 14' least the second five miles, and without comparing the l 15 systems you can't get an assessment of cost / benefit. ~ 16 Further, I would argue that -- the case I was ! i 17 ! looking for I think it Waterford, I don't have it, but 18 there's an Alab that says that licensing boards have a duty 19 to confront the issues raised by the intervenor. Telephone l 20 alerting is right there in the contention. l l 21 Moreover in the board's own order of January 16, 22 1986, page 8, the board states, first paragraph under the 23 state of the record: "In addition to the foregoing board 24 computations, we are asking certain parties (and any other i 25 party who chooses to do so) to address the issues and O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' i 202 34M700 Neckmwide Coversee 800 3 4 4646 l l ' ~
- e,
, , , vc , *
. :~ .:: ,L, _: , <..n__, _\
26042.0 10454 BRT k- 1 concerns listed below." 2 I take issues and concerns to be rather broader 3 than just the very specific points listed below, but, at 4 any rate, as we go down that list we have in item 6 the 5 following language. I'm reading from the bottom of page 10 6 of the January 16 order of the board: "There is a serious 7 { question whether that range, referring to 78-83 percent, 8 can be deemed equivalent to " essentially 100 percent." 9 That quote is in the board's order. Therefore, continuing 10 quoting from the. order: "It may be necessary to augment l 11 the proposed alerting mechanism with other mechanisms such 12 as the telephone alerting system called for by contention [) 13 C3." And then it advises Applicants to provide information 14 l and feasibility information on the five-mile area and then 15 l we advise the Applicants to provide feasibility and any l 16 i other cost data that are described in FEMA 43 or of their k 17 own devising that they believe might supplement the 18 , proposed system. I 19 My view of this order is it says in plain 20 English that any party may address this issue. I'm a party. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: That's true. No problem with that. 22 J 23 l MR. EDDLEMAN: Mor. cover, Judge, FEMA 43, which i 24 is guidance on this matter, explicitly refers to these
,3 25 l telephone systems. That's one of the things in there.
N-] l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33 & 6646 p n. . - . . - . ... .. .. . . .-.. - . . .
26042.0 10455 BRT O 1 Tone alert are in there, too. But tone alerts are in FEMA 2 43. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: One thing, you can choose among 4 any. 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's true but I think when you 6 are weighing the cost / benefit among choices, you .have to 7 absolutely consider the cost and benefits of the things 8 that are there. 9 I think, by the way, that the evidence will show, 10 if you look at it carefully, that the telephone system is 11 cheaper. So, there's that issue. 12 But I also think that the fundamental question () 13 here is, number one, consistency -- I mean, I think that if 14 the board writes an order that I shouldn't be bound by a 15 reinterpretation of that order later on, having, in good 16 3 faith, prepared testimony under that order. 17 Also, I -- 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me stop you on that. Okay, 19 the board will come clean. The board made two distinctions. 20 In my view, in your original contention where it says you 21 should have a telephone alert system, we should have 22 revised that to say, "if the sirens aren't enough you l 23 should have some other system," is what it should have said. 24 We left that in as it was. That's probably a mistake. But 25 in any event, that was what was done. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 H 646 2_T_ _ L' ' ' __ * ': ~ - _ _ - - - - _ - '- - : *n x : : :_c - - :_ _ : -- . _ - _ _ _ _ , _ .
i I l l 26042.0 10456 BRT l O 1 Then we come down to the January 16 order, and 2 we write paragraph 6 on page 10, and it's somewhat 3 ambiguous, but it is certainly fairly read to call for data 4 on phone alert. , ! 5 Then we think about it some more and we had this 6 discussion this morning, we thought about it quite a bit 7 for the next week, as a matter of fact, and it seemed to us 8 that getting off into a comparison of telephones versus 9 radios is inappropriate under the system that the rule 10 establishes. It is the Applicant's choice. 11 To the extent that paragraph 6 is misleading, 12 and I think it is, I wrote it myself, I should know, then l O 13 vee mar de -- vo= ere isted tato exiaxiao e8at vou cou1d 14 put in a lot of telephone testimony -- put in telephone 15 l testimony, period. That may be a regrettable thing. 16 But it may be even more regrettable for this I 17 board to say well, we made a mistake and we are just going 18 to stick with it, and we'll go right down the road and 19 develop a big record on telephone costs and al1 those 20 I related matters, whether we shouAdn't have done it in the 21 first place. So, how does one strike that balance? i 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, if the board thinks 23 l the board has made a mistake and wishes to take action to 24 correct that mistake, in you-all's view, obviously, you 25 have the ability to do so. Whether that's correct or not ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 4 6646 l (.. .y , ;. 3..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . - ,. _ cy . 3 ,.uf -, , - - .
I
26042,0 i 10457 BRT
)
1 will be a matter for appeal. I'm just trying to lay out my 2 position here. You can accept it or reject it, obviously 3 enough. I am not trying to accuse anybody of bad faith or 4 anything like that, but I guess I am just dumb enough to 5 l think that the words meant what they said, and so I went 6 l ahead on that basis and I do think -- l 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 ! MR. BAXTER: If I might point out 1 9 chronologically the board's telephone conference on which i 10 l it ruled on Mr. Eddleman's subpoena request, and in which 11 ; the chairman reflected some appropriateness about telephone 12 testimony and its ruling on the request for the Southern
~
(x) 13 Beli witness was before Mr. Eddleman prefiled his testimony. 14 I So he was on some notice about the distinct possibility 15 , this would be ruled out and had the opportunity to try and 16 tailor his presentation with that understanding. 17 My second point is that while the guidance does 18 , talk about censideration of cost effectiveness in the 19 second five miles of the EP2, that is by way of simply an i 20 explanation as to why the Commission was providing 21 flexibility fer that second part of the EP2. And it 22 specifically says, "The lack of a specified percentage from 23 l tive to 10 miles is to allow planners the flexibility to i' 24 design the most cost-effective system to meet the general (') Y._J 25 l objective." It doesn't change the general objective. And ACE FEDERAL REPORTliRS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
26042.0 10458 BRT 1 I think what the Commission meant, I submit to you, is that 2 the Applicants, proposing this system, could take into 3 account cost effectiveness in deciding what to propose and 4 that's the explanation as to why they left flexibility. 5 They were not establishing as a standard for 6 assessing the system that licensing boards were going to
~
get into cost effectiveness analyses of the designs. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: I guess the only thing that 9 troubles me about that is if the facts, and after one's 10 best effort on a record, ended up rather unclear, and you 11 had one system that would produce 77 percent and some other 12 more expensive system that would produce 85 percent and, () 13 really it's difficult to say with certainty, given the lack 14 of any percentage here, whien one -- I'm not saying that 15 l that's this case, I'm just trying to make some sense out of I 16 the language -- that the language is unclear to me. This l 17 is not the clearest thing the Commission ever wrote. Wo 18 j just have to deal with it. 19 MR. BAXTER: I can only say that as to siren 20 systems, if that is the system selected to meet the 21 Commission's regulation, it is, of course, still Applicant's 22 position that the criteria are very clear. They require 60 l 23 dB, except in inhabited areas that havo more than 2000 24 persons por square mile where 70 dB were required. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Daytime. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ll02 347-3700 Nationwide Coverese 800 336 4646 T27 : *r?!r"::"rT" * ~::r ?r ' *22 ? * ~~T~~~~T*~'L*"""rW K*: n " =* ' L * ^*? " 1
- L** ' " = ~:
26042.0 10459 BRT 1 MR. BAXTER: It's the board's view that that is 2 guidance and not Commission endorsement. We don't agree 3 with that, but we think that is a clear criteria. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we do disagree on that. 5 Mr. Eddleman? 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: May I come back on that? 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Please do. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I guess I'm still in the 9 ; limousino to the airport. Mr. Baxter jumped in there and I 10 guess -- that's, I guess, all right. 11 Let me start in with that last disagreement. It j 12 seems that the Applicant's taken the position that the 60 1 l 13 dB is firm Commission guidance, but the allowance of cost 1 (_)
/
14 effectiveness is not, and I guess I would take the 15 i different position and say, number one, I think it is 16 i certainly correct that the 60 dB and 70, when you have the i I 17 i extra population density, is daytime conditions. I don't 18 { think there's any question about that. He are talking 19 { about nighttime conditions here. This is not to endorse 20 the view that there are daytime and nighttime sound experts. 21 l I don't think there's any merit to that. But the -- excuse 22 me a second. 23 b The establishment of a flexibility by the 24 Commission, "in order to allow consideration of cost t 25 effectiveness" fairly cries out for the consideration of n l t ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage m 33 Mi446 _ . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ . . . .. _ . ... . ..
26042.0 10460 BRT O 1 cost effectiveness. I don't think you can get around that. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you saying that no matter 3 what you propose you can always litigate cost effectiveness , 4 and alternative systems in such a contention as this? i 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm not sure about that, Judge. 6 What I'm saying is in the five to 10 miles, if you are
?
7 going to rely on that Commission decision, the CLI, in t 8 order to say we can get away with less than 100 percent, 9 because the rule says " essentially 100" -- if you'are going 10 to use thpt to interpret it that essentially 100 doesn't 11 mean essentially 100, it might be 88 or 95, then I think 12 you are bound to go into the cost effectiveness because () 13 that was the Commission's reason for not specifying the 14 percentage. 15 l JUDGE KELLEY: In the sense of comparing various 16 syntems that might be used. 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's correct. And further, if 18 , the Commission had specified a percentage, suppose they 1 I 19 said you've got to alert 92 percent -- okay? Then you'd 20 still have the question of is it really 92 percent, what's 21 the uncertainty and so on. But in this case you don't even 22 have that. 23 l So it seems to me that cost effectiveness is the 24 primary consideration that you have to look into there ; 25 because your ability to vary that percentage is based, [} s { ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 Nasion *We Covweer 800 3 4 4646 --e_
. - . ~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _- . _. ~ _.-..-__.___-~___- - _- ___~_______-__-___
l l 26042.0 10461 BRT 1 according to Commission's own terms, on consideration of 2 cost effectiveness. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. If you say in the 4 sense -- in essence that anything less than 100 percent has I 5 to be justified on cost-effectiveness grounds, I understand 6 that position. I suppose there might be an alternative 7 position whereby this board simply said a certain 8 percentage is enough in the first five miles. This is what 9 essentially 100 percent is, and we think it's good enough. ; 10 And then we might say some lower percentage is, as a matter 11 of law, is good enough in the second five miles. Then it 12 seems to me you look at the cost -- O 13 l MR. EDDLEMAN: If the board did that, any .; 14 disagreement I might have with that would properly be a 15 l matter for appeal. 16 I myself find it a little difficult -- remember 17 l I'm not a lawyer -- to find a way to synthesize a l 18 percentage as a matter of law outside five miles when the 19 Commission explicitly declined to do so.
- 20 JUDGE KELLEY: They did explicitly decline to do 21 so, but they left it, it seems to me, necessarily on a 22 case-by-case basis.
23 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's true, but again in 24 consideration of cost effectiveness. I don't think you can O 25 see rouaa bota oe tao e-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 3 4 4646
26042.0 10462 BRT 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I understand your position. 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. So I think that sums it up. 3 In other words, the telephones are in the contention. The 4 board has had a duty to conf ront the issues raised by the 5 Intervenor. It's in the board's order of January 16, and 6 e it's in the Commission decision for cost-effectiveness l 7 purposes. Those, I think, are the main points. I may have 8 left one out, but that's it. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. While we are sort of on 10 this track, do you want to say a few words about the Court 11 of Appeals decision? I think we might as well do it now, 12 if you are prepared to do it. p, l
\ _/ 13 '
MR. BAXTER: I can give you some preliminary 14 views, Judge Kelley. I don't think we are completely done 15 ! trying to analyze it, think it through ourselves. 16 h JUDGE KELLEY: I don't want to push it, i 17 j necessarily. d 18 l MR. BAXTER: It doesn't say anything about our 19 evidentiary presentation. We might say more about it in 20 i our findings. But at a minimum it reinforces the board's 21 tentative view in the January lo orders and our view that 22 the Commission did intend to make a distinction between the 23 first and second five milcu, 24 JUDGE KELLEY Did? l ( ) 25 MR. BAXTER: Did intend to make such a l l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
*02 347 3700 Nationalde Coverage 823364M6
l' l 26042.0 10463 I BRT ( () 1 distinction between the first and second five miles of the ! 2 EPZ. My reading of the context of that appeal was that the l l 3 Commission's counsel, on behalf of the Commission, was i 4 committing to the Court of Appeals. in terms of that 15 l l 5 minute criterion. And how tight a criterion it was, they l 6 were going to be assessing Duke Power Company's compliance 7 in conformance with the standard established under NUREG l 8 0654 and that is where they do make the distinction between ! t 9 the first and second five miles of the EPZ. So we think ! 10 that represents a commitment on behalf of the Commission in 11 settlement of that appeal, that that is going to be the i 12 interpretation the Commission applies to that rule and l O 13 determinations of compliance with that. Whether it goes l 14 beyond that I hadn't focused on completely. I ' 15 JUDGE XELLEY: Is it, as I think you were 16 suggesting -- whatever its significance, it's a matter of l ' l
?
17 j legal significance and not a matter of factual significance l l ! 18 that we would be working over here today? , 19 MR. BAXTER: That's correct. j 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I wonder -- Mr. Eddleman, I'm 21 just wondering whether, if we note the fact that the 22 decision is there and people are free to mske of it 23 whatever they will in their proposed findings, and if we : 24 discover that it doesn't affect testimony in the course of () 25 the day, whether we need to make any more out of it. It's ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202 347 3700 Naionwide coversee 800 3)e 4Na l
1 I 26042.0 10464 i BRT ' O 1 citable by anyone who wants to cite it. l 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, we may not. If I could 3 just briefly observe that this is in the nature of a 4 settlement made between Duke Power and the NRC, and so it 5 is not clear to me how the Commission's authority comes ; 6 into play there, whether the commissioners had to authorizo l 7 this and so on, I'm not sure what force it has. But I'm 8 perfectly willing to go along with what the board just 9 suggested. 10 I do have one other scheduling matter that I f t 11 would like to take up before we get started. l l 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. i O 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Riley and I were in ; 14 discussion yesterday about his availability. He has a ! 15 meeting tonight in Charlotte and he asked if he could get a 16 time certain of 10:30 tomorrow morning to give him time to ! 17 drive up here. I would like to ask the board and parties 18 I whether that is convenient. I need to inform him today. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: What the board intends to do is 20 take some positions on these issues that we've discussed 21 now at some length, following a chance to confer, coffee 22 break or two. I would say at least by lunchtime we would l 23 be prepared to say what we have to say. l l 24 If we could fina that the telephone testimony is ' O 25 e eaet tty exctua ate, t woader wa e ea e a= cor ! t ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4N6
26042.0 10465 BRT CE) ! 1 Mr. Riley in terms of his testimony. We can parse that a l l 2 little further. Why don't we defer that. We do want to ! l l 3 accommodate you and Mr. Riley in terms of time, but why l 4 don't we defer that and see how it comes out. i 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's a fair procedure, Judge. ' 6 That will be fine. ! l 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else? 8 MR. BAXTER: Two short matters, Judge Kelley. 9 One is, we would like, at some point during the course of l 10 the hearing while we are here, to orally respond to Mr. 11 Eddleman's motion for reconsideration of the rejection of ' 12 proposed contention EXS; this is embodied in his summary O 13 disposition response recently. We can do that at any point. I \ . 14 Secondly, I have an announcement to make. 15 j Mr. Eddleman had asked the board to subpoena Robert G. 16 Black, Jr. , CP&L's management, emergency preparedness. The 17 board's ruling last week, I'll quote you, Judge Kelley l 18 l " Thirdly as to Mr. Black, based on what we've heard we ' 19 , believe that Mr. Black should be subpoenaed if necessary. I 20 l We really don't think we can tell, but we think he might 21 have some useful testimony. And when I say 'if necessary,' 22 in light of the board's attitude, that he should be at the 23 hearing available to testimony." l 24 I wanted to let you know Mr. Black is not here. () 25
) Unfortunately he has come down with the flu. He was not ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2024474 700 Nationwide Coverage 800444M6 E_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ______ _
26042,0 10466 BRT l ( I able to come to work yesterday. He is not at work today. l l 2 He is going to see his doctor today, but there's simply i 3 nothing we can do about it. l 4 I had it myself for over a week last month and I I l 5 know what he's going through. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 7 MR. BAXTER: I think there was at least room to 8 reconsider whether or not that testimony is necessary and 9 maybe it will work out that it isn't, but at least right 10 now. he's not available to come. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't we see where we are on 12 that point at the end of the day, see where it turns out. 13 I meant to mention one other thing. We would 1 14 propose to deviate from our sequence of questioning this 15 morning. What we would like to do is begin with board 16 l questioning of the witnesses, primarily because we feel we l 17 reopened this hearing with certain issues on our minds and 18 the primary purpose is to get at those matters, so we would 19 like to start ourselves and then I propose that 20 Mr. Eddleman goes next, and the Staff, and the state and 21 the Applicants and wherever it goes on redirect and recross 22 and so on. But we would like to begin the questioning 23 ourselves. 24 Perhaps it's as well -- (} 25 MR. GAMIN: Mr. Kolley, excuse me, one l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. ! 202 347 3700 ?!stionwide Cowrage 800.)) H ed6
26042.0 10467 BRT (3 O 1 procedural matter? 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. 3 MR. GAMIN: I agree with Mr. Eddleman that the 4 state has no objection to going before he does. If you 5 don't have -- 6 JUDGE KELLEY: That's fine with us then, sure. 7 We'll swear the witnesses and then take a break 8 i and we can get into the matter. 9 We have Dr. Kryter and Mr. Keast on the stand. 10 Thay have both previously been sworn. There's no need to 11 repeat that. Please be seated, gentlemen, thank you. In 12 addition to swearing, which we are not going to do, perhaps 13 the usual walkthrough with the testimony? In this case we l 14 i have a combined panel. Dr. Kryter is FEMA's witness, FEMA l 15 l and Staff, and Mr. Keast, the Applicant's witnesses. 16 Perhaps separately, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Rochlis. 17 i Whereupon, i 18 l DAVID N. KEAST 19 and 20 KARL D. KRYTER 21 were called as witnesses and, having been first duly sworn, 22 were examined and testifiod as follows: 23 l DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. BAXTER: 25 Q Mr. Keast, would you state your name and i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3*00 idetionwide Coverage 800 33HM6
l l 26042.0 10468 CRT '
~
1 employment please. - 2 A (Keast) David M. Keast, M&M Associates,ICUncord, 3 Massachusetts. 4 0 Mr. Keast, I call your attention to a document 5 which bears the caption of the proceeding entitle,d 6 " Additional Testimony of David N. Keast on'Eddleman,57-C-3 7 (Night-time Notification)," consisting of 19'pages'of 8 questions and answers and attachments A through I, dated 9 February 21. Was this testimony prepared by you or under - , l 10 your supervision at this hearing? - l 11 A Yes, it is. ' l f 12 MR. BAXTER: I have provided the reporter with 13 three copies of a document entitled'Shearon Harris Plume 14 Exposure Pathway revised 2/6/86 which was distributed with 15 Mr. Konst's prefiled testimony of 22 February '86. I would ;) 16 ask it be marked for identification as Applicant's Exhibit 17 46-A. 18 (Applicant's Exhibit 46-A identified.) ;
.l 19 BY MR. BAXTER: '
20 , O Mr. Keast, is the exhibit that we have referred ' 21 to what we have just had marked for identification as 22 Exhibit 46-A7 - i 23 A (Keast) The blank that appea'rs on the seventh , 24 line on page 4 is what was referred to as 46-A, yes. 25 0 Mr. Keast, do you have any changes or ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cowtsee 800 336 4446
..m.--._ -. . . , . . . . _ , . , . . . . . , . , .. . .. . . . - . -
26042.0 10469 BRT n J l corrections to your testimony? 2 A Just the filling in of that blank, page 4, line 3 7. 4 0 Is your mike on? 5 A How is that? The blank which appears on line 7, 6 on page 4 of my prepared testimony should be filled in to l 7 read, " Exhibit 46-A." ! I I 8 0 Is the testimony true and correct to the best of l 9 your knowledge and belief ? l 10 A Yes, it is. ! 11 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the l 12 l identified testimony be received into evidence and 13 physically incorporated into the transcript as if read and 14 that Applicant's Exhibit 46-A be received as well. l l 15 l MR. EDDLEMAN: For clarificat. ion are you moving l 16 all of Mr. Kcast's attachments into the record? 17 MR. BAXTER: That's part of the described 18 testimony, yes. f 19 MR. EDDLE'l AN : I don't know exactly how to l 20 . handle this. I intended to ask some questions about how a 1 l 21 number of those numbers were calculated. I suppose if they 22 turn out to be wrong, there's no terrible harm in having l 23 , them in the record, but I think I would want to object to l I l 24 I the multiple calculations that are shown on -- I think it's l 25 A and B -- no, probably C and D. Let me look at this for a i i 1 l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 J)6-AM6
4 26042.0 , 10470 BRT 1 second. 2 MR. BAXTER: I don't think potential 3 disagreement about the testimony is grounds for objecting 4 to its admission'. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just suggest something, 6 Mr. Eddleman. I think its admission -- it's certainly fair 7 game for you'to impeach as best you can. If you should 8 succeed in impeaching' it so thoroughly that it ought to be 9 stricken, then that's,a separate issue, but you can say 10 that later on. So I don't'think you are allowing anything 11 at this point that in any way prejudices your position. 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. Thank you. () 13 JUDGE KELLEY: So the testimony a'nd exhibit -- 14 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I just have one small 15 point. I tried to listen very carefully to Mr. Baxter and ! 16 he indicated the testimony was either prepared by Mr. Keast 17 or prepared under him. I didn't have the advantage of 18 being at the last hearing. I know that Mr. Keast has been 19 sworn, but I don't think it has ever been aid that 20 Mr. Keast hastread each and every section of that testimony. 21 I think-for purposes of the record, if he's going to say l 22 that it's true and accurate to the best of his ability, I 23 would like to know if it's true and accurate, because he's 24 read it or he's relied on talking to somebody else who {} 25 prepared it. , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage $10 3364646 u r- -- ,,n ~ : ~-n,---? -- . - + - . . - . - - - - - - --- -
1 i 26042.0 10471 l BRT O 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Have you read it, Mr. Keast? 2 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Yes, I have. 3 MR. GAMIN: No objection. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: The testimony and exhibit are 5 admitted. 6 (The documents follow:) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l 14 15 16 . l l 17 l l 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646
U Q)y l- f February 21, 1986 i_ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) Plant) ) l O ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF DAVID N. KEAST ON EDDLEMAN 57-C-3 (NIGHT-TIME NOTIFICATION) l
O
Q.1 Please state your name. A.1 David N. Keast. Q.2 By whom are you employed, and what is your position? Q.2 I am a Vice President and Senior Project Manager of EMM Associates, Inc. of Concord,. Massachusetts, where I spe-cialize in public warning system studies. EMM has been re-tained by Carolina Power & Light Company to analyze the Harris siren system in response to Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. Q.3 Have you testified previously in this proceeding about Eddleman 57-C-37 A.3 Yes. My direct testimony was filed on October 18, 1985, as a part of Applicants' " Testimony of David N. Keast, Alvin H. Joyner and Dennis S. Mileti on Eddleman 57-C-3 {} (Night-Time Notification)" (cited herein as "Keast et al."), which is in the record following Tr. 9375. I was cross-examined during the hearing sessions of November 4 and 5, 1985. I have also prepared " Affidavit of David N. Keast Cor-recting Oral Testimony on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3," which was filed with " Applicants' Supplemental Proposed Transcript Corrections," dated January 2, 1986. Information on my professional qualifications and experi-ence is already in the record at pages 2 and 3 of, and Attach-1 ment 1 to, Keast et al. l Q.4 What is the purpose of this additional testimony? A.4 My additional testimony responds to the Atomic Safety l and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (Limited Reopening l 1 l
of the Record on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3), dated January 16, 1986. In particular, I will provide comment, as the Board in-vited, on some of the Board's tentative views of the evidence, and I will provide the information specifically requested in Items 1, 3 and 4 (pages 8-10) of the Board's Memorandum and Order. l Q.5 Before we address those subjects, do you have any i changes or corrections to provide on the evidence presented at I the previous hearing sessions? i A.5 Yes. Applicants' Exhibit 46, which was filed on l October 18, 1985 along with Applicants' testimony, is a map of the Harris EPZ showing siren locations, night-time siren cover-age contours, and house locations. It was prepared by EMM As-sociates to represent the maps I ssed in performing the calcu-(} J lations described in my previous testimony. I actually used a set of maps, which are mounted together on a wall in my firm's offices, four times the size of Applicants' Exhibit 46. While Exhibit 46, which is not a photocopy of the larger map set, was i especially prepared to communicate for the record the in-formation I employed in my analysis, I~did not use the exhibit, but rather used the larger maps. When I compared the Board's house count for the first five miles of the EPZ (January 16', 1986 Memorandum and Order, p. 8), derived frca Applicants' Exhibit 46, with my own count from the
- larger maps, the difference appeared to be large and caused me
'o compare the two maps. The Board noted, at p. 6 of its
() I l i p_ ,-, s .y , .. w ~ - - - -,...m ,,, -- y
. w-.,--m--..--w---
l Memorandum and Order, that Applicants' Exhibit 46 is marginally () legible. This problem, plus some errors made in plotting house locations on the smaller map, resulted in the difference in house counts. As I explain later in my testimony, this dif-farence does not affect the tentative conclusions reached by , the Board. Nevertheless, in the interest of accuracy, we have prepared a revised Exhibit 46, Applicants' Exhibit 4hyhwhich accompanies this testimony. The only changes are to the house location identifiers and the size of the siren designations. To repeat, thi s map revision does not affect any of my previous testimony. Q.6 Mr. Keast, in its Memorandum and Order of January 16, 1986, the Board expressed concern about reliance upon the Lukas study ( Applicants ' Exhibit 48 ) because the sounds included there do not have frequency spectra resembling those of the Federal Signal Model 1000 Tnunderbolt siren. Do you agree with this concern? A.6 I understand the Board's desire to assess divergent parts of the testimony. However, differences in frequency spectra between the sounds used in the Lukas study and the Harris sirens provide no technically justifiable basis for dis-counting the Lukas study. Lukas used the EPNdB rating scale in reporting his results. The principal purpose of the EPNdB rat-1 ing scale is to provide a comac'. means for estimating human re- l
\
action to all types of sounds after applying defined adjust- i ments for the spectral and temporal properties of the sounds O g - - , - - _. ._,--.n .,;.~ i. .ms . _ _ . - . , , , , - . , , , .--
(Keast et al. at 19, A.20). Years of research have gone into () the development of the EPNdB rating scale. To the extent that that research has been successful, it is not pertinent whether or not the actual spectra of sounds used for the Lukas study resemble those of sirens because the EPNdB scale provides ad-justments for spectral differences. In addition, a major property of siren sounds is that they 1
. are tonal in nature (i.e., their spectra contain one or more ! pure-tone components). The 22 studies used by Lukas to develop his Figure 2, upon which I relied, include two studies of DC-8 landing noise. This is a tonal sound which is very much like that of a siren. One other study used is of " jet aircraft noise" and two are of " jet flyover noise." These may have in-cluded the siren-like sounds of landing jet aircraft. Of O
a course, Lukas also includes a study using an 800 Hz tone (Tr. 9513-14). Thus, there are at least three, and possibly as many as six, studies included in Lukas that were based upon sleep i awakening by tonal sounds. Q.7 Mr. Keast, the Board has asked that Applicants esti-mate siren arousal frequencies for the 5 to 10 mile area of the l EPZ, using both the Horonjeff, et al., data and the Krallmann ; data. Have you performed such an analysis? A.7 Yes. Q.8 What are the results? A.8 I estimate that, using the Horonjeff data as in Fig-ure 1 of the Board's order, 75% of the households between five O l l
, , ?-~???,??.? ? ? TT ? .-.7 ? ? AY"?- A -Y ~*? ?~ O ~"
I miles from the plant and the boundary of the EPZ would be awak-() ened directly by the sirens. Based upon information noted in my prior direct testimony on people already awake at night P (Keast et al. at 9), I have added 3% to this estimate and con-clude that about 78% of the households would be directly alerted. Using Dr. Mileti's calculation method for facilitated informal alerting (Keast et al. at 39), I conclude that almost 92% of all households would be alerted by direct and informal ! means within 15 minutes after the sirens started sounding. Using the Krallmann data from Figure 1 of the Board's order, I estimate that 88% of the households would be awakened. Adding 14 for those already awake, I conclude that about 89% of a the households would be directly alerted by sirens. Again using Dr. Mileri's calculation method, I conclude that about '() 97% of all households would be alerted by direct and informal j means within 15 minutes. The detailed results of my calcula-tions of direct alerting are shown on Attachments A and B. Q.9 What assumptions have you made to reach these esti-i mates? A.9 As directed by the Board, I have used the following assumptions in the Board's order of January 16, 1986:
- 1. Outdoor sound levels are those shown on Exhibit 46, although our work was actually done on the large maps that have been described, rather than with Exhibit 46.
- 2. The pertinent Horonjeff & Krallmann relationships be-
. tween Single Event Level (SEL) and % arousal are those shown on the Board's Figure 1, including the nonlinearity of the vei'ical scale. ( N p
- We*' W S* SN -- * * **' # N " T
- b]
- W .SM 8"Wyvngegge _ , _ .O , y pp
-- ~ . - . _ . - - - _ . _ . ~ . . _ . w.-.-
~ ~. .z
() I did not use any of the other assumptions or approximations on page 7 of the Board's order. Instead, all of my other assump-tions are the same as those made for my original direct testi-many. Q.10 Did you use the EPNdB scale in calculating the re-sults you just gave me? A.10 No, I did not. The Horonjeff and Krallmann awak-ening relationships on Figure 1 of the Board's order are in terms of SEL, and I used that scale. Q.ll Would you describe how you calculisted your results? A.ll Yes. Working from our large maps, we counted the houses with various siren sound exposures eithin five miles of the plant. By subtraction from our original calculation O (Attachment 5 of Keast et al.), this gave us the numbers of houses with various exposures between five miles and the bound-ary of the EPZ. The specific house counts are shown on Attach-ment C. I then computed the awakening probabilities (fractions awakened) shown on Attachments A and B for each of the 19 siren sound exposures. These probabilities were computed separately , for the Horonjeff and the Krallmann sleep-awakening curves, as provided by the Board. The sum of the products of the number l of houses with each sound exposure times the fraction awakened for that exposure is then the total number of households awak-ened. The computations of the fractions awakened are included as Attachment D. (]} This consists of a set of 19 tables using 1
-_. .- .. - - _ -_. . - -_\
d {} Horonjeff, and another set of 19 using Krallmann. Each table is for a different outdoor sound level. On each table, the types of house classifications are identified as, Fan = windows open with window fan noise; WAs = Window A/C unit in same room; WAo = Window A/C unit in adjacent ! room and bedroom door open; CAn = central A/C in its on cycle; CAf = central A/C in its off cycle; all in accordance with
- Attachment 6 of my original testimony. The sound attenuation l
i values to indoors for each class are subtracted to determine the indoor sound levels. These are then compared to the appro- ! priate indoor background noise levels. In some cases at the l - lower siren sound levels, a signal-to-noise (S/N) difference of 10dB or less occurs. This affects the value for the integra-tion over the peak of the siren sound. I will describe this process when we discuss Item 3 of the Board's order. Adjustments for A-weighting and time duration (based upcn 10 minutes of siren operation) are then added to obtain the SEL value. For each SEL value, the fractions awakened for one per-i ! son are then read from the appropriate curve on Figure 1 of the l Board's order. Next the fractions for awakening one of 2 people, one of 3 people, and one of 4 people are computed. These are then weighted by the t'.S. Census data on family sizes 1 l for the EPZ (Keast et al. at 23; Nehnevajsa at 25) to determine { awakening probabilities for the consus family size mix. When multiplied by the corresponding fractions of homes in each of the eight classes, the result is the fraction of houses
}
, ~ . . , , . , _ _. -- - . _ , . . - _ .- , , , .---..__m., -__y ,..,,. ,..,-..my ..._.,,m___--,,-w- _._.,.--_ww.,.--_
{) awakened in each class assuming the census family-size distri-bution. The sum of these eight fractions is the total fraction awakened: the effective awakening probability for the given outdoor siren sound level. Q.12 The Board counted 363 houses within five miles of the plant, and according to your Attachment C you counted 589. How do you explain the difference? A.12 As I discussed earlier, our work was done with higher legibility maps, four times the area of Exhibit 46, and thus is presumably a more precise count. l Q.13 Could the Board have been misled in its conclusions ; because it only had Exhibit 46 to count from, and because the Board located so many fewer houses than you did? () A.13 The answer is no. I was concerned about this and did a number of studies to assure myself that the difference in house counts has not significantly affected the Board's compu-tations. The results of my studies are listed on Attachment E. The first row of Attachment E shows the figures in the Board's Order of January 16, 1986. For the second row, I used all of the Board's assumptions and methods, including the Board's house counts, and repeated the Board's arithmetic. I got the same answers as the Board did using the Board's l 1 Krallmann sleep-awakening relationship; but a slightly higher l answer using the Board's Horonjeff sleep-awakening relation- , ship. The small difference is not particularly significant, , but this calculation serves as a basis for comparison with the ' subsequent rows in the table. l l
w () For my second study, we ourselves counted the houses on the small map (Exhibit 46) and then applied all of the Board's methods and assumptions. Although we found about 174 more houses than the Board did, I still arrived at essentially the same awakening percentages. This suggests that the precision of house counts is not critical to the results being sought. For my third study, I used our same house counts from the small map (Exhibit 46), but calculated according to methods and assumptions described in my original testimony. My methods and assumptions include a more detailed breakdown of housing types and background noise levels than the Board assumed (see Attach-ment D), as well as a different distribution of alertable per-sons within households. My calculation methods and assumptions C:) lead to awakening percentages that are 8 to 10% higher than the Board's, even when the Board's sleep-awakening relationships l l are applied. Finally, we counted houses within five miles of the plant on the large maps with which we normally work. We found many more houses, but the awakening percentages computed using my methods and assumptions are not significantly different than j i those I determined from the small map. l My conclusions from the results tabulated on Attachment E are as follows:
- 1. Although many more houses are identifiable on the large maps, which we normally work with, essentially the same awakening percentages are obtained frcm -
counts on either the large maps or Exhibit 46, when (]) the same computational methods and assumptions are applied. i r-- e w m m m - m-- . rw-,-,n-- .w .--e,m-ww,w,,mwn-,--,-r--.n,-.m . ww,--,-,m---,,w,n_w,m--~, v m w m ,,- ww w wv,
4 . . l l O 2. Awakening percentages inside of 5 miles (Attachments E, F, and G), outside of 5 miles (Attachments A and B), and for the entire EPZ (Keast et al. at 9), are all within about 1% of each other when the same com-putational methods and assumptions are applied. - Attachments F and G contain the details of my results in the last row of Attachments E, and are directly i comparable to Attachments A and B.
- 3. My computational methods and assumptions lead to awakening percentages 8% to 10% higher than the
.l Board's, even though the Horonjeff or Kra11mann 1 sleep-awakening relationships are applied the same way in both cases. 4 Q.14 Why are the awakening percentages determined by your -f i method 8% to 10% higher than those determined using the assump-tions in the Board's order of January 16, 19867 i A.14 The largest single factor, accounting for 6% to 7% of the difference, is the difference in assumptions about the { . (:) , number of alertable persons in a household. The Board (p. 7 of the Order of January 16, 1986) developed a distribution from Table 5 of Nehnevajsa (Nehnevajsa at 31), which in turn is j based upon national data for 1978; and which eliminates all persons under the age of 18 as potentially alertable. I used
! data on family size which were derived from the 1980 census for i
the EPZ (Keast et al. at 23). According to Nehnevajsa, the census data from which I so-i lected my household size distribution "are by far the best es-
- timates possible" on the socio-demographic statistics for the EPZ (Nehnevajsa at 4, 5). I agree, and consider these data more representative than national data for the development of a
(} distribution of alertable persons in households for the Shearen Harris EP3. i
- 1
--,--.-.-v. w . . . . . . - - . . - .-,.-m...,.,-,,_,-- -.,.-,m_,,, mw.--, r- . -..,. .- .. .
.-,%..,,,,.mm--r-,,..-~wm.,.y-- ,-p.,m-w , , - - - - . . - -.
e (]) More importantly, however, I also agree with Dr. Nehnevajsa that eliminating those household members under the age of 18 from the alertable population is a "very conservative assumption" (Nehnevajsa at 10); indeed, that it is "one of the key ccnservative limitations" of his results (Nehnevajsa at 23), and that it "is not merely conservative, but somewhat unreasonable" (Nehnevajsa at 24) to limit the analysis to per-sons 19 years of age or older. Dr. Nehnevajsa concludes that all persons over the age of 13 would be able to interpret an alerting message if aroused (Nehnevajsa at 24). I would go further and say that even younger children, if aroused, would awaken their parents (or by their activity would lead to the awakening of their parents), and then their parents would hear and interpret the meaning of the sirens. Hence I believe that my distribution of arousable persons per household is much more realistic than that in Table 5 of Nehnevajsa. The remaining difference between the arousal percentages estimated using the Board's method and those estimated using my method is probably attributable to the greater detail I use in the breakdown of house conditions, as in my Attachment D. Q.15 Under item 3 of the Board's order, the question is raised as to whether the approximation used by Krytar to deter-mine SIL values from siren peak dBA levels leads to a signifi-cant underestimation. The Board illustrates this question with Figure 2 of its order. Do you believe the Kryter approximation (} leads to underestimating the siren stimulus?
L () A.15. No. The error resulting from the Kryter approxima-tion in this case is about 0.8dB, and hence negligible. This approximation is generally accepted practice in our field. (See Lee at 28.) Q.16 How did you come to the conclusion that the error is only 0.8dB7 A.16 I compared the result using Kryter's approximation to the result using my method. My method is close to a true integration of the curve. I will explain this comparison in some detail because it helps illustrate the nature of decibel addition. It may also help resolve questions the Board has about my affidavit of January 2, 1986. As a siren rotates, the sound level at a location on the O ground varies with' time. The problem is to determine in deci-bols the area under the curve of scund pressure vs. time. (Note that I have said sound presnure, not sound pressure , i level. In acoustics, the word " level" always designates a I quantity in decibels.) Mathematicians call this process of de-termining the area under a curve " integration." To describe the process, let me give a simplified illustration. Suppose, instead of rotating, the siren is always pointed at us, and can produce 100dBA. If it is on for one minute, then what is the Single Event Level (SEL) of the sound? O
-u
() Step 1: Convert the level in dB to sound pressure: SP = 10 exp (dBA/10)
= 10 exp (100/10) 10
= 10 Step 2: Multiply by the time duration in seconds. (The curve is now simply a rectangle with its height equal to sound pressure and its base equal to time).
Single-Event Sound Energy (SE) = 10 10 x 60
= 11 6 x 10 Step 3: Convert back to decibels.
SEL = 10 log 10 (SE)
=
10 log 10 (6 x 1011)
= ll7.8dB The process of converting Perceived Noise Level (PNL) to Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB) is analogous for this rectangular example. If the 100dB in our illustration is a Perceived Noise Level, then:
Step 1: Perceived Noise (PN) = 10 10 Step 2: Multiply by time in half seconds. 10 12 10 x 120 = 1.2 x 10 Step 3: EPNdB = 10 log 10 (1.2 x 1012)
= 120.8dB O It is common practice (as in Lukas) to use 1/2 sec. as the
N , l time unit for EPNdB, and 1 sec. for SEL. Hence, for the same starting numbers, the EPNdB value will always be 10 log 10 (2) = 3dB greater than the SEL. A short-cut approach is often used to simplify the above calculations. For our rectangular example we can says EPNdB = PNdb + 10 log 10 (T/.5), and SEL = A-weighted level + 10 log 10 (T/1), where T is time in seconds. This short-cut approach works be-r cause the addition of logarithms is equivalent to multiplica- , tion. > For most sounds, the Perceived Noise Level is a complicat-ed function of the sound spectrum. In this particular case () where we are working just with a 500 Hz tone, the Perceived Noise Level is equal to the C-weighted sound level plus a 10 dB tone correction. The actual temporal siren sound pattern at any location varies in accordance with the siren directivity pattern (Attachment H), the speed of siren rotation, and the duration I of siren operation. 1 Attachment I is the worksheet I used to determine the com- l bined effect of these parameters for my original testimony. It is similar to Figure 2 of the Board's Memorandum and order of January 16, 1986. It shows the sound level from the siren as a function of azimuth over 1/2 of a rotation of the siren. (The other half would be symmetrical.) I divided the peak of the O
__ __ - _ . ._ _ . . ~ . . . _ ..__ _ _ _ _-___ g () sound pattern into seven rectangular segments and worked en-tirely with these. The balance of the pattern makes a negligi-ble contribution to the EPNdB because the levels are so low. Each rectangular segment is 10' wide, and hence accounts for 10/180 (or 20/360) of the exposure for someone on the ground. Thus, a ten-minute siren operation produces a total exposure from each segment of 33.3 sec. (66.6 half seconds). The speed of siren rotation is unimportant in this case because the sirens operate long enough that all directions re-ceive essentially the same sound exposure duration. (For in-l stance, if the sirens were to rotate twice as fast there would t ] be twice as many sound peaks at any point on the ground, but each would only last half as long. The total duration would be C) the same.) . 3 The general approach I used to compute the area in deci-bels (i.e., to integrate) under the sound exposure pattern which consists of many repetitions of Attachment I is as fol-lows: Step 1) Compute the summed level of the amplitudes of the seven 10' rectangular segments illustrated on Attachment It I I dB 10 exp (dB/10) ) 0 1
-0.75 0.841 j -2.5 0.562 ;
l
-4.5 0.355 l
-8 0.158 I
-11.5 0.071
-14.5 0.035 TOTAL 2.987
_ _ _ . _ __ . _ _ ___. _ ._ ._ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___ ._
~
L (" } 10 log 10 (2.987) = 4.8dB This is the 5dB factor referred to in my oral testimony (Tr. 9564) and the integration term referred to in my affidavit of January 2, 1986. Step 2) Add the time duration in decibels of a 10* segment, for 10 min, of siren operation: 10 log 10 (66.6 half seconds) = 18.2 dB. This is the time duration term referred to in my testimony (Tr. 9563) and in my affidavit. My method is a simple extension of the rectangular example I described above, plus the use of the normal method for adding {} quantities in decibels. The result is that: EPNdB = max. PNdB + 23dB when the indoor siren sound level is well above the background noise level in a bedroom. The reason I used this approach is that it allowed me to simply drop 10* segments from the calculation as the siren sound level approached the background noise level. For exam-ple, if the siren sound level were only 3dB above the back-ground noise, then: (
G l () dB 10 exp (dB/10) 0 1
-0.75 0.841
-2.5 0.562
-4.5 x
-8 -
x
-11.5 x
-14.5 x ,
TOTAL 2.403 10 log 10 (2.4) = 3.8dB This is because the number of 10' segments of sound expo-sure above the background noise is reduced. The 18dB time duration factor remains unchanged. Dr. Kryter, in his testimony used the generally-accepted approximation: O SEL = max. dBA
- 10 log 10 (T/2) where T is the total time of siren operation in seconds between the 10dB down points. From Attachment I, the 10dB down points are at +50'. Hence, for 10 minutes of siren operation, the duration is:
50/180 x 600 = 166.7 sec. and SEL = max. dBA + 10 log 10 (166.7/2)
= max. dBA + 19.2dB !
Recalling that SEL is based upon a 1 second time unit and EPNdB is based on a 1/2 second time unit, the difference between my () approach and that in Dr. Kryter's testimony is only 0.8dB
._ ~ __. ___ _
g () (23-3-19.2). This difference is quite small. It indicates that the difference noted in Item 3 of the Board's Order, and illustrated in Figure 2 attached to the Order, does not signif-icantly alter the calculated acoustic stimulus produced by the siren's functioning.
- Q.17 With respect to Item 4 of the Board's order, can you offer any clarification of your January 2, 1986 affidavit?
A.17 Yes. First of all, my error at Tr. 9650 was that I ] omitted the 18dB time duration term just described. i Secondly, the Board is correct in its conclusion that my reference to Kryter is to his book, The Effects of Noise on ) Man, identified on p. 20 of my direct testimony. The pertinent ! portion of this book (pp. 471-483) was sent to Mr. Eddleman on C:) October 22,.1985, was the subject of cross-examination at Tr. } 9499-9502, and is in evidence as Eddleman Exhibit 70. i
! Thirdly, the term " integration" in my Affidavit refers to the term " integrating" on line 9 of Tr. 9564. I hope my use of this term is clarified by my answer to your previcus question.
t Finally, I would be happy to answer any other questions the Board has about my Affidavit at this time. l j l l 1 1 l 1 (:) _19_
ATTACHMENT A ESTIMATES OF HOUSEHOLDS AWAKENED BY SIRENS BETWEEN 5 MILES OF THE SEARON HARRIS PLANT AND THE BOUNDARY OF THE EPZ (using Horonjeff curve from Board Figure 1) Total # Horonjeff Nominal of Houses (Board Figure 1) Siren Sound Exposed No. of Level (5 mi. to Fraction Houses Sound Level Zones Outdoors Boundary) Awakened Awakened
>105 dB 112 dB 183 .928 170 100-105 102 154 .886 136 95-100 97 310 .858 266 90-95 92 742 .822 610 0 x 85-9o So 8 808 6 80-85 + 85-90; 2 x 75-80 + 85-90 68 197 .791 156 85-90 87 1,177 .783 922 2 x 80-85 85 117 .766 90 2 x 75-80 + 80-85 84 10 .755 6 75-80 + 80-85; 3 x 70-75 + 80-85 83 181 .747 135 80-85; 3 x 75-80 82 1,672 .737 1,232 2 x 70-75 + 2 x 75-80 al 5 .728 . 4 2 x 75-80; 3 x 7C-75 + 75-80 80 355 .718 255 2 x 70-75 + 75-80 79 55 .707 39 70-75 + 75-80 78 361 .697 252 75-80; 3 x 70-75 77 379 .684 259 2 x 70-75 75 138 .565 78 70-75 72 232 .532 123
<70 67 62 .434 27 TOTALS: 6,338 4,768 Percentage 75.2%
ll62/0644c
. . 1 ATTACHMENT B ESTIMATES OF HOUSEHOLDS AWAKENED BY SIRENS BETWEEN 5 MILES FROM THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT AND TIE BOUNOARY OF THE EPZ (using Kra11mam Curve from Board Figure 1) Total # Krallmann Nominal of Houses (Board Figure 1) Siren Sound Exposed No. of Level (5 mi. to Fraction Houses Scund Level Zones Outocors Boundary) Awakened Awakened
>105 dB 112 c6 183 .984 180 100-105 102 154 .966 149 95-100 97 310 .951 295 90-95 92 742 .934 693 2 x 85-90 90 8 .927 7 go-85+85-90;2x75-80>85-90 88 197 .915 180 85 "O 87 1,177 .911 1,072 2 x 80-85 85 117 .900 105 2 x 75-80 + 80-85 84 10 .893 9 75-80 + 80-85; 3 x 70-75 + 80-85 83 181 .890 161 80-85; 3 x 75-80 82 1,672 .883 1,476 2 x 70-75 + 2 x 75-80 81 5 .878 4 2 x 75-80; 3 x 70-75 + 75-80 80 355 .869 308 2 x 70-75 + 75-80 79 55 .863 47 70-75 + 75-80 78 361 .857 309 75-80; 3 x 70-75 77 379 .848 321 2 x 70-75 75 138 .704 97 70-75 72 232 .683 158 <70 67 62 .571 35 TOTALS: 6,338 5,606 Percentage 88.5%
O 1162/0644c
0
/~'s ATTAC}+ TNT C V COUNTS OF HOUSES WITHIN THE SHEARON HARRIS EPZ (from large maps)
Nomin 11 Siren Sound Houses Houses Houses Level in Within Outside Sound Level Zones Outdoors EPZ 5 mi. 5 mi.
> 105 d8 112 a8 206 23 183 100-105 102 178 24 154 95-100 97 337 27 310 90-95 92 800 58 742 2 x 8%% % 8 0 8 80-85 + 85-90; 2 x 75-80 + 85-90 88 199 2 197 85-90 87 1,256 79 1,177 2 x 80-85 85 120 3 117 O*75-8o+ao-85 aa to .o to 75-80 + 80-85; 3 x 70-75 3 80-85 83 221 40 181 80-85; 3 x 75-80 82 1,826 154 1,672 2 x 70-75 + 2 x 75-80 81 5 0 0 2 x 75-80; 3 x 70-75 + 75-80 80 376 21 3?"
2 x 70-75 + 75-80 79 79 24 55 70-75 + 75-80 78 454 93 361 75-80; 3 x 70-75 77 All 32 379 2 x 70-75 75 146 8 138 70-75 72 233 1 232 4.70 67 62 0 62 TOTALS: 6,927 589 6,338 l O ; i 1162/0644c l
tf 9 O ATTACMENT 0 i TABLES SHOWING CALCULATIONS & AWAKENING FRACTIONS USING HORONJEFF, AlO USING KRALLMANN, FOR EACH & THE 19 OIFFERENT MAXIMUM OUTDOOR SIREN SOUND EXPOSURES O l l 1 l O IId2/0644c
CALCULATIONS O f= SEL AND Fr R AC,T I O N S AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 110 DB Candition fm #As dAo CAn CAf WAo CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -1; -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -;0 Indoor Level 100.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 SIN OiHerence >10 >10 )to )to )to >10 >10 )to Integration 104.8 90.8 90.8 90.9 90.8 86.8 86.8 86.8 l l 4-Wetgated (-3) 101.8 87.8 87.8 87.8 87.8 83.8 83.8 83.8 i Duration (+15.21 117.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 O, U at !!7.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 19.0 99.0 99.0 Fract' ions Awakened
- r one .820 .730 .730 .730 .730 .690 .690 .690
.968 .927 .927 .927 .927 .904 .904 .904 For 3 .994 .980 .190 980 .980 .970 .970 .970 For 4 .999 .995 .995 .995 .995 .991 .99L .991 For Census Fasily .956 .923 .923 .923 ' _.923 .905 .905 .905
.. D G FRACTIOR .3:4 .16 .034 .024 .059 .104 .00 .177 Fraction of Houses Amakened (Canses Faetty) .344 .148 .033 .024 .054 .096 .072 .160 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .909 O
D-1
, ,1 O _
CALCULATIONS O F:" SEL AND F:"R A C T I O N S AWAKENED (SASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 102 DB - Condition fan sAs sAo CAn CAf do CAn CAf L:ss to snaoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Leve! 90.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference >10 >10 >10 >to )to >10 >10 >to Integration 94.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 Heigted(-Il 91.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 73.8 73.8 73.8 Dura $ ton (+15.2) 107.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 C3 107.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 ractions Asakened ' For one .760 .630 .630 .630 .630 .580 .580 .580 For 2 .942 .863 .843 .863 .863 .824 .824 .824 For 3 .986 .949 .949 .949 .949 .924 .924 .926 For 4 .197 .981 .181 981 .981 .969 .969 .969 For Census Fastly .935 .875 .875 .875 .875 .84 .344 .846 ' HOU31'3 FRACTICN .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 , Fractton of Houses Amakened (Census Faetty) .333 .140 .032 .023 .052 .0*0 .068 .150 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .386 a D-2
t () CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPCN BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDCOR SOUND LEVEL: 97 09 Canditica fan WAs WAo CAn CAf WAo CAn CAf Less to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Ind:er Level 35.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference )10 >10 >10 >10 >10 )to >10 >10 Integratica a9.2 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 A-WeiOted(-3) 86.8 12.8 72.2 72.8 72.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 ation (+15.2) 102.0 88.0 38.0 88.0 88.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 SEL, O 102.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 Fractions Awakened F:r ene .720 .570 .570 .570 .570 .530 .530 .530 F:r 2 .922 .815 .815 .815 .815 .779 .779 .779 For 3 .978 .920 .920 920 .920 .896 .896 .696 For 4 .994 .966 .966 .966 .966 .951 .951 .951 l F:r Census Fastly .919 .839 .839 .839 .839 .312 .812 .812 HOUSI'] FRACTICM .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Awakened (Census Fastly) .327 .134 .030 .022 .050 .084 .065 .144
'l l
~'"~*
4" """" ~ ~ 1 D-3
tr o .
)
O . I CALCULATIONS O f= SEL AND F= R A C T I O N S AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 9 DB i Condition fan sAs BAo CAn CAf WAo CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Inacer Level 80.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 e6.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 29 i 13 31 28 13 SIN DiHerence >10 >10 >10 )to 110 )to >10 >10 Integration 84.8 70.8 70.8 70.8 70.8 66.8 66.8 66.8
""1.qhted C-3) 81.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 47.8 63.8 63.8 63.8 Itton(+15.2) 97.0 33.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 79.0 79.0 19.0 SEL,48 97.0 83.0' 83.0 83. ) . 83.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 Fractions Amatened For one .670 .520 .520 .520 .520 470 .470 .470 For 2 .891 .770 .770 .77C' .770 .719 .719 .719 For 3 .964 .289 .389 .889 .889 .351 .351 . dst For 4 .988 .947 .947 .947 .947 .921 .921 .921 For Census Fessly .8?6 .804 .804 .804 .804 .764 .764 .764 HOUSIG FRACTION .356 .16 .036 .021 .059 .104 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Auekened (CensusFasily) .319 .129 .029 .021 .047 .081 .061 .135 hALFRACTIONAWAKENED=.320 D-4 2
--_s t .- .
O CALCtJLATIONS O f= SEL AND f= R ACT I O NS AWAKENED (BASED UPON SOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SCUND LEVEL: 90 DB Condttica fan us no CAn CAI no CAn CAI Less to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Ir. door Level 78.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Olfference >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 110 >10 >10 lategration 82.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 f'_ghted (-3) 79.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 Litten (+15.2) 95.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 SEL,dl 95.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 Fracticns Aeatened For one .650 .500 .500 .500 .500 .4 0 .450 .450 Fcr 2 .278 750 .750 .750 .750 .698 .698 .698 Fct 3 .957 .875 .375 .875 .875 .834 .834 .834 For 4 .985 .938 .938 .938 .938 .908 .908 .908 For Census Fastly .834 .789 .789 .789 .789 .747 .787 .747 h005!C FRAC 7 ION .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .104 .08 .177 Fraction of liouses Amakened (Census Facity) .315 .126 .028 .021 .047 .079 .060 .132 l (nJAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .808 D-5 l l
O V C ALCt JL AT I ONS O F:' S EEC L AND F= R A C T I O N S A W A K E N EE D (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 88 DB Condition fan Ms no CAn CM War. CAn CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 indoor Level 76.0 62.0 42.0 62.0 62.0 18.0 58.0 58.0 l Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference )l0 >10 >10 >10 )to )to >10 >10 ntegration 90.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.8 62.8 62.8 62.8 ighted (-3) 77.8 63.8 63.8 43.8 63.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 Duration 915.21 93.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 75.0 75.0 75.0
?. 38 93.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 t:ttens Asakened
., For one .630 .470 .470 .470 .470 .430 .430 .430 For 2 .863 .719 .719 .719 .719 .675 .675 .675 For 3 .949 .851 .851 .'851 .851 .815 .815 .815 l kr 4 .981 .921 .921 .921 .921 .894 .894 .894 For Census Facity .875 .764 .764 .764 .764 .728 .728 .728 e HOUSING FRACTION .356 .16 .04 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Awakened (Census Fasily) .312 .122 .028 .020 .045 .077 .058 .129
- O i
TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .791 i D-6
~
l l O CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND FF R A C T I O N S AWAKENED (SASED UPON ECARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 87 DB Condition fan mes WAo CAn CAf Neo CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -10 -30 fadoor Level 75.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 Sackground Noise L1 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 O w egration 79.8 65.8 65.8 6!.8 65.8 61.8 61.8 41.8 A-Weighted (-1) 76.8 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 Duratton (+15.21 92.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 SEL d8 92.0 78.0 78.0 79.0 78.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Fractions Aeatened F:r one .620 460 .460 460 460 .420 .420 .420 For 2 .556 .708 .708 .708 .708 .664 .664 .664 For 3 .f45 .843 .843 .843 .843 .805 .305 .805 For 4 .971 .915 .915 .915 .915 .387 .887 .887 for Census Faeily 870 .76 .7!6 .7:6 .7!6 .719 .719 .719 HOU81 3 FA4C7!0N .!!6 .16 .036 .024 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of . Houses Awhened
.310 .121 .027 .020 .045 .076 .057 .127 gsusFasily)
TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .783 D-7
V C AL CUL AT I ONS O FT SEL AND F R ACT I ONS A W Al<*E N E D (EASED UFON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 85 DB Csedition fan bas WAo CAn CH uAo CAa CM Loss to indoors -12 -24 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 73.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 55.0 !5.0 55.0 Background Noise M 49 39 28 13 : 39 28 13 DiHerence >10 10.0 )l0 )to )to )to )l0 >to Integration 77.8 63.6 43.8 63.8 63.8 59.8 59.8 59.8 A-deighted (-3) 74.8 60.6 60.8 H. 8 60.8 %.8 3.8 56.8 i Duration (+15.2) 90.0 75.8 76.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 SE, dl 90.0 75.3 76.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 Fractions Awakt.1ed F:r one .600 . 4M .440 440 .4M .s00 .400 ,400 For 2 .8M .684 .684 .684 .684 .6M .6M .6M For 3 934 .824 .824 .324 .824 .784 .784 .784 For 4 .974 .902 .902 .902 .902 .870 .870 .870 For Census Family .858 .738 .738 .738 .738 .698 .698 .698 H8t;8tN8 FRACTION .3:4 .16 .034 .026 .059 .104 .08 .177 Fraction if . es Awakened sus Family) .305 .!!8 .027 .019 .044 .074 .056 .124 D-8 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .766
s O C AL.CUI AT I ONS OF SEL. AND Fr R A C T I O N S AWAKENED (BASED UFCN BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) - CUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 84 DB Candition fan WAs 540 CAn CM mao CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Irdoor Level 72.0 38.0 50.0 50.0 $8.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 J ground Noise 40 49 39 21 13 39 28 13
. Difference >10 9.0 >10 )' O >10 )to )to )to Integration 76.8 62.6 62.8 62.8 62.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 A-Oights t (-Il 73.9 59.6 59.8 59.8 59.8 55.8 55.8 55.8 Durati:n (+15.2) 89.0 74.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 EEL,68 99.0 74.8 75.0 75.0 75.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 I
l ] Fractions Asakened , ! F:r one .530 .430 4:0 .430 .430 .390 .3?0 .390 i For 2 .824 .675 .675 .475 .675 .628 .628 .628 For 3 .926 .315 .815 .815 .815 .773 .773 .773 For 4 .969 .994 .894 .894 .894 .862 .862 .862 For Census Fasily .944 .728 .i28 .728 .728 .688 .688 .688 1 HouSIns FRACT! Cit .3:6 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 O on tt of Un Aedened (Conses Fasily) .301 .117 .026 .019 .043 .073 .055 .122 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .755 D-9
m O CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND FRACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UFON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORCNJEFF) OUTDOOR SQUND LEVEL: 03 DB Condittee fan Hs No CAn CM pe CAn CM Loss to indoors: -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30
' ocr Level 71.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 Kckground Nesse 40 49 19 28 13 39 29 13 $/N Di Herence 310 8.0 >t0 >10 )to >10 >10 )l0 Integrstien 75.8 al.4 61.8 61.8 61.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 A-Weighted (-1) 72.8 58.4 !B.8 58.8 58.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 Duration t+15.2) 88.0 73.6 7a.0 74.0 74.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 !EL,$8 28.0 73.6 74.0 74.0 74.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Frutions Asatened For one .570 .420 .420 .420 .420 .380 .380 .380 For 2 .815 .44 .664 .M4 .M4 .616 .616 .616 For 3 .920 .805 .805 .005 .805 .762 .762 .762 For 4 .9H .887 .007 .807 .887 .952 .832 .452 For Census Fasily .839 .719 .719 .719 .71e .677 .677 .677 HOUSI G FRACT!GN .3:6 .!6 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 O
A tton of Houses Amatened (CensesFaeily) .299 .!!5 .026 .019 .042 .072 .054 .120 > l TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .747 D-10
O CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 82 DB Condition fan us do CAn CH Ho CAn CM e to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Level 70.0 !&.0 56.0 54.0 $6.0 52.0 $2.0 52.0 , ladground Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 M Difference )to 7.0 110 >10 >10 -)to )l0 >10
- .1 74.8 60.4 60.8 60.8 60.3 56.8 56.8 56.8 A-Weighted (-3) 71.8 57.4 57.8 57.8 57.8 $3.0 53.8 53.8 Duration (+15.2) 87.0 72.6 73.0 73.0 73.0 69.0 e9.0 69.0 SEL. d8 87.0 72.6 77.0 73.0 73.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 Fractions Awakened 2
- xe .560 .410 .410 410 .410 .370 .370 .370 For 2 .306 .652 .652 .452 .652 .603 .603 .603 For 3 .915 .795 .795 .795 .795 .750 .7:0 .750 For 4 .963 .879 .879 .879 .879 .842 .842 .842 For Conses Faelly .833 -
.709 .709 .709 .709 .6&& .6&& .6% l 51N8 FRAC 71GN .3!6 .!6 .036 .026 .059 .1% .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Anekoned (Census Faeily) .296 .113 .026 .018 .042 .071 .053 .!!8 D-11 WlGr.N f7JZElRFCLN = _ n Wh7-- --------- --_ -_ _.- --- _ -_ .- _ --_ _ _-- _ _ - -_------- ------ _-_ _-- __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------_- ----- --
I
~N (V
i CALCULATIONS OF SEl AND FRACTIONS A W A K E N EiE D (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) ' OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 81 DB , Condition fan WAs sAo (An CAf WAo CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -!0 -30 -30 IndoorLevel 69.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 Background Nesse M 49 39 28 13 39 28 13
; S/N Cliference >10 6.0 )to >10 )to )to >10 >10 4 Integration 13.8 59.4 59.8 19.8 59.8 55.8 55.8 55.8 A-deigted(-3) 70.8 56.4 56.8 56.8 56.8 52.8 52.8 52.8 Duration (+15.2) 86.0 71.6 72.0 72.0 72.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 SEL,dB 86.0 71.4 72.0 72.0 72.0 68.0 48.0 68.0 tie s Awakened For one .550 400 400 .400 .400 .360 .360 .364 For 2 .798 .6M .6M .6M .6M .590 .590 .590 For 3 .109 .784 .784 .734 .794 .738 .738 . 738 l
For 4 .759 .870 .870 .870 .870 .832 .832 .832 For Census Fastly .826 .698 .698 .618 .698 .455 .655 .655 HCUSIN8 FRACTICA .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .104 .08 .177 i Fractton of Houses Asakened (Census Faelly) .214 .!!2 .025 .018 .041 .069 .052 .116 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .728 O D-12 f
. < - - . - - , - - -----..e - - -
y . - . . - , .
-,---r---g --,,,4 _ - _ _ .,n-_n---g-. - ,--,-- - - - . - -. ,, - -- . - - , - ., ,, . , --..- ,-y.-n, -,- -
~
O CALCULATIONS OF SEECL AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) CUTDCOR SOUND LEVEL: 80 DB hition LTss.to indcors fan es no CAn CA8 Mo CA4 CAf
-12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -10 fadoor Level 68.0 54.0 34.0 54.0 !4.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Background wise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 $/N Difference )to 5.0 >10 >10 110 )to )l0 >to lategration 72.8 58.4 !8.8 58.8 58.8 54.6 54.8 54.8 A-deighted (-3) 69.8 !5.4 55.8 55.8 55.8 51.6 51.8 !!.8 Duration (+15.2) 85.0 70.6 71.0 71.0 11.0 66.3 67.0 67.0 SEL,J8 85.) 70.6 71.0 71.0 11.0 66.8 67.0 67.0 Fractions Awakened For one .540 .390 .390 .390 .390 .350 .350 .350 For 2 .788 .628 .428 .628 .628 .!77 .577 .577 For 3 .903 .773' .773 .773 .773 .725 .725 .725 For 4 .755 .842 .842 .862 .842 .821 .821 .821 For Census Fasily .819 .688 .688 .688 .688 .643 .643 .643 O'3 L_l FRAC 7ICM .356 .16 .036 .026 .0 9 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of Hesses Ame6esed (Censes Fasityl .292 .ilo .025 .018 .04L .068 .051 .l!4 D-13
CALCULATIONS O f:- SEL. AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 79 DB Condities fan uns uAo CAn CM thne CAn CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30
!aacor Level 67.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 Backgrowd Noise 44 49 39 29 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference >10 4.0 >10 )to >10 10.0 >10 )to Integration 71.8 !6.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 53.6 53.8 53.8 A-Wetgated (-1) 68.8 53.8 54.8 !4.8 14.8 $0.6 50.8 50.8 Duration (+15.2) 64.0 69.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 65.8 66.0 66.0 50., C 84.0 69.0 10.0 70.0 70.0 65.8 66.0 M.0 tions Asakened ~/ene .530 .370 .336 .38C .380 .340 .3% .340 Fw 2 .779 .603 .616 ,616 .616 .564 .564 .564 Fa- 3 .896 .750 .762 .762 .762 .713 .713 .713 Fr 4 .951 .342 .352 .852 .352 .910 .810 .810 For Census Fasily .312 .6% .677 .677 .677 .632 .632 .632 HCUSIG FRACf!CN .356 .16 .336 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of 14euses Awetened (Census Faestyl .289 .107 .024 .018 .044 .067 .051 .112 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .707 1
O D-14 I
. s O
CALCULATIONS O F:' SEL AND F"RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 78 DB Condition fan WAs une CAn CM MAe CAn CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -10 -30 -30 15 door Level 66.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 $2.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 84ckground Noise 40 49 39 21 13 39 28 13 S/N DiHerence >10 3.0 >10 )l0 >10 9.0 >10 )to Inte9 ration 70.8 55.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 52.6 52.8 52.8 A-Weig4ted (-31 67.8 52.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 49.6 49.8 49.8 Duration (+15.21 83.0 68.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 64.8 65.0 65.0 SEL,48 83.0 68.0 69.0 49.0 49.0 64.8 65.0 65.0 l Fractions seekened one .520 .360 .!70 .370 .370 .330 .330 .330 For 2 .770 .590 .603 .e03 .603 .351 .551 .551 For 3 .389 .738 .750 .750 .750 .699 .699 .699 Fer 4 .947 .832 .842 .842 .842 .798 .798 .798 For Census Fasilf .604 .655 .666 .646 .664 .619 .419 .619 IG SING FRACTICM .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of . Houses Aeatened (Census Fastly) .286 .105 .024 .017 .039 .046 .050 .110 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .697 l O D-15 l
O CALCULATIONS O f=' S EiE L AND FRACTIONS A W A K EiE N E D (BASED UPON 90ARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 77 DB Condition fan Wes We CAs CM eso C4n CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Ixdoor Level 65.0 $1.0 51.0 51.0 31.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 lackground u se 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N DiHerence >10 2.0 fl0 >10 >10 8.0 )l0 >10
!ategratton 69.8 53.7 55.8 55.8 55.8 51.4 51.8 51.8
; 4-delgated (-31 66.8 50.7 52.8 52.8 52.8 48.4 48.8 48.8 Duratton (+15.2) 82.0 65.9 68.0 68.0 68.0 63.6 64.0 64.0
$EL,48 82.0 65.9 68.0 68.0 68.0 63.6 64.0 64.0 Fractions Asehened i
one .510 .340 .3H .360 .360 .320 .320 .320 For 2 .760 .564 .590 .590 .190 .338 .538 .538
'tr ! .882 .713 .738 .738 .738 .686 .686 .686 I
.4 .742 .810 .832 .832 .832 .786 .784 .786 l
l For Census Festly .797 .632 .655 .655 .655 .607 .607 .607 MUSI M FRAC 7!0N .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177
**tetion of
. a ses Asetened (Census Fastly) .284 .101 .024 .017 .039 .064 .049 .107 i
TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .684 O D-16
1 O C AL.CUL AT I ONS O f* SEL AND f=R ACT I ONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) CUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 75 DB Condition fan was mas CAn CM uAs CAn CM Last to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 30 Indoor Level 63.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Backgr and moise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13
$/N Difference >t0 .0 10.0 >10 )l0 6.0 >10 >t0 Integration 67.I .0 $3.6 !3.3 53.8 49.4 49.8 49.8 A-detthted (-3) 64.3 .0 10.6 50.8 54.8 46.4 46.8 44.8 Duration (+15.21 10.0 .0 65.0 66.0 66.0 61.6 62.0 62.0 SEL,il 00.0 .0 65.8 66.0 66.0 61.6 62.0 62.0 attons Asakened C3one .490 .000 .340 .340 .340 .300 .300 .300 For 2 .744 .000 .564 .564 .!64 .510 .510 .510 For 3 .367 .000 .713 .713 .713 .657 .657 .657 For 4 .132 .000 .310 .310 .410 .760 .760 .760 Fer Census Fastly .711 .000 .632 .632 .632 .311 .541 .501 MUSIP6 FRAC 7!ON .356 .!6 .036 .026 .059 .104 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Ame6ened (CensusFastly) .273 .004 .023 .016 .037 .062 .046 .103 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .565 O
D-17 e
O C A L C LIL A *T* I O N S OF S EE L. AND FRACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON 90ARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) OUTDOOR SCUND LEVEL: 72 DB Condition fan us He CAn CAf Wee CAn CAf Lost to indoors 12 -26 -26 26 -26 -30 -30 -!0 IrdoorLavel 60.0 44.0 86.0 46.0 46.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 lectground Nesse 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13
$/N Difference )t0 (0 7.0 >10 >10 3. 0 sto )to Integration 64.8 .0 50.4 10.8 50.3 45.0 44.8 46.8 A-detthted (-3) 61.8 .0 47.4 47.8 47.9 42.8 43.0 43.3 Duration (+15.2) 77.0 .0 62.6 63.0 63.0 !I.0 59.0 59.0 SEL,il 77.0 .0 42.6 43.0 63.0 58.0 59.0 59.
ittens Awetened vdone 450 .000 .310 .310 .310 .260 .270 .270 For1 .690 .000 .524 .524 .324 452 447 .467 For 3 .834 .00 0 .671 .671 .671 .595 .611 . 61.' For 4 909 .000 .773 .773 .773 .700 .716 .716 F:r Census Festiv .747 .000 .!!4 .594 .194 .325 .539 .339 , NOUSINGFRAC7!CN .3!6 .16 .036 .026 .259 .104 .00 .177 Fraction of Poetet Asetened (Censes Facityl .264 .000 .021 .015 .033 .054 .043 .095 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .532 O D-18
O v : CALCULAT*IQNS OF SEL AND FRACTIONS A W A K E N EE D (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR HORONJEFF) CUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 67 DB Condition fan uns une Can CM WAe CAn CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Insoor Level 15.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 f/N Difference >10 (0 2. 0 >10 >10 (0 f.0 110 Integration 59.I .0 43.7 45.8 43.8 .0 41.6 41.8 4-deighted t-3) !4.8 .0 40.1 42.8 42.1 .0 38.6 30.1 Duration (+t3.2) 72.0 .0 35.9 18.0 31.0 .0 53.8 14.0 SEL,C3 12.0 .0 35.9 58.0 8.0 .0 53.1 54.0 Fractions Aeatened S ome .400 .000 .240 .260 .260 .000 .230 .230
) .0H For 2 .440 .000 422 .452 .452 407 407 Fw I .714 .0M .561 .:95 .595 .000 .543 .543 Fw 4 .170 .000 .464 .700 .700 .000 .443 .449 Fw Census Fasilf .699 000 495 .525 .525 .000 479 479 HOU5! C FRAC 7!0N .334 .!6 .034 .026 .G59 .104 .00 .177 Fraction of Housee 4ealened ICenses Fastly) .249 .0M .018 .014 .031 .000 .038 .085 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .434 O
D-19
ALCULATIONS O f=" SEL AND p=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UFON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 112 DB Cadition fan uns WAe CAn CAf nae CAs CAf Less to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 IndoorLevel 100.0 86.0 86.0 84.0 86.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13
$/N Oifference >10 >10 )to )to >10 )to >10 >10 Integration 104.8 90.8 90.8 90.8 90.8 36.8 86.8 86.0
- 44eigntedi-3) 101.8 87.8 87.8 17.8 87.8 83.8 83.8 83.8 Ouration (+15.21 117.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 SEL,d8 !!7.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 Frutions Asakened For one .990 .910 .910 .910 .910 .880 .000 .88
, 0 2 1.000 .992 .992 .992 .992 .996 .986 .98 Tor 3 1.000 .999 .999 .999 .999 .998 .998 .99 8
ror 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 4rCensusFastly .998 .ift .981 .981 .981 .973 .973 .97 3 H)Ut!N8 FRACTICN .3!6 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 4 4 Fraction of
% ses Aeakened
- *nsusF4elly) .355 .!!7 .035 .026 .058 .103 .078 .17 2
TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .964 i i
- O ,
D-20
. ~ _ _ . . . _ , . - . , . _ _ , _ , _ - , _ , _ , . , _ - . - _ . - - . . - __ _ , - _ , _ - - . . - , - - - --_...._.- -. _.,.- -.--
- u 1
, O l
l CALCULATIONS O F:- SEL l AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) l OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: to: DB Candition fan WAs nas CAn CH MAe CAa CAf l Lost to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 IndeerLevel 90.0 16.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 lackground Noise 40 49 39 29 13 39 28 13
$/N Difference )l0 >10 >10 >10 >10 >10 )l0 >10 Integration 94.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 A-setthted (-3) 91.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 73.8 73.8 73.8 , Duration (+15.2) 107.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 i
SEL, O 107.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 Fractier.s Asakened one .940 .830 .830 .830 .830 .000 .800 .30 For 2 .996 .971 .971 .971 .971 .960 .960 .96 0 Fr 3 1.000 .995 .995 .995 .995 .992 .992 .99 2 Fr 4 1.000 .99f .999 .999 .999 .998 .998 .99 8 Far Ce9 sus Fastly .988 .959 .959 .959 .959 .949 .949 .94 9 G SI G FRACTION .336 .16 .036 .026 .0!9 .106 .00 .177 Fraction of Houses Aestened (Census Festly) .352 .153 .035 .025 .057 .101 .476 .!6 8 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .966 O D-21. , l
. . o O CALCULATIONS O Fr SEL. AND FrR ACT I ONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 97 DB Condition fan WAs WAo CAn CAf mao CAR CAf Loss to inecors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 30 -30 IndoorLevel 85.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 Background %ise 40 49 39 28 13 39 29 13
$/N Otiference >10 >10 >10 )l0 >10 >10 )l0 )t0 Integration 89.0 75.8 75.1 75.8 75.B 71.8 11.8 71.1 A-Weighted (-3) 86.8 72.8 72.8 72.8 72.8 68.8 68.9 68.1 Duration (+15.21 *102.0 08.0 08.0 88.0 88.0 84.0 14.0 14.0 SEL,di 102.0 80.0 80.0 88.0 90.0 84.0 84.0 14.0 tions Aeakened one .900 .793 .700 .780 .700 .750 .750 .75 For2 .990 .952 .952 .952 .952 .931 .938 .93 I
For 3 .999 .999 .999 .989 .999 .994 .994 .99 4 For 4 1.000 .998 .998 .998 .9'J .996 .996 .99 6 For Census Fasily .978 .942 .942 .942 .942 .931 .931 .93 1 MlUSING FRAC 7tCN .3:6 .!6 .036 .@ .059 .106 .08 .!77 Fraction of Houses Asetened (Conses Faetty) .348 .151 .034 .024 .056 .099 .074 .16 5 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .951 O D-22
m r f O - CALCULATIONS O Fr SEL AND F R A C T* I O N S AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 92 DB Candition fu uns sAo CAn CAf W4o CAn CAf Loss to indocrs -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 IndoorLevel 80.0 64.0 H.0 H.0 H.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 8xtground Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Otiference >to >10 )to )to )!0 >to )t0 )to latogration 14.8 70.8 70.8 70.8 70.8 H.8 H.8 H.8 , A-Wet;ted(-3) 81.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 63.8 63.8 63.8 l Duration (+15.21 97.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 l BEL,C3 97.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 hionsAeatenet
- For one .840 .140 .740 .740 .740 .690 .690 .69 O
l For 2 .980 .932 .932 932 .932 .904 .904 .90 4 For 3 .997 .982 .982 .982 .982 .970 .970 .97 0 For 4 1.000 .993 .995 .995 .993 .991 .991 .99 1 For Census Faetty .48 .927 .927 .927 .927 .905 .90$ .90 5 H0tlSI'3FRACf!04 .3:4 .16 .036 .024 .059 .104 .08 .177 Fractton of Hesses Asetened (Ceeems Fastly) .344 .148 .033 .024 .0$$ .096 .072 .16 I 0 l l TOTAL FPACTION AWAKENED = .934 l l l O D-23 l l
O CALCULATIONS OF BEL . AND FRACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOCR SOUND LEVEL: 90 DB Condition fan uAs dAo CAn lAf no CAn CAf Loss to inacers -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 78.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Background Moise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13
$/N Difference )l0 >10 >10 210 )l0 >10 >10 >10
!stegration 82.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 4-#eipted(-1) 79.8 65.8 65.8 65.1 65.I 61.8 61.8 61.I Duratton (+15.2) 9.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 81.0 77.0 17.0 77.0 SEL,el 95.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 11.0 17.0 17.0 77.0 wtions Asatowd For one .850 .720 .720 .720 .720 .670 .470 .670 Fr 2 .978 .922 .922 .922 .922 .191 .891 .091 Fa 3 .997 .978 .979 .978 .978 .964 .964 .964 For 4 .999 .994 .994 .994 .994 .900 .900 .900 For ceases Fastly .965 .919 .919 .919 .919 .896 .196 .896 H0ut!N6 FRAC 710N .256 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .00 .177 Fraction of Nesses Asetened (Census Family) .343 .147 .033 .024 .054 .095 .072 .159 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .927 O
D-24
O CALCULATIONS Orr SEL AND FRACTIONS AWAKENED (97. SED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 80 DB Candition fan Hs no CAn CM Me CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -24 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 IndoorLevel 76.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 50.0 $1.0 50.0 Iglground hise H 49 39 21 13 39 21 13 1/N OlHerence 110 >10 >10 )l0 >10 >10 >10 )l0 e Integration 10.I H.3 (6.I 64.1 H.I 62.8 62.8 62.0 4-detented M ) 77.8 63.8 63.8 63.1 63.1 59.I St.I St.I Duration Ol5.21 93.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 CJ 93.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 15.0 75.0 15.0 f Fractions Aeekened
- 4r one .830 .690 .690 .690 .690 .640 .640 .644
.971 .934 .9(4 .904 .904 .870 .870 .I70 For 3 .995 .970 .970 .970 .970 .953 .953 .953 j F:r 4 .999 .991 .991 .991 .991 .913 .993 .993 For Census Fasily .959 .905 .905 .905 .905 .III .III .Ill HOU$1 0 FRAC 710N .356 .16 .336 .026 .059 .106 .01 .177 Frutton of Houses Anekened i
(CensusFastly) .341 .145 .033 . 324 .053 .093 .070 .156 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .915 i ^ 1 O D-25 l l t I
+
I CALCULATIONS O Fr SEL AND Fr R A CT I O N S AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) CUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 87 DB Condition fan uAs He CAn CAf see CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 15.0 41.0 61.0 61.0 41.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 lectground Netse 40 49 39 20 13 39 20 13 S/M DiHerence >10 )to )to )to )l0 )l0 )to )l0 Integratten 79.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.I 61.8 61.8 61.1 A-tet0ted(-3) 76.8 62.1 62.8 62.8 62.5 !I.I SI.I SI.I atton (+t5.2) 92.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 sK, C3 92.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Fractions Aeasoned For one .820 .600 .600 .600 .6M .630 .630 .630 For2 .968 .190 .198 .190 .190 .163 .163 .963 For 3 .194 .967 .967 .967 .967 .949 .949 .949 For 4 .999 .990 .990 .990 .990 .901 .901 .901 For Census Fastly .956 .901 .901 .901 .901 .875 .375 .875 MOUI! G FRAC 710N .336 .!6 .036 .026 .059 .106 .00 .177 Fraction of Movees Aennened (Cenusfeetly) .340 .144 .032 .023 .053 .093 .070 .155 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .911 l) v D-26
O CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND FRACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UFON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 85 DB Coeditten fan lies lies CAn CAf IIAs CAn CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -10 -30 -30 IndoorLevel 73.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 1 Backgraasmoise 40 49 39 28 13 39 21 13 54N Difference )10 10.0 >10 210 >10 >10 )to >10 ; integration 77.8 63.6 63.1 63.8 63.1 59.0 $9.I 19.8 4-ileighted (-3) 14.1 60.6 60.3 60.8 60.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 Duration 415.21 90.0 75.8 76.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 SEL,48 90.0 75.I 76.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 72.0 12.0 Fractions Aeatenet one .900 .650 .650 .650 .6!0 .610 .610 .410 For2 .960 .171 .878 .078 .571 .844 .let .844 For 3 .992 .951 .957 .957 .957 .941 .941 .941 For 4 .999 .985 .195 .905 .905 .977 .977 .977 l For fensus Festir .949 .486 .806 .Its .886 .864 .164 .864 l HOUSINGFRAC7!ON .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .00 .177 \ Fraction of r Houses Amatened (CensusFastly! .338 .142 .032 .023 .052 .092 .069 .153 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .900 a 1 O I D-27
l I M l ( G - l CALCULATIONS OF S E L. l AND FRACTIONS AWAKENED l (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) l OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 84 DB l l Candittee fan .uAs see CAn CH hAs CAn CAf l Loss to indoors -12 +26 -26 -26 -76 -30 -30 -30 Ineser Level 72.0 58.0 50.0 18.0 58.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 Sect 9round Netse 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13
$/N Difference >10 9.0 >10 )l0 )l0 >10 )l0 >10
!.ttegration 76.8 62.6 62.I 42.1 42.5 10.0 38.0 58.8 A-det;tedt-3) 73.1 19.6 59.I 59.1 19.8 55.8 55.1 55.I i
96ratten (+15.2) 19.0 14.I 75.0 75.0 75.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 l lEL, O 89.0 74.1 75.0 75.0 75.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 Fractions Aeatened one .790 .440 .440 .440 .440 .590 .590 .590 For 2 .956 .170 .870 .170 .170 .I32 .I32 .332 For 3 .991 .953 .953 .953 .953 .931 .931 .931 For 4 .991 .913 .993 .913 .913 .972 .972 .972 ForCensusFaeily .946 .ill .381 .It! .381 .352 .852 .I52 NOU$10 FRAC 7!CN .3!6 .16 .034 .026 .059 .106 .00 .177 Fraction of Hesses Asetened (Census Faell7) .337 .141 .032 .023 .052 .090 .068 .1!! TOTAL FRACTICN AWAVENED = .893 D-28
(Ov CALCULATIONS O F= SEL AND frRACTIONS AWAKENED (SASED UPCN BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUT000R SOUND LEVEL: G3 DB Condition fan sAs has Can CM IEe CAn CAf Loss ts inesors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 indoor Level 71.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 53.0 $3.0 53.0 ! lackground Notse 40 49 39 29 13 !? 21 13
$/4 91fference >10 0.0 ;10 )l0 )l0 >10 )l0 )l0 Integration 75.8 61.4 61.3 41.8 61.8 57.8 57.I 57.8 4-deighted (-3) 72.0 !I.4 58.8 54.8 !I.I 54.8 54.9 54.5 Suration (+15.2) 80.0 73.6 14.0 74.0 74.0 10.0 70.0 70.0 SEL O 80.0 73.6 74.0 74.0 74.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 i tions Asetened '
I e .790 .630 .630 .630' .630 .500 .500 .500 , For 2 .956 .863 .563 .863 .063 .824 .824 .I24 i i For3 .991 .949 .949 .949 .949 .926 926 .926 i ! For 4 .998 .991 .991 .981 .901 .969 .969 .969 ForCensusFastly .946 .373 .373 .875 .875 .846 .846 .846 MUSI"3 FRAC 7tCM .356 .!6 .036 .026 .059 .106 .00 .177 Fraction of 14etes Awakened ,
! Census Fastly) .337 .144 .032 .023 .052 .090 .064 .150 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .990 0 .
D-29 .
- . ~g, '
4
^
.y t_*
O g - e. CALCULATIONS OF SEL 4 AND F= R A C T I O N S AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 92 DB , Condition fan us uAs CAn CAf Me CAn C4f Loss to insoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -10 -30 Indoor Level 70.0 $4.0 $4.0 !6.0 56.0 52.0 $2.0 32.0 lackground Nelse 40 49 39 28 13 39 20 13 5/4 DiHerence )to 7. 0 >10 >10 >10 )to )t0 )te . Intetration 74.8 60.4 60.0 60.8 60.I 56.8 54.8 56.8 4-set;ted(-3) 71.8 57.4 57.8 57.4 57.8 53.I 53.1 53.I Duration (+15.2) 87.0 72.6 73.0 73.0 73.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 SEL, O $7.0 72.6 73.0 73.0 73.0 69.9 69.0 69.0
- less Aoektaed For one .700 .610 .620 .620 .620 .570 .570 .570 tar 2 .952 .l4t .356 .856 .156 .315 .315 .815 ice 3 .999 .941 .945 .945 .945 .920 .92C .920 For 4 .998 .977 .979 .979 .979 .9% .9% .9%
For Censue Faelly .942 .364 .37) .176 .070 .039 .839 .439 WOU5! Q FRAC 710N .3:6 .16 .036 .026 .059 .!M .00 .177 Fraction of Neuses Asetened tCenus Fast 1y) .335 .138 .031 .023 .051 .049 .M7 .t49 TOTAL FAACTION AWAVENED = .893 O D-30
n V CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND FRACTIONS AWAMENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) j OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 81 DB Candition fan uAs WAo CAn C. Me CAn CM Loss to indoors 12 -26 26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 , Insoor Level 69.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 51.0 51.0 $1.0
- Background Noise H 49 39 28 13 39 20 13 3/N DiHerence >10 6.0 )l0 >10 )l0 )l0 >10 >10 t
Integration 73.8 59.4 59.8 59.1 59.I 35.8 55.8 55.8 4-ee60ted (-3) 70.1 !6.4 56.8 56.8 $6.0 !2.8 52.8 52.8 1 Duratten !+15.2) 86.0 71.6 72.0 72.0 72.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 C3 %.0 11.6 12.0 72.0 12.0 60.0 68.0 68.0 , FractionsAse6eed
- For one
.770 .600 .610 .610 .610 .560 .560 .560 For 2 .947 .8W .348 .840 .344 .8% .83 .04 l For3 .980 .934 .941 .941 .941 .915 .915 .915 l For 4 .997 .774 .977 .977 .977 .963 .963 .963 ! For Census Festly .939 .858 .964 .864 .84 .833 .833 .333 M8ut!"3 FRACTION .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .1H .00 .177 1
Fraction of Hesses 6eekened (CasesFacil1) .334 .137 .031 .022 .051 .006 .M7 .147 i TOTAL FRACTION AWAVENED = .878 i D-31
i l
; I O
CALCULATIONS Of S EE 1_. AND f=RACTIONS A W A K EE N EE D (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 80 DB Condition fan WAs mao CAn CAf WAo CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 68.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N DiHerence >10 5.0 >10 >10 )l0 )to >10 >10 Integration 72.8 58.4 58.8 !8.8 58.8 54.6 54.8 54.0 A-Weighted (-3) 69.8 55.4 55.8 55.8 55.8 51.6 51.8 51.8 Duration (+15.2) 85.0 70.6 *71.0 71.0 71.0 66.8 67.0 67.0 dB 85.0 70.6 71.0 71.0 71.0 64.8 67.0 67.0 Fractions.Amakened For one .760 .590 .590 .590 .590 .540 .540 .540 For Z .942 .932 .332 .332 .832 .788 .788 .788 For 3 .986 .931 .931 .931 .931 .903 .903 .903 For 4 .997 .972 .972 .972 .972 .955 .955 .955 For Census Faeily .9!5 .352 .652 .S$2 .852 .319 .819 .819 HOUS Q FRACTION .354 .16 .034 .026 .059 .104 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Ame6ened (Census Faeily) .333 .134 .031 .022 .050 .087 .066 .145 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .669 D-32' l
\
l t, CALCULATIONS O F:' SEL AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 79 DB Condition fan WAs WAo CAn CAf une CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -16 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 67.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 'J
. 13 $/N Difference >10 4.0 >10 )l0 >l0 10.0 >10 >10 Integration 71.8 56.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 53.6 53.8 53.8 A-teighted (-3) 68.3 53.8 54.8 54.8 54.8 50.6 50.8 50.8 Duration (+15.21 84.0 69.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 65.8 64.0 64.0 SEL,d8 84.0 69.0 70.0 '70.0 70.0 65.8 66.0 64.0 Fractions Amatene4 For one .750 .570 .580 .580 .580 .530 .530 .530 (2
b .938 .815 .824 .324 .824 .779 .779 .779 For 3 .994 .920 .926 .926 .926 .996 .896 .896 F:r 4 .996 .964 .969 .969 .969 .951 .751 931 For Census Fasily .931 .839 .846 .846 .846 .812 .812 .812 HOUS! G FRACTICX .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .104 .08 .!?7 Fraction of Houses Asakened (Census Family) .331 .134 .030 .022 .050 .084 .065 .144 i TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .863 i i O D-33 l
s O CALCULATIONS OF SEL AND F R ACT I ONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 78 DB Cadition fan Wes bAo CAn CAf NAo CAn CAf Loss to indcors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 IndoorLevel 66.0 52.0 52.0 $2.0 52.0 4a.0 48.0 48.0 fackground Moise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 SIN DiHerence )l0 3.0 >10 >10 >10 9.0 >10 >10 Integration 70.8 55.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 52.6 52.8 52.8 A-Wei;ted(-3) 67.8 52.8 53.8 53.8 53.8 49.6 49.8 49.8 Duration (+15.21 83.0 68.0 49.0 49.0 69.0 64.8 65.0 65.0 SEL, O 83.0 68.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 64.8 65.0 65.0 tons Awakened I 1 ane .740 .560 .570 .510 .570 .520 .520 .520 For Z .932 .806 .815 .815 .815 .770 .770 .770 For I .932 .915 .920 .920 .920 .889 .889 .889 For 4 .995 .963 .966 .966 .966 .947 .947 .947 For Cesus Fasily .927 .933 .839 .839 .839 .804 .804 .804 HGUSING FRACTICE .356 .16 .0!6 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Awakened (Casus Family) .330 .133 .030 .022 .050 .085 .064 .142 l l l TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .857 l l O D-34
O V CALCULATIONS O F:" SEL AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 77 DB Caditi:n fan WAs no CAn CAf No CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 65.0 51.0 51.0 31.0 51.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference >10 2.0 >10 >10 >10 8.0 )to >10 Integration 69.8 53.7 55.8 55.8 55.8 51.4 51.8 51.8 A-Weighted (-31 66.8 50.7 52.8 52.8 52.8 48.4 48.8 48.8 Duration (+15.2) 82.0 65.9 60.0 68.0 68.0 63.6 64.0 64.0 SEL d8 82.0 65.9 68.0 68.0 68.0 63.6 64.0 64.0 tions Awakened , {done .730 .530 .560 .560 .560 .500 .510 .!!0 , For 2 .927 .779 .8% .8% .8% .750 .760 .760 Nr 3 .980 .896 .915 .915 .915 .875 .932 .882 For 4 .995 .951 .963 .963 .963 .938 .942 .942 For Census Fasily .923 .812 .833 .833 .833 .769 .797 .797 um.i3!N8 FRACTICM .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .1% .05 .177 Fraction of Houses Analrened (Census Faeily) .329 .130 .030 .022 .049 .084 .M4 .141 TOTAL. FRACTION AWAKENED = .848 O D-35
[ ! CALCULATIONS O F= SEL AND f=RACTIONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) , OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 75 DB Condition fan us sAo CAn CM Wo CAn CM Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -M -30 -30 Indoor Level 63.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N DiHerence )to .0 10.0 )l0 >10 6.0 >10 >10 Integration 67.8 .0 53.6 53.8 53.8 49.4 49.8 49.8 A-Wei;ited (-3) 64.8 .0 50.6 50.8 50.8 46.4 46.8 44.8 Duratise (+15.21 80.0 .0 65.8 64.0 66.0 61.6 62.0 62.0
. d4 83.0 .0 65.8 66.0 64.0 61.6 62.0 62.0 m ctions Aeaiened For one .710 .000 .530 .530 .530 .400 480 400 For 2 .916 .000 .779 .779 .779 .730 .7% .730 For 3 .976 .000 .896 .896 .696 .859 .859 .859 For 4 .993 .000 .951 .951 .951 .927 .927 .927 For Census Family .914 .000 .812 .812 .812 .773 .773 .773 I HOUSING FRACTION .356 .16 .036 .026 .059 .104 .08 .177 i l
Fraction o+ Houses Amakened (Census Faeily) .326 .000 .029 .021 .048 .082 .042 .137 l TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .704 I O V , D-36
CALCULATIONS O FT SEL AND F RACTI ONS AWAKENED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 72 DB Ccneition fan Hs do CAn CAf Wo CAn CAf Loss to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 - 26 -30 -30 -30 lodoor Level 60.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 Background Moise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference >10 <0 7.0 )to )to 3.0 >10 >10 Integration 64.8 .0 50.4 50.S 50.8 45.8 46.8 44.8 A-WeiGted(-3) 61.8 .0 47.4 47.8 47.8 42.8 43.8 43.8 Duration (*15.2) 77.0 .0 62.6 63.0 63.0 58.0 59.0 59.0 dB 77.0 .0 62.6 63.0 63.0 58.0 59.0 59.0 Fractions Awakened For one .670 .000 490 .490 .490 430 .450 450 For 2 .891 .000 .740 .740 .740 .675 .698 .673 For 3 .964 .000 .867 .867 .867 .815 .834 .834 Fer 4 .998 .000 .932 .932 .932 .594 .908 .908 For Census Fastly .896 .000 .781 .781 .781 .728 .747 .747 HOUSI:3 FRACTION .354 .16 .034 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Awakened (Census Family) .319 .000 .028 .020 .044 .077 .064 .132 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .683 O D-37
-- -- +-- ,- ---s.y w -,y. e ,. , ,9.- .,-+- ,,yw,,,-- - - , - ,.,n- ,- +----g.--w- 9%..- , , .--.
O - C A L C U L_ A T I O N S OF SEL AND FRACTIONS A kJ A K EN ED (BASED UPON BOARD FIG. 1 FOR KRALLMANN) OUTDOOR SOUND LEVEL: 67 DB Condition fan WAs WAo CAn CAf dAo CAn CAf Less to indoors -12 -26 -26 -26 -26 -30 -30 -30 Indoor Level 55.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 Background Noise 40 49 39 28 13 39 28 13 S/N Difference >10 (0 2.0 >10 >10 (0 9.0 >10 Integration 59.8 .0 43.7 45.8 45.8 .0 41.6 41.8 A-Wei$ted(-3) 56.8 .0 40.7 42.8 42.8 .0 38.6 38.8 Duration (+15.21 72.0 .0 55.9 58.0 58.0 .0 53.8 54.0 nu $8 72.0 .0 55.'9 58.0 58.0 .0 53.8 54.0
' Fractions Aeakened For one .610 .000 .410 .430 .430 .000 .380 .390 Fer 2 .948 .000 .652 .675 .675 .000 .616 .628 For 3 .941 .000 .795 .815 .815 .000 .762 .773 For 4 .977 .000 .879 .894 .694 .000 .852 .862 For Census Fasily .864 .000 .709 .728 .723 .000 .677 .688 H01lSI:~) FRACTION .!!6 .16 .036 .026 .059 .106 .08 .177 Fraction of Houses Amakend (Ceesus Fasily) .308 .000 .026 .019 .043 .000 .054 .122 TOTAL FRACTION AWAKENED = .571 O
D-38
ATTACHMENT E () VARIOUS ESTIMATES OF HOUSEHOLOS AWAKENED BY SIRENS WITHIN 5 MILES OF THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT (does not include those already awake) Total No. Percent Awakened of Houses Lukas Noronjerr Kra11mann Bo.rd Crder 363 - 62.8% 81.5% By Applicant
- 1. Using Board Count of EX 46 and all of Board Assumptions 363 - 65.5% 81.5%
- 2. Using Applicant .
Count of EX 46 and all of Board Assumptions 428 - 66.8% 82.5%
. Using Applicant Count of EX 46 and Applicant Methods' 428 70.3% 76.6% 90%
4 Using Acplicant Count of Large Maps and Applicant Metnces* 58') 69.4% 75.9% 89.6% Except for the use of Horcnjeff and Krallmann in place of Lukas where indicated. I ll62/0644c
a - ATTAChHENT F O eST1HaTtS OF H0uSeHOLOS awaxc~EO er S1RenS WITHIN 5 MILES CF THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT (using Horonjeff Curve from Board Figure 1) Horonjeff (Board Figure 1) Nominal Siren Total # No. of Sound Level of Houses Fraction Houses Sound Level Zones Outdoors Within 5 mi. Awakened Awakened
> 105 c8 112 08 23 .928 21 100-105 102 24 .886 21 95-100 . 97 27 .858 23 90-95 92 58 .822 48 2 x 85-90 90 0 .808 0 80-85 + 85-90; 2 x 75-80 + 85-90 88 2 .791 2 85-90 87 79 .783 62 2 x 80-85 85 3 .766 2
't x 75-80 + 80-85 84 0 .755 0 75-80 + 80-85; 3 x 70-75 + 80-85 83 40 .747 30 80-85; 3 x 75-80 82 154 .737 113 2 x 70-75 + 2 x 75-80 81 0 .728 0 2 x 75-80; 3 x 70-75 + 75-80 80 21 .718 15 2 x 70-75 + 75-80 79 24 .707 17 70-75 + 75-80 78 93 .697 65 75-80; 3 x 70-75 77 32 .684 22 2 x 70-75 75 8 .565 5 70-75 72 1 .532 1
< 70 67 0 434 0 TCTALS: 589 447 Percentage 75.9% )
. O ll62/0644c
ATTACHMENT G - O
~
EST Mates or "ouSEHOLOS AWAxEre0 By S1REnS WITHIN 5 MILES OF THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT (using Krallmann Curve from Board Figure 1) Krallmam (Board Figure 1) Nominal Siren Total # No. or Sound Level of Houses Fraction Houses Sound Level Zenes Outccors within 5 mi. Awakened Awakened
> 105 c8 112 c8 23 .984 23 100-105 102 24 .966 23 95-100 97 27 .951 26 90-95 92 58 .934 54 2 x 85-90 90 0 .927 0 80-85 + 85-90; 2 x 75-80 + 85-90 88 2 .915 2 85-90 87 79 .911 72 2 x 80-85 85 3 .900 3
- x 75-80 + 80-8,5 84 0 .893 0
! /5-80 + 80-85; 3 x 70-75 + 80-85 83 4 '
.890 36 80-85; 3 x 75-80 82 154 .883 136 2 x 70-75 + 2 x 75-80 81 0 .878 0 2 x 75-80; 3 x 70-75 + 75-80 80 21 .869 18 2 x 70-75 + 75-80 79 24 .863 21 70-75 + 75-80 78 93 .857 80 75-80; 3 x 70-75 77 32 .848 27 l j 2 x 70-75 75 8 .704 6 ,
70-75 72 1 .683 1
< 70 67 0 .571 0 TOTALS: 589 528 l
Percentage 89.6% O usuG6440
- l'. *r .,: z .)
.: P
.~ , e
;'.j .q, - - .
- .,. . o - . . .
~~.c - - .. .. . . . _C ..-.~ ~ . . . . . '
t
?. .
l/J' ._ .
. \;" -
ATTAC*ENT H s' .*'i -
~N. ...c *,,./ ,... t ,i . . .
- .r
. ~ .
*.'y* .
., .g . g
. m, s .,. ,,
(j.., ..e ..
, \.
g
,/\.
./.
v .,. .. t . .
~
.. t
. > s. . . y , A , . *' .:1....
. . .\ .
t . i..x
.e,./ . . .-
N x; 'e. .v 1- 1 - x.,:./
.x, .. ..,... . ,. g. .\..
- s. , . . y . ". - /po- .--
s :
.,.s.,
l.. , ,~, . ,.
- s , y;,
.-..r.......... . . , . . . . . . - * .. ....~..'s
.* t t .
.. \. . . . . . . . . ' ..
, .,' . % . ..s. %. . .. .s.'. . . . ..
..~. ..
m
.v. . . ,.. 5 .
~.1 ;s ,..: .
A . < . . .. :. .,. .
... . . .- t... - w .
./s.
*3. r- . + ...
< . - . ' - '. - o *
.. ~./..s e r. . . , %.. .
- . , ...- ...:.. .:.. ,; u . . . .
- i. .w s .r .. . ...:. .,,...i.
, i. .,
.. .t.,...
v - - F g. 4 ,, .
..s...., ..
., n . r,- . 3
~ .
... . . . .. . . . . . .,.. i. , .. .
');'( .
;L.'/. s's . . .-/./....... i.',.:4::*. W.::;.'.;.:-%. .. ... . ..i..f... ,.r . ..... ..;. ::
.p;..,./.',\.s
. _, . v.
; s.
w .< .,
~. ~. .
... - .... / . ,
. . ....... . S,. ,. .. x. .....;.- .
. s. . . \ . .. ., . . . . . . .
.m-y .... . ;t ~ .:.:.y. . ..n.'s, ~...i :'- y
. y*
. ,i.
.'sb . . : ; y .. ,
. . . > . . .- c T .
; ;: : p(,.:['s ./. . .
. . .s,: -./ .; . ..
w
,- x..;...<.
.fx..,~ . :,
? . '. r my
- s .- .. i- -. . ...; . : . , . ,
. .,,s.
. ::~q,. t ., ... .... . .. sf.. . y . :\...- . . \. . ,,.:y./Co .. . r,. . .x ../ '. ss; .
. . . ~
/-
c: , ; '; . ,. . %_. ..y, . 5.. y:x./ $y$.<.
... + - ~.y -
..Z. .~~.a.:;.
-) . l ;;.. , ./' .y,.
- y -)
r .~ . . . t . . ^i:' :_ ... ~q.. g -). .< c.r. - L . - ~ 3, ~~.
.\.-s .,
\ > . ,.<'*.\.e- w. I. ,>.. ' -
,v s s.s:s..h . '. :.N.
70%y ~ . ,:., y ..y; : s
- s. . , x s
.y --. w I.. ~ f,,;,y~. . i -y...'. sf.s. , -
.m\. g
- .~s f
.. ,;Q., .,.V
~ -
. ~ ; .. . . . .,
t:%.. * ,; s. .
~%)i - ./ \ / .' /.
200n' :*~.~ ;;~~ .~! : .~.s:. .~ q. . .c. ~ . .'V'. ~ .s:
. ., .. .x. ...\ .Y. h..
.:.-r . . ,
.. \-.-: - . 1 .. ... ~/. s;. 3 .,.. ,.
s
. ./.
t ro . y..
. s . .. r. . . . . .
yl%... :f.,'/.
- ....\ '. ,
Yh:n. .,. . ~qM E,r . , ,,: l ., , }. '.
! /. ' .
t
... /. ,'.N'*.A.N90 x . ,,.-t. . t. I.. . . . N 3 0' .,. ,:...;a. ,:.; . , . , .%e . .~.:
. . . ~
. . . \ s. ' . .
., y y., .
M >';: > ---U:Lj.li' % ,'.~~~s,. --l 1,j..i,r.%' { t :' , . - l.Y.~. . f, . . ,; ~..\.
. . . * ' ~ ~ . ' ? :. !
., :' _. _ ' ,,, 4,'N;,
. : .~~ ; - '.s s. - r !
' f . :, *.'
#, \
fa, . :- .
..**** N' -
v.. . : . ; m . w . p. I -
- c. . .
%--. w-r , K. e'.* . : . .~..-
- n. . :. . . :-. . .- ~: .
. :'. .- ~s . . ; . , .
. . . .... h. ....: .:
't.-
}. --- n..... .
... : s.
1 . L,. . . /.. .:.', .d,. .m.. s, . ,; . - 6.- :
- . . . .:. r.;-..
..-t...g. . . . -
. . .... ;;.; ;. . .c.,,. ,y.g f a .,, .,4 p
.Msqs.w .s . j s ,
, .: .u
- ?s.t,:.3 .- -W. &. .. . .\-1 i.
- vM. .*?.*:,x ',% . . .'g : .' ~~ * ;; T ~' ~ . .,. .
^
. y. .
?, . ^?s'?wa. .
o. iT ..
- '.'.Q:;,,'$...';.b
., s.
- s. .~z., :.. . .
1.... ~~~.. .;
,\ .. .
- s .. . . . .
.-./
,,. . s\.,. .,...s,.. .
./. , y s.
i . . , ,. ~u.. .-..y. g... ,.m,... . g
. u, , . ,s..,q. . ,~. ,. .:~..,-
..,,- s. : ~
c. y,..,. .
.s.
.. s.
, ..:..... . . ./.. .. . . .,
.. s .f. .--
.... , c,, . .~. , 4 . .
.. .s, , . , .
. ... y ...a.
.g.. ., c. . . . , . . .. ..
.a.. .,.,. .,...
u..,,. -. .~s
.. s- .
. .,. .. . ,.7. .. s m/ . ~.c . ,.s . . .... . ..,. -
. .. .'p*
, y...
. . f.,
.j, v.. n ..,*.
. .* . ' , < . * . s, , . . .
, ,/ .% .
. .~.:.,,,.
t\. . s.
,.,'s ,,-- . - . . . , n... ..
? . . . . < < . . . .
\ < ,<,/ ,.,...
.. . . . , . ~
. s- - - ~.
' s,.'
...7"., . y ~- . . ' . . . ^, . ., .. . ... s
. .. , , . .,,. .. r..
- g. \, . . . - e. . .
.,,..y, .
. ,;,,. ;b c::/.-:j.y,.,.
p.../..
. . . .\;.
W' ....... .../. ;; . A. . . 1,.
. 'f;s ~ - .;j --
- .. :\..*. . \. . _ :....
'3s.,
\ <
. % q ,:' . ~ . ':;~;' .>...r: .
,. .;. . j . ,.~ h. ,,. f. ~./:;sg,.,7~..
..........,..i..,.., . . ,
. '. z ', :v .
. ../
~ ..
. . ~.. . . ; . . . . . s . n .. .
. . :[;. . . . .. y..-y . ~,;s, . l'.t-
;; ::l..::::. ; ... . . .. . , . . . - <..m .\. . ,.. ' .
- v. . .,, ..;, . . .'/:;.. .. . ~ . .' ' ~ ,. i
. . . . i ..
,. s . .; . .
1
.N.,.s .. h. /. /.. .g. a.. : . t ; ..,.,. . 9;. : .. ..\.< . . .. .
./ s.i 4./ .'%,:, .5!
- ;.~..f..... . . ~ . , . . .x.,. . ;,~ .. C ... .A ..,: ~ ~-- - F. . j
. . . i
,. p, .1 .
~ . .
.- :t
- r:s ,,. .
r .,y
..;i.*,;,,'
.,t .. , , .
- ] , ' ~ . _,:,fgtjupfe gnj_7pp.gy T,,y.. . . . . .y - s w.Q .
;,Y '. . .
/.
t '. .
' '- ^'
,s s,
'r
, . s'.s.s, ..' r~D/R2*C*/ ~/V/7Y P-U~"/~8;2// .
l
. I .. ; I .: ,~:,Q3C...Q)co f f.e dy .-'
~
,/
(v)..) l
.~ ..sf h'<., ... -y
- s
- i. /
s . p b'l ??. ,%.
.!.k b u..- y- *f"Q e,,g;.n w 7,*Q., .
n ,
're' 1
. , s 1 .
. ', l
?t!! ,
- 4., hf,
- l m.
r
...;..:.y .i ;
.. s ,
..~.,.
y.
. a. .
.l .
.~.
- ~
_~.. ..~ .
- s e
j, 1 1 ,,,. *, , . I
\
s....,..,. ..._....;.;;.,.~~.......,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,;.....,, .
. .. ,;j , , , . . , , , . , , , . . l
=':
- 6.*,,.* : .. , ; .) . ; *. s y - ..,.
*2 ~ */ .,Ji .. A * :) - J.*o '
a s . ** 6 9 _ e g g l
.. 4 i . .
i i
! I a , s
' ' . I t i ! f I x i i e I I j i
i ! I t ' . , i i 3 I i M g fvi i i i s C _ ! t i N V N a ! N Jm i
\\b s N I; At N V E%
A" E _ l U WV m%
~
O W f m A A &
- , r , ,
! I F __ !A ' _
1 i ' e g d d
! e y ,
3 h 7 .
~
4 ,, ,,
, a l
C H n A f ! f l 7 - e e t _1 7J J i l 3 . i
' g
-a w '
E" J Er - A
,h . N ,
i g gy 11 i A i ! e Y I
.. - - . . la .
t w, - ,. - m ~ E
- p' C -
. N.
w
/
; . o O i w
4 q-8 U w I i N A i i + i , u g{a E ' 3 d! 9 F 4
'
- I 41 k n
. , , ,i , . .
.g !
I i w p , i i i
~ [ [ ^
i ' . A A 3 _ e
=
i
% 4 0
M 4 ; - - - ' l 4
,i e
be
~
( n . t , - y 1 i . , e . _l , 6 _k.
.' 7_~ . l n
- G t Gi L, t - l
~
m
". -'I ! % (, .
I a 1 !" a
. , >. g 8 -
'M f i_, , j l *
)
- __j i % .
, . 1 , i
, ; i i Y at i 6J ir .
.M '1 - #
O '%
^
4 1 I i _ 1 , , , E I T ' # 1 , i E ' l l e , f , I . t
. l e I I i i 1 i
, ' I l . 1 I 6 I I e 3 j .
t . f
/ f e
._' j
& l M l 10 ' ' '
+~
' t ,
g l i , i e i '
! i I i A
d ' Es $ G dl
- g 1
r 26042.0 10472 1 BY MR. BAXTER: 2 O Would you proceed, Mr. Keast? 3 A (Keast) I have addressed items 1, 3 and 4, 4 raised in the board's memorandum in the order of January 16, 5 1986. 6 First, on the matter of alerting by sirens 7 between five miles from the plant and border of the EPZ, I 8 have determined that 78 percent of all households would be 9 directly alerted using the board's interpretation of the 10 fioronjeff data on figure 1 of their order. 11 Using the board's interpretation of the 12 Krallmann data, this becomes 89 percent. O 13 If facilitated informal alerting is included, 14 these percentages grow to 82 percent and 97 percent 15 respectively within the first 15 minutes. 16 I have also shown that alerting percentages 17 inside of five miles, outside of five miles, and throughout 18 the entire EPZ are essentially the same. 19 Secondly, I have described how the approximation 20 I used by Dr. Kryter to determine SCL for peak dBA, and as 21 illustrated on figure 2 of the board's order, results in 22 ; error of .8 of a dBg, and is therefore negligible. 23 Thirdly I have answered those questions in the 24 board's order about my affidavit submitted January 2, 1986. () 25 ' And finally, I have provided some technical ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage _ -________- _800__-_____ ___336 4646_ __ _ _- _ -___ - -
26042.0 10473 RT 1 observarions on the board's tentative observations and 2 conclusions in their memorandum and order. 3 Q Mr. Keast, during the conference call of 4 February 27, 1986, at transcript page 10,432, the board 5 , noted that your recent testiniony -- this testimony at page i 6 ! 11, indicates that the principle difference between your 7 awakening percentages calculated and those in the board's 8 January 16, 1986 memorandum and order are attributable to 9 the assumption whether or not persons under 18 years of age 10 are deemed to be alertable. 11 The board asked about the evidentiary status of ,-s 12 h the 1980 census data that you cite in your testimony.
~
13 Could you tell us whether that census data that you relied 14 i upon has been presented for the record? 15 A Yes, it is in my original testimony. i i 16 ] O Is that the reference to page 23 of your r 17 original testimony? 18 A Just a moment. 19 Yes, the number that I used is in the final 20 paragraph of page 23 of my original testimony. 21 O Is the same data presented in Dr. Nanaveja's 22 testimony at page 25? I 23 A res, it is. l 24 ! MR. BAXTER: Thank you, I have no further s (j 25 l questions. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
26042.0 10474 RT 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis? 2 CROSS EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. ROCHLIS: j 4 Q Dr. Kryter, would you state your name and 3 5 business for the record? 6 A (Kryter) My name is Karl D. K-r-y-t-e-r, I'm.a 7 staff scientist at SRI International at Menlo Park, 8 California and president of a company in Bodega Bay, 9 California. i 10 0 I direct your attention to a document entitled 11 " Testimony of Karl D. Kryter concerning memorandum and 12 order (limited reopening of the record on Eddleman 13 contention 57-C-3)." Do you have that document in front of 14 you? 15 A Yes. 16 O Did you have an opportunity to review this 17 l document? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Have you read each and every page of the 20 i document? 21 A Yes. 22 O And did you prepare this testimony or has this 23 j testimony been prepared under your supervision? 24 A Yes. ( 25 I O Did you prepare it yourself? 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nanonwide Coverase 800
. - , _ - , - - ., . - - -,- . ._ -, -. ., . 3364646 ,,- _ , - . -
26042.0 10475 a 1 A Yes. ' 2 O Do you have any corrections to this document at 3 this time? 4 A Yes, I have a few corrections and additions. 5 In the document I mentioned that I was intending 6 or attempting to get in touch with Dr. Kra11mann. Since I 7 wrote the document I have had the opportunity to talk with i 8 Dr. Krallmann and he has given me information, and I wish 9 to add to and modify, slightly, my testimony. 10 0 Where is your first correction? What page 11 number? gm , 12 A On page 3, next to the bottom line. It says, 13 " work backgrounds, and were attendees." We can insert the 1 14 , word " male," m-a-l-e, attendees. Dr. Krallmann advised me 15 that all his subjects were males. 16 The last few words of the page, the sentence 17 says, "The subjects slept in a dormitory." We should 18 strike out " dormitory" and insert " individual bed." 19 The first word on page 5, the word " room" would ' ) 20 become, hyphen " rooms." 21 O You mean individual bedrooms? 22 A Yes, each subject slept individually in his own f l 23 bedroom. l 24 On the second line on page 5, we say: "Each
) 25 person had at their bed a switch which was to be pushed."
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M33H646
- 26042.0 10476 BRT 1 We would like to change it, in accordance with Dr.
2 Krallmann's information. "Each person had" -- and then i 3 strike the rest of that line out, and substitute, "had to 4 rise and push a switch near the bed." 5 0 Do you have any additional corrections? 6 A All right, the fifth line, the last word is 7 " rights," but should be " nights." 8 In the second paragraph, "Horonjeff et al." The 9 fifth line, "One pattern was a steady-state level"; it 10 should be for "15" minutes, not "45." 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Excuse me, what was that? 12 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) It reads "one pattern 13 was a steady-state level for 45 minutes," it should read, 14 I "for 15 minutes." 15 , And the seventh line in that same paragraph, it 16 ! says, " noises were presented via loudspeaker." There 17 . should be a comma after " loudspeaker." 18 l "Under remote telephone-line centrol"; there 19 should be a comma after " control." 20 on page 11, 13th line down we have a change for 21 clarification. The line now reads, " continued for seven or 22 more nights." We would like for you to strike "seven or ] i 23 I more nights" and substitute "14 nights, averaged to the 24 seventh night." l () 25 JUDGE CARPENTER: Would you cay that again, i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6646
26042,0 10477 BRT 1 please? 2 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Strike "seven or more 3 nights" and substitute "14 or more nights, averaged to the 4 seventh night,." 5 On page 13, the top paragraph is a parenthetical l 6 l paragraph referring to my intentions to discuss this with 7 Dr. Krallmann. Since I have, that entire paragraph can be 8 omitted. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Strike it? I 10 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Strike it, yes. 11 On page 14, the third column, SEL, the numbero 12 are typographically 1 decibel too high. They should read: O 13 73.5, 60.5, 63.5, 58.5 and 53.5. 14 The fifth line from the bottom, we say -- 15 j "Kra11mann data because of his dormitory sleeping i 16 l arrangement." The word " dormitory" should be stricken, the 17 j fifth line from the bottom. I 18 On the sixth line from the bottom, it says, " data 19 is compensated." Insert after the word "is," "at least 20 partially." So it reads " data is at least partially 21 compensated." 22 On page 15, seventh line from the top, the word 23 "dctmitory" is used. We should substitute for dormitory, 24 "at-school." () 25 Lastly, on page 20, I would like to insert at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10478 BRT
/
1 the -- the following sentence at the end of the next to the 2 last paragraph. The next to the last paragraph now ends 3 "20 dB." 4 After "20 dB," insert "However, figure 6 is for 5 a 3 rpm, and not a 4 rpm as used in the previous 6 I calculation. The application of 4 rpm occurrences to a 7 duration representative of a 3 rpm rate -- the application 8 of a 4 rpm occurrences" -- l 9 l MR. HOLLAR: Slow down, please. 10 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) -- to a duration 11 ' representative of a 3 rpm rate unjustifiably raises SEL by 12 1 dB. t 8
\
't) 13 And the last line of the last paragraph should 14 be, " conservative by up to 1 dB." 15 BY MR. ROCHLIS: 16 O Do you have any other corrections to make at 17 this time? i 18 j A (Kryter) No, sir. l 19 i 0 Do you adopt this document as your own at this 20 , time? 21 A Yes. 22 O And with the corrections that you have made, is 23 , this document true and correct to the best of your f 24 i knowledge? 1 f~l 25 , A Yes, it is. l I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Covenge 800-3%6M6
. - - - m _ _ - - _ _ _ __
j 26042.0 10479 BRT i 1 MR. ROCHLIS: I ask that the document be entered 2 into evidence as read at this time.
- j 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: No objection.
4 MR. GAMIN: No objection. I 5 JUDGE KELLEY: So ordered. 6 (The document follows:) " 7 8
) 9 l 10 11 12
!O
- 13
- 14 15 ,
i 16 I 17 l 1 i 18 1 19 1 20 f 21 4 22 i 23 24 ,'O 1 2s i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33HH6
- - - _ - . - , . _ . . . - - - _ . - _ _ . . . _ . - . . _ . - - _ . . _ _ , _ _ . - _ _ - . _ . . . _ _ . , - _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - - - . - - , _ _ _ , . . ~ . _ -
~
' -: A
{> , j., l
,- u.,#c v UNITED STATES
"# ( [' ,i,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- [; ._}* s 1 E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 aQ e O s, *.... s /
February 21, 1986 James L. Kelley, Chairman Dr. Glenn O. Bright Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. James II. Carpenter Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of Carolina Power and Light Company and North Carolina Eastern f.lunicipal Power Agency (Shenron Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and 50-401 OL O
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed is the " Testimony of Karl D. Kryter Concerning
?.tenorandum and Order (Limited Reopening of the Record in Eddleman Contention 57-C-3)" which FEMA intends to present at the hearing scheduled to take place on ?! arch 4, 1986. Neither the Staff nor FEMA intends to introduce any exhibits at this hearing.
Sincerely, ( g?)]QT [b
- k.A:] 0 Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl.: Service List O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TliE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD In the Matter cf )
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT ) COMPA!!Y AND NORTil CAROLINA ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL EASTERM f.!UNICIPAL POL'ER ) 50-401 OL AGE!'CY )
)
(Shearon Unrris Nucient Power Flant. ) Units I and 2) ) TESTIMONY OF KARL D. KRYTER CONCERNING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (LIMITED PEOPENING OF TIIE RECORD ON EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 57-C-3) My nar:e is Fcrl D. Kryter. I reside at 01357 Heron Drive, Bodega Bay, California. My professional qualifications are discussed in my prei%us testimony follovring Tr. 9690. Reference is made to Memorandum and Order (Limited Reopening of the Record on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3) dated January 16, 198G. Comments are given below with respect to Iscues #2 and #3, page 9 of the i subject Memorandum and Order. Issue #2. Review of Krallmann study and discussion of possible reasons for differences in probabilities of arousal as forecast by I*ryter (based on Horonfeff, et al. data), and obserred probabilities in Erallmann study. Figure 1 Illustrates the large differences found between SEL and percentage sleep arousal according to the Horonjeff, et al. and Kra11mann
100 - ., 34 7 go-
- Arallmann, Siren- -
{- M 4 00-5:00 A3 g
. Oh /
,5 80 0 1 30-2: 30 $M g8# '
'S Aver. 0-5:00 t # ~ ~ ~
C
- 10
.sc s te/ ,r.ot
-4 "
e0-1:15 A.k y Ci f
,*p t*#
l60
- o Co ~~ ~
M 6 O Njk'o?" s* e 50 -
/ .c e u- %e 4 ps . . . . . _ . . . .
40 @* -- 2 st" f 0 _ e gg/ Horonjeff et al, Test p* ,, . /. Trans. Line Noise -
} 20 '
/ ,/ NUREG/CR-2654.PNL-4227 l
" '-~
~/ - Horonjef f et al, Low Freq. Noises
,# /T-en#n--a* .Aircond4*4anar.Tr*ffic) i O g , , ,
35 45 25 65 75 85 95 [d5 115 SEL IN BEDROOM Fig.1. Probabilityof sleep arousal persons j age 45 years. Adjustment of Krallmann data, dashed line, based on analysis of Griefahn and Jansen of habituation to sleep arousal in experimental situations. The curves for the Horonjeffe et al data are taken from Figure 7A KryterjTestimony Regarding Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. The curves above about SEL 80 are extrapolations based on other research findings. The " pure-tone" correction for saliency is based on Fig. 3 from Kryter and Pearsons. 1 0 !
p)
~
research investigations and the NUREG/CR 2654 PNL 4227 guide. Figure 2 shows one-third octave band spectra of the Horonjeff, et al. and Krallmann studies at an equal overall dBA level. As will be discussed below, some of the differences in sleep arousal for scme of the ncises in Figure 1 when at the same SEL can be explained as being dre to inadequacies in dBA-weighting and one-third octave spectra measures for predicting loudness , and possible unassessed ecoustical masking conditions present in some of the tests. However, strictly basic acoustical-perceptual transform relations would not be sufficient even if known exactly to explain the extent of these differences. , Interpretation of the Horonjeff, et al. and Krallmann findings, along O ,* h the results of some generaiized aneiyses of a number of other research studies , provides scientifically reasonable conclusions with respect to the problems at hand. Defore presenting this analysis, a brief description of procedures and subjects ured in the IIoronjeff, et al. and 1:rallmann studies are outlined. (The Krallmann study end its findings were unknown to me when I previously presented testimony on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3. ) Krallmann. Although certain details of the study are not fully described in his report , the results of the Krallmann study must be considered, in my opinion, as applicable for purposes of estimating arousal from sleep by the siren alerting system of the Shenron Harris EPZ. The subjects in the Krallmann study came from a wide variety of work backgrounds, and vere attendees at a one week course at an Air Raid Protection School in Germany. The subjects slept in a dormitory
, , , , -4...
I SIMULATED TRANSFORMER APP , LINE SPECTRUM SIRENS i , , g, ",*, , , ' ' , , (Kr.11m.n & FS 1000) se -
){
o, 2 80 ' V 'tJ - n , i
'80 =.
q 70 i
/- I' ., - 5,] m _
1 / ',-
\
- 170 -
60 - j
~"
, 'n I -l l /
!'., \
TEST TRANSMISSION LINE = i
}60 50- '*
j (Horonjeff etal) ', e . i , a, j .
' +
650 k- 40-' APPROX. A\TRAGE SPECTRA " LOW" i h FREQ. NOISES ' I l 3,, _ 3, (noronjeff et .1, Simul.ted Tr nsformer. Air Conditioner and Distant Traffic) I : . 0 [ , ; i t i i i l I l 1 Ii 463 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K .63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K BK (a t=8 FREGUENCY (HZ) FRECUENCY CH2) 100 - 100 - AIR CONDITIONER DISTANT TRAFFIC
. 90 L 90 2
~
80 - 9 80~- 3 l
; pe -
20 - a I 60 - GO - l 3 l i i d 50 - 50 -
)
3 4 J 40 - 40 - g i t t i I I ti I I ! ! I I I II O 463 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K 463 125 MA . #8F SK EK 4K SK t.d FREQUENCY (HI) t=8 FREQUEtc (H2) Figure 2, Showing that when all the noises are a level of about 81.5 d3A, the " low" frequency noises tested by Horonjeff et al (Si=ulated Transfor er, Ai: Conditioner and Distant p Traffic) exceeded the spectrum of their Test Transmission U Line noise in the region of about 400 He to 4000Hz by an average of 15 dB er so. Also, it it seen that the siren signal exceeds the spectrum of the Test Transmission Line Noise by a 12 dB or so in the region of about 400 H: and that, indicated by th does and line ( f ) the siren signal consisted primarily of "line" or " pure-tone" components rather than the more continuous spectrum components present in that frequency region in other noi(g). _ _ _ _ - -- -
d
- i. 4 room with provisions for the simultaneous testing of up to twenty-four r
! persons. Each person had at their bed a switch which was to be pushed whenever awakened by the sound of a siren. The siren signal was presented at five different levels, in 5 dB steps from 40-60 dBC. The 8 levels were presented in randomized order, over 98 individual test rights. l Krallmann presented the recorded siren signal once per night at a presclected level (40, 45, 50, 55 or 60 dBC) and time (0-5 a.m., divided j into 15 minute segments). The signals were presented at a steady level for 45 seconds. The number (617) and range (16-70 years, average age
;- 43.8F years) of the subjectr. involved is much larger in the Krallmann study than in other research studies on sleep.
Horonfeff et al. Fourteen adults , average age forty-three years, were exposed over twenty-one consecutive nights to four different noises 4
, at different Icvels of intensity and two, for each noise and level, temporal patterns. One pnttern was a steady-state level for forty-five minutes and '
the other was a rising and falling level (two dB per second), somewhat
- similar to the variation in level.of the signal of a rotating siren. The ii noises were presented via loudspeaker under remote telephone-line control i
j placed in the bedrooms of the homes of the subjects. The subjects were l 1 j instructed to press a switch next to their bed when awakened. I, Psychoecoustic Factors The principal pcychoacoustic perceptual and physiological factors to l be considered in assessing sleep arousal from the EPZ siren alerting i
; signal are discussed below. , O
'I l
-,-v...g-, . - .-.g= -r,- +-t- e---r-r--e~e+n-++----et--++ - - . m-m--r-----r,+ra +-y-e-. eic-*---- *.+-m - .--+--em-+rer ,+gy--- w - w gr -g- ,s-,e-
t
- 1. Audibility and Blasking. It is taken that to cause arousal a 4
sound must perforce be audible. A limiting factor is then, of course, 1 , v:hether a given sound or noise exceeds the threshold of hearing of a I person in the quiet, or the masked threshold of hearing due to other i l sounds or noises in the environment. i With regard to assessing the arousability of a siren signal it is important to note that the masked threshold for the siren is , determined l l primarily by the sound energy in a narrow band, say 1/3 octave wide, l j around 500 Hz, and not necessarily by the overall level in 'dBA or dBC. i j For a tonal signal, such as from a siren, the tone will be readily attdibla 1 ! to the awake person when its sound pressure level exceeds by 2 dD or so i { the 1/3 octave level of a broad band background noise having the same l0 --r f-euencv. Horonjeff, et al. suggested that some 10 dB greater arousability of i i
; th Test Transmission Line noise than the transformer, air conditioner
- and traffic noises uns due to the presence in their studies of a l background mashing noise. When at an overall level of about 35 dBA the
{ spectre of the latter 3 noises fell somewhat on that of the background , i noise over the entire spectrum, indicating some masking, and, therefore, ; i j- reduced arousability of the test noises. On the other hand. Test 1
- Transmission Line noise at about 35 dBA exceeded the background noise j in the frequency region above 500 Hz by 5-15 dB, and was below the background noisc by 5-15 dB in the frequency region below about 500 !
Hz. This would indicate that there would be 10 dB or so less masking of ! the higher frequoney components of the Test Transmission Line ncise than of the other noiscs, about the difference in general arousability found j among the noises (see Figure 1).
- 1 i l i
T - Tre W Pe+TT'tw'---m-g *"tWW**F++e--"
. --"w-*-WW $Te-, g-'F*yge 'g t ye N+w*+-Tr*eMyopew 3g af t w Wgy-9PM* tm gM-. MNW We *
- r tll e e-- NWT"'
- However, this explanation is probably not applicable for the noises when presented at levels above 50 dBA or so. At these higher levels, masking of any of the test noises by the background noise should be negligible, and cannot fully explain arousability difference between the Test Transmission Line and the other noises.
- 2. Loudness and Duration. The moment-to-moment subjective impressier of the intensity, or loudness, of sounds and noises have been found to be correlated with overall dBA and PNdD levels when wideband noises are judged relative to each other, or tones vs. tones. To the degree this is the case, the differences between the Krallmann and Horonjeff, et al., as well as other similar research findings, are probably not significantly due to the use of the A-weighting, or PNdB, as the O 8aeic unit et sound vressure 1,vei mee=urement.
In my previous testimony on the Eddleman contention, it was b suggested that the most probable explanation for the 10 dB or so greater arousability, at a given SEL, of the Test Transmission Line noise compared to the other Horonjeff, et al. noises was the 10-15 dB greater intensity of the Test Transmission Line noise, as shown in Figure ? in the mid-to-high frecuency region, where the ear is most sensitive. It was pointed out that the critical bands of the ear for loudness in the low frequency region where the "other" noises had most of their energy, are wider than the 1/3 octave bands used in the calculation of the overall dB A level. This would tend to cause over-estimation by dBA measures of the loudness of these predominately low frequency noises. Also, as noted above, Horenfcff, et al. suggested that there was possibly some masking in the lower frequencies by ambient noise, making
,a 1-8-
O then less audible. The fact that the Test Transmission Line noisc spectra was the one most similar to the Federal Signal siren dictated, at that time, the use of the Horonjeff, et al. data for the Test Transmission Line noise as the most appropriate available for estimating the arousability of the siren.
- 3. pration-Presence. Obviously the longer a sound is present during sleep, the greater is the probability of arousal given the cyclic varinbility of the sensitivity of the auditory systen during sleep. In addition, it is established from psychoacoustic research that although the racrent-to-moment loudncss remains essentially constant, a sound or noise l continuing in time becomes more unwanted and noticeable. Its presence over time is perceived as having, usually, an objectionable and arousing
( characteristic. Judgement tests of noiseness or unwantedness when people are awake, and numbers of awakenings when asleep , are reasonably well correlated with the sunmed A- or PNdB-weighted enerb in either steady ) or interrepted broadband sounds presented over relatively short periods (minutes to hours) of time. It is believed that the conversion of I:rallmann's data to SEL's (Md1 g 16.5 dB to peak dBC for 45 second l durations - 3 dB to cor.ve1 1 O to dBA) provides sound exposure units j directly comparable, in this regard, to those used for the Horonjeff, et l al noises and the FST model 1000 siren.
- 4. Saliency. Figure 1 shows that curve 3 for the deepest sleep period, 0-1:15 a.m. , of the Krallmann data indicate about 1" dB greater effective arousability, for a given SEL, than the Horonjeff et al Test Transmission Line noise. According to conventional loudness data and t
O concepts. the neise of the Test Transmission tine sheuld be eeual in loudness to that of the siren because they are equal SEL, and both have significant amounts of unmasked energy in the mid-to-high frequencies. , The most epparent explanation for some of this difference is that the siren signal is more salient of noticeable (and sleep arousing) than the broader spectrum Test Transmission Line noise even when equally loud. I;ryter and Pearsons found that the presence of some pure-tone frecuency components in a broad-band noise caused the noise to be 1 judged as being significantly more objectionable or noisy than loud. The l degree to vesic. sids was the case depended upon the tone-to-background noise ratio and the frequency of the tone, as is shown in Figure 3. Note . that according to Figure 3, a correction of up to 9 dB would be added to the dDA level of the siren signal in order to properly, assess its judged noisiness as compared to that of a broad band noise of the same dBA or PNdB level. As seen In Figure 1, a 9 dB correction would be adequate to make the I;rallmann data, when also adjusted for equal. exposure-habituation (to be discussed below) . consistent with the Horonjeff, et al. data for the Test Transmission Line data. Whether this '*cxtra" unwantedness , beyond that due to loudness, , makes pure-tones, or very narrow bands of sound at about 400 Pz or so j relatively more sleep arousing hac not, to my knowledge, been l zystematically studied. However, the results of the Krallmann study strongly indicate that this might be the case. (It is noted that Zimmerman exposed subjects to 1 second pulses - 1 second on, I second i off of an 800 Hz tone and found after 8 seconds, at a level of 63 dDA, SEL 60, 100's awakenings. The temporal nature of these impulses are I perhaps too unusual to be considered in the present discussion.) 4 4 e
I 1 1 10 - O V
., fOcwnaae I la actsee band IA0 octm naae ! ! !I
%l TA1IW iefAlTWM W l TWMi **[*M'"[,'
f 1 ? 20 l 20 l23 ! 25 1 30 i E '*'***** {g sc 2 10 10 i IS
- 15 1201 20 ,,,,...a,,
*' 3 ! O i 3 1 5 1 4 1 10 I to 59 **'****'"e.e*n" meeme w ue aI o3 4 1 -60 i 0 l *$ 1 1 01 3 w ua he.w.
t. i! i I l
'g' a b
P p ; i %+ i , -j ,'.'~l , , .
.-r, . -r i .
a s e e s e e e a .e s 00 . coo em tame center freewncy -as Figu re 3. Correction,in dee bets. to be 8PP ed to li the $PL of a broadband sound containing a pure tone or very narro, band of energy. From Kryte r and Pea rsons e l l
)
. (O) Another possible interpretation of the auditory attribute of saliency and sleep arousal therefrom, as distinct from overall loudness, is that the saliency and sleep arousal from hearing but one frequency component of a noise is just as arousing as hearing its total loudness.
- 5. Habituation. In the Krallmann experiment each subject apparently participated for up to 4 consecutive nights of sleep, whereas in the Horonjeff, et al. study the subjects were tested for 21 consecutive nights. As seen in Figure 4 there is some habituation-accomodation, Icnding to reduced sleep nrousal, to noises according to the number of sleep nights involved. If the data for the Krallmann study represent the averege arousability over two nights (the average for the first, second, third and fourth sleep nights), according to Figure 4, had his study continued for seven or more nights the arousability percentages would have dropped by about 10 percentage points , i.e. from 45% to 35%,
i equivalent to about an 8 dB difference in SEL. For purposes of making comparisons with the Horonjeff, et al. study, it is perhaps appropriate to adjust the Krallmenn data downwards (or the Horonjeff, et al. data upward), by 10 percentage points to allow for equal habituation to the experimental conditions. This adjustment is shown in Figure 1. However, the actual Krallmann data without any adjustment may be proper for purposes of estimating arousal from the siren in the Shearon Harris EPZ in that to a large extent the people will not be habituated to sleep arousal by the siren sigral, although they will obviously be more " habituated" to the sleeping arrangements, being in their own beds. (
12 - O theoretical habituation to scoustical stimull during sleep; number of swekenings in the first test night: e.g. 50% 75
- 1 I I I l l ^
8
- 0.reettrons
& gg f 'ar f 1 l re49 9*0 0ae.9 03esS *e 0J0JsS (l
8 ss c
- I for example fw gg i f f f q r ess 04 esce0 N3sS4 034acS 8
y 35 %I I g u I i i i g number of swekenings 25 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 test night (average) 0-reactoons a reactions less than e change on stero stege calculated from: 8 publocarsons wottt 12 sucreets on 802 nogets etter 8138 noose stomuli. Oorcrett nouse, punk noose, truck noose (4048 08(All Figure 4. sieep disture nees due to no.ie From Griefahn and Jansen. i O
O (One of the uncertainties about the Krallmann data is the effect on sleep patterns of dormitory sleeping for a period of one week as compared to sleeping in one's own bedroom. It is conjectured that s!cep arousal ecy be enhanced in the dormitory situation, at least in the periods of light sleep. This is one reason that it will be proposed below that the Krallmann data for the " deep sleep" period of 0-1:15 a.m. be used for purposes of comparison with the Horonjeff, et al. data and for estimating arousals by the siren in an EPZ. Attempts are being made to contact Dr. Erallmann to obtain possible additional information on this and other details of his study.)
- 6. Depth of sleep. It is known that the case with which people are arouced from sleep is dependent upon the stage of sleep and, although O these stages ere eemeehat cvciic threueheut the sieep ni ht, meet of the deepent sleep periods occur within the first hours of sleep. However, these variables have not generally been controlled or systematically investigated in most sleep studies. For example, Horonjeff, et al.
presented arousing signals scattered throughout the night but averaged the response data over the entire night. A significant feature of Krallmann's study is that the percentages of 1 sleep arousal from the siren are reported for different clock hours during the night, from midnight to 5 a.ri. (0-5:00 a.m.). His data are shown in Fig.1, curves 1, 2 and 3, and in the following table. l l l
t
. 0-1:15 1:30-2:30 4:00-5:00 Av.0-5a.m.
dBC dBA ' SEL a.m.* a.m.** a.m. *** Aver. Krall. .p .17 60 57 74.5' 60 82 97 80 79 55 52 60.5 62 77 92 77 72 50 47 64.5 52 67 88 60 F6 45 42 59.5 44 47 64 52 59 40 37 54.5 39 58 82 60 52 Krallmann, Figs. 12, 14, 16, 18, 20.
** Krallmann, Figs. 21-25. ; *** Krallmann, Figs. 26-31.
Cicarly, from the data in the above table, and as shown by Curve 3 for l the Krallmann data on Fig.1., the percentages of arousal for the 0-1:15 a.m. period are by far more conservativo than the average for the night overall, from 0-5:00 a.m. The Horonjeff, et al. data (averaged over the entire night minus I hour before normal waking time, when their experi-l ments were always stopped) could also be expected to overestimate arousals from noise relative to the 0-1:15 a.m. data of Kra11mann. However, it is the writer's opinion , based on personal experience and discussions with other researchers of sleep, that the data in most sleep studies tend to be collected during the earlier (deeper stages) rather than the later hours of sleep. All things considered, it is estimated that i the probable somewhat underestimation of arousals from the Krallmann j 0-1:15 a..n. data relative to the Horonjeff, et al. approximately-all-night data is compensated, for purposes of this comparison, by the overestima-j tion of arousal in the Krallmann data because of his dormitory sleeping arrangement for the subjects as compared to own-bedroom in the l Horonjeff, et al. study. 7 Age of subjects. As described in the original Kryter testimony, I arousability from sleep is somewhat a function of a person's age and a f 4
proccdure for _ adjusting experimental data, or estimates, of sleep arousal for different age groups was furnished. No adjustments are required between the Krallmann and Horonjeff, et al. data because the average ages of both groups of subjects are about the same 43 years. Conclusions. Issue #2 j 1. Differences in arousability due to differences in sleeping conditions (dormitory vs. private bedrooms) are estimated to be such as to approximately ccmpensato for differences in arousability to be expected when comparing the deep-sleep period (0-1:15 a.m.) data of Krallmann with the overall sleep night data of Horonjeff, et al. Accordingly, the I greater arousal (equivalent to about a 17 dB difference in SEL) found bettleen the respective Krallmann siren and the Horonjeff, et al. test transmission line noise data can, it appears from present psychoacoustic 1:nowledge, be explained and reconciled by:
) (a) A " Saliency", or tonal-detectability factor equivalent to about 9 dB for the 400-500 Hz frequency region of the siren signal; (b) A " Habituation" factor equivalent to about 8 dB for the 4 nights (average of 2) of exposure in the Krallmann stren study as compared to the 21 nights (average of 10,5) in the Horonjeff, et al. study.
l
- 2. The greater sleep arousab!!!ty of the test transmission line noise
) ; relative to the other Horonjeff, et al. noises (transformer, air conditioner '
and traffic) and to the NUREG/CR-2654, PNL-4227 guide (which appears to be based on an averaging of all the Horonjeff, et al. data) is probably j 1 O due to the predominately low-frequency, below 400 Hz or so, content of t l
4 O the other noises, and possibly to some extent masking of these noises by a typical ambient bedroom noise. .
- 3. The ICrallmann data for the 0-1:15 a.m. sleep period is taken to be a conservative means for estimating the percentage of one person, age 45 years, arousals to be expected from exposure to the FST Model 1000
) siren signal at a friven SEL indoors. 1
+
i l ! 1 1 f 1 k 'l 1 O l l
l . 1 I l . References Horonfeff, R.D.; Bennett, R.L.; and Teffeteller, S.R.: Sleep Interference, EA-1240, Vol. 2. Project 852, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA 94304 (1979). Horonjeff, R.D.; Fidell, S.; Teffeteller. S.R.; and Green , D.h!. : Behevioral Awakening as Functions of Duration and Detectability of Noise Intrusions in the Home. J. Sound & Vib. , Vol. 84 No. 3, 1982, pp. 327-336. Criefahn, B. ; and Jansen, G. : EEG-Responses Caused by Environmental Noise During Sleep - Their Relationships to Exogenic and Endogenic Influences. Sci. Total Environ. , Vol. 10, 1978, pp. 187-199. Kryter , K.D. and Pearsons, K.S.: Judged Noisiness of a Band of Randcm Noise Containing an Audible Pure Tone, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., Vol. 38, No.1, July 1965, pp.106-112. NUREC/CR-2654, PNL-4227, Procedures for Analyzing the Effectiveness of Siren Systems for Alerting the Public, Prepared for Nuclear Reg. Commiscion, Washington, D.C. 20555, Feb.1982. Zimnierman, W.B. : Sleep Slentation and Auditory Awakening Thresholds , Psychophysiology, Vol. 6,1970, pp. 540-549. O
b v Issue #3. Explanation of method for converting dBA levels to SEL. The Memorandum and Order (Limited Reopening of the Record on Eddleman Contention 57-C-3) page 7 cites the following formula for a 3-minute exposure to a siren at 4 RPM: Indoor SEL = dBA + 20 - attenuation The comparable calculation in the Kryter Testimony (p. 26) was based on data, turn!shed by Dr. Van Lee, from the Federal Signal Company. There data show a duration to the 10 dB downpoints from the peak level of about 4.? seconds for the Model 1000 siren operating at 4 PPPl. The rise and decay times around the peal: are not perfectly linear, and include about 0.4 dB more energy than would a linear rise-decay time pattern. This was considered as negligible for reasons to be discussed later. Accordingly, the calculation in the Kryter Testimony was: Indoor SEL = dBA + 19. - attenuation (where 00 siren bursts = 75.6 seconds = 19 dD; or 4 RPf! x 3 min. x 3 activations :: 4.2/2 seconds "4.2/2 seconds" assumes a !!near riso-decay pr.ttern . ) The I dB difference between the two calculations (+20 vs. +10) rests I believe, on the finding in the Memorandum and Order that the rise-decay pattern is significantly non-linear, as shown in Fig. 5. The increased sound energy contributed by the area above the linear, straight line, pattern amounts to about 1.1 dD, or dBA + 20 (.1) = SEL. l h'hich of these directivity patterns prevails is a complex ocoustical-atmosphe:ic function depending on the distances of the measuring points from the siren. At close distances (100 ft.) the pattern O
1 19 - J
%W
,...i i a lf Ih!
i i o lr b,pyj--i.t--..=i .., e,,d:.Y h <t, d,a,d lr.l. f l s Iy g i i d d d O
' I Ii l' .
N ,.. ,, i g '
}q;.
s g t j mf- -
",4
" "I, L ,d, a >
IlP' L[,f
$Q s i i
j s V-j ((d* j ' s ' J: ,- Od,
- ai x '
r x i, - i - . 1, [., , e, y ' l 91- i '
- l. $. !! i -
\ ,
;. il ., ..
ll i l, ,, g,r y,U. .. .t _
~
.,, a, p- ..
{ i I " J ,
,-,, l , !
!1,,/ T 1
- i M
,gd* 1".N ,
~
l f, 'l I a at x u s t +l . - :
.iW A 1 'Y'M ,- lidiI,6 Ydi ' f,'
, s Il lli Phn
..... . . f. I l s1 1 ', 4l r q g
'isp I d 1l," l i
l 1 6Gl' D
- a ,6s l e J . t i s. 'e. . 8 0 4 . . e 6. . #'
o..t: 'rde ! i i Ei i n r '1 s i t' f* d ti l sf 'n g n (*4 ) n t e. " ' t i!.. x .._.' 1
! is more non-linear (" rounded" at its peak) than at farther distances (4500 ft.), as seen in Fig. 6 compared to Fig. 7. As the circumference of the j circle is enlarged around the siren (points more distant) the changes
^ observed in Fig. 7 are to be expected because of radiation from lateral points phenomena and atmospheric perturbations due to greater path lengths irivolved. In so far as Fig. 6 is representative of the FS Model i 1000 siren level-temporal pattern, (estimated to be about 5 seconds, rcther than 4.2 seconds, to the 10 dB downpoints) 20 dB should be adc'rd tc peak dBA to calculate SEL; if a significant non-linear rise-decay i pattern is assumed, the number to be added should be 21 dB rather than 1 20 dB. It is concluded that the conversion used in the original I;ryter Testimony for peak dBA to SEL of the FST Model 1000 siren may bc O conservative by 1 to ? dD. j l a 2 l
i Fi_r s.t A ct.i v,..a ti- o- n_
... ... g .. _-..
, ,20 '-- "
" - ~ -
- - c _.. ._.
-'~'*-
q
. .1 .__.. - -* . -~,.g...
~~. " .. _... f -*
100 ft, from
..A I -
- . . . - ; . 7- .- . . . . . . 4 .., Siren
.v . ,
4.4. .. ,
. s
..p . >'=
E q' w
. 1"1 4 6.-.' #" *y '~, -4*"~~ 2 ... ,. . w" 4 -li 10 0 ' ==
i p g p i I 90 t e i .i I 0 30 60 i i , t 90 120 150 o TIME (SEC8NDS) m V Second Activation
-. ,- 3 *m _ ._
a ,, _( _ . /.**\ - ..3. __ m . ___. _ w '* _ . . .A
- . . .( _ .. .j.
y . .
. -a W t10 * ~
a m- ~
~" ~"*"""
y-
. . g m ,c o , -....: O .4. . 9e.?,
. --_.$.. . . A,1 . _ _t' :1 i.-
e 4 - m :4..-
?:,w ,. .
C y - ,
= . '- ;4 . _. 4 0 3 cc 90 i 6
m 0 30 x 60 i e 4 -
= 90 120 a
150 C TIME (SECOND'S)
.m ThitC A cti v allo n Z . 30 3 . ... ...
C
. :. w ..... . - . . .- .._ - E _. -
CO 12 0 _ .. - . . - / 4 . _ .- ._ 4 5- _ - . L _. - .. _ . w, . . .4 . . .._.A. _. t*O t
, ., , _ ,g _ g _ .
3 . e , ,,_ ,. ; , __
- g. e. . ,
10 0 ?.A.- lWW~ ,>
.D(4-k.e g 4-. e4--,M_ :.T!'.T "J y n.4-_.,
-_. s. .w .
90 i i i - C 30 60 e 90 i i -- 120 150 TIME (SECONDS) SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL VARIATION VERSUS TIME OUTPUT AT 100 FEET FROM ROTATING SIREN SIREN NUMBER: 4 g Accusnc TECHNCt.OGY INC. Figure 6, from letter of January 8.1986 to Administrative Judges f Kelley, Bright and Carpen,ter in the matter of Carolina Power PR/WO
- T --- - - - -
70 M os s ur emon t Lo ca tion: 10
' "I .' . 2 ! 5 .__ I
- +
14: . l ;.
,z # * '
, <>1 -f-
- ,g 1
- 3,'-
.__ ;h ' [ "i 1 h;. T '
50 ,. b W 3.Y ~ IE 4800 ft, from
... . SiF'"
M '
- 1
[' _~W- y* 40 1 M : i : i
, 1 i .
0 30 60 . i m 90 120 o 150 C TIME (SECONOS) O Second A ct i v a tio n
~
2 60 .-~ ' Measurement Location:6
~-
J -
,O W .
r - e- . 4800 :t. rom a 60 ; c L -% , i Siren vr
- i,. a- o- !
143 _t.- 5' ' __---#1
= 50 i 3 , %. .pA.., ,,,, v g --
_w: q; - u , e 40 , i y 0 3,0 60 z c 90 120 150
- 3. TIME (SECONOS) m That: A cti v a tio n 80 -
Measurement Lo ca tion: 2 W 70 (,
.1 j '
' ; 4700 ft. from Siren v "
;f ou '
, 3 . ,
--4 *.E_. .--
4.., ;,
*; j'. 5-5 4- l b+
~
50 1_ q --'t-4 tPt-- _ u *~. . i. -
- 1-
'r N- x r vr j]s; j_7
'O i t--
> 6 0 30 60 6 a . . > 90 120 150 TIME (SECONOS} SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL VERSUS TIME OUTPUT AT FAR-FIELD MEASUREMENT LOCATION 500 Hz OCTAVE BAND SIREN NUMBER: 4 j l Figuro7. from letter of January 8,1 sti toAcousnc TaCHNCt.OGY INC. Administrative Judges Kelley, Bright and Carpen,ter in the matter of Caroline Power LLight Company etc. froathoses A. Dexter, Counsel for Applicents.
26042.0 10480 BRT
~
l l BY MR. ROCHLIS: 2 0 Would you briefly summarize your testimony at 3 this time, Dr. Kryter? 4 A (Kryter) My testimony, is concerned primarily 5 with the memorandum of board's issue number 2, and I 6 examined the Krallmann data and study and compared it to 7 the Horonjeff, et al., data and other studies, and also to 8 compare it with respect to its validity and reliability for 9 estimating Shearon Harris EPZ arousability. 10 l The Krallmann data provide, or indicate there 11 would be at least 20 percent -- percentage points more l 12 arousability expected from the siren signal in the Shearon
/m l (j 13 Harris EPZ than we predicted on the basis of the Horonjeff, 14 et al., data. I took it an my task to try to provide l
15 psychoaccustic explanations for a logical -- and scientific 16 : reasons for these differences between the various daca i 17 i banks we have -- the Krallmann, Horonjeff -- and to select 18 ) the ones that would seem to be the most appropriate for the 19 Shearon Harris situation. 20 The key, of course, to this analysis is the l 21 appearance of the Krallmann data with the pure tone siren 22 signal that is so representative and provides a -- for the 23 first time -- an impressive, quantifiable measure of the 24 : arousability of that type of signal, data which heretofore 25 had not been available. l I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. M-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
- s. m.,,.. _ --
26042.0 10481 BRT m '~ 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Is this a good place for a coffee 2 break? It seems to be. Let's take about a 10-minute 3 coffee break. Then we'll get back. 4 (Recess.) 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, we would like to go back on 6 , the record. We have discussed what we heard this morning 7 about telephone alerts and the scope of the hearing and i 8 l we'd like to give you now our general ruling on that area, i 9 Conceivably questions may pop up later. Then we'll have to 10 address them individually, but we think some general i 11 I guidance is in order, so we'll just turn to that for a 12 moment. <~') i' N_) 13 As we see it, the basic principle here is that 14 the notification requirements in the emergency planning 15 rule in Appendix E concerning that subject are what we call 16 ) performance criteria, or acceptance criteria. l The 17 I i particular methods of notification are not described by the 18 rule and Applicants such as CP&L can choose among methods 19 so long as they meet the standards prescribed. i 20 If they meet the standards prescribed, it's 21 irrelevant that some other method might have been better. 22 l Here we have an Applicant proposal for sirens as 23 augmented by tone alert radios in the first five miles of 24 , the EPZ. And that proposal will either meet the standards (^)
~
25 i or it won't. That will be based, of course, on the record ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10482 BRT 1 that's made. 2 Should the board decide that the Applicant's 3 proposal as presently formulated is not sufficient, doesn't 4 meet the standards, then if they choose, they could come 5 back with some revised approach, different approach, 6 i telephones or whatever. But that's the position that they 7 have chosen to take and they seek the board's judgment on 8 that proposal. I 9 i Mr. Eddleman argued, as we understand him, that i 10 if an alerting system combined of whatever components falls 11 below the design criteria in appendix E -- I think the 12 phrase essentially 100 percent is used -- then once that (~) \ (_ / 13 l happens you have to do a comparative analysis of other 14 kinds of available systems, including, if appropriate, cost 15 l comparisons. We do not agree with that position. It is an , 16 )arguableposition, but we don't think it's correct. 17 , As we see it, if the proposal does meet the I 18 ! standards, that's it, and it doesn't matter why the 1 19 particular components were chosen. And the meaning, then, 20 of our declaratory ruling -- that might be an appropriate 21 way to label it -- the meaning of that is that we would not 22 expect to hear testimony or cross-examination on the tone 23 alert radios or other methods, but rather that the i 24 testimony on cross will focus on what they put forward, (} 25 namely the sirens and the tone alert radios. I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coscrage 80 4 336 6646
26042.0 10483 BRT i 1 We do think that some work having been done in 2 that area, and the board having asked the Applicant to look , 3 at telephones and look at costs in prepared testimony, it's 4 useful information. Mr. Riley's testimony also speaks to I 5 that. It goes to the same factors. And we would like to 1 I
- 6 have that information not in the evidentiary record but in i
7 the record of the case as a matter of general information. 8 But we don't think that it's the proper subject of the ( 9 hearing itself for findings by the board.
- 10 So, that's our guidance ruling on that subject.
i 11 Comments? Questions? I 12 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, in light of the board's i i 13 ruling, we would propose that before the day is over we i 14 take the time to address whether there is any of Mr. Riley's i f 15 proposed testimony that would be admissible which could 16 affect whether or not there's a session tomorrow, whether F 17 Mr. Riley has to make what could be a fruitless trip from i 18 Charlotte. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Might I suggest that the parties 20 talk about that at the next break? If you agree or don't 3 21 agree, then come back, unless you think it's ripe at the L 22 moment. 23 MR. SAXTER: No. I don't think we should 24 interrupt this panel. 25 I JUDGE KELLEY: a (]) I would rather get to the panel f 3 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 3 4 4446
26042,0 10484 7 BRT i l if we can. Could Mr. Eddleman and Mr. Rochlis and 2 Mr. Baxter talk about that, maybe during the next break,
- 3 then we can speak to that?
4 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir, Judge. That will be 5 fine. I think I've already laid out my position. I take 6 strong exception on the record to the board's ruling, but 7 you are the board, so this is the way we have to go here. 8 May I be excused briefly when you start your 9 examination? 10 JUDGE KELLEY: If it's okay with you, yes. Can 11 we then turn to the cross? Mr. Carpenter has some l 12 l questions. , 13 EXAMINATION 14 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 15 O Good morning. I would like to start by l l l 16 expressing for the board our appreciation for your l' i 17 responsiveness to our order in the form of preparing l 18 additional testimony. I think perhaps Mr. Eddleman will 19 want to cross-examine on the testimony in a systematic way, 20 but I would like to start out with some aspects of the l 21 record as it stands before us that are addressed in your 22 testimony. I would like to address in a somewhat different 23 way, with a focus that largely derives from the documents 24 that I have put on your table there. i
- () 25 Starting with figure A, dated the second month t
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! ! 202 347 3700 Neuonwide Coverage 800 336 4646 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ,_ _ , _ . _ . - - ~ _ _ -
26042.0 10485 BRT 4 ) 1 of '86. I would like the -- this part of the hearing to be 2 more a matter of technical competence rather than an i 3 adversarial cross-examination. To put it simply, I'm going 4 to tell you what my problems are and see if you can help me. 5 Figure A is a plot of probability of arousal of 1 6 sleeping people in percent versus siren SEL, in the bedroom j 7 of people, for a single individual. There are three curves
! 8 on figure A. Each one of those curves could represent a 9 potential quantitative finding by this board. In some way 10 we have to resolve the issue of how much weight to give to 11 cach of those curves. That's what I would like you to help 12 me on.
i 1 13 There are three lines of evidence, and what to l 14 do with the three lines. I would like to start with the i 15 curve labeled "Lukas," which came from figure 2 of the ' i 16 so-called Lukas Report, which is Applicant's Exhibit 48, i 17 which I constructed on the basis of the testimony at the ' i 18 l previous hearing that the SEL was equal to the EPNdB, I i I j 19 effective perceived noise level in decibels, minus 13. So i i l 20 that curve has that genesis. It's reading several values 21 of Lukas and subtracting 13. 22 I want to come back to the issue of the I I ll 23 appropriateness of the data base that's in the Lukas Report, 24 with respect to siren sounds in the EP2, but for a moment I () 25 would like to go off in the direction of comparing the l I ) ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 4 202 347 3700 Nasionwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10486 1 Lukas curvo with the curve labeled Horonjeff. Those data 2 points come from figure 5-A, in Dr. Kryter's previous 3 testimony. 4 In looking at those two curves there's a 5 systematic difference of roughly 15 percent in arousability, l 6 a not insignificant difference. So I have that perception, 1 7 ! but I have some questions about the validity of that 8 perception for the reason that when I look at the Horonjeff t 9 ! report, which originally described the studies, that's an l 10 { EPRI report dated December 1979 titled " Initial Study of i 11 l Effects of Transformer and Transmission Line Noise on 12 People"; I note that even though it's called an initial (~) ; ki 13 , study, EPRI calls it a final report -- which is not an 14 l insignificant aspect of the situation -- but when I look at 15 : Horonjeff, et al.'s report, on page 41 of that report they 16 ) chose to compare the results of their study with figure 2 17 of Lukas and I provided you with a Xerox copy of that 18 figure. I look at that plot and I'm not impressed that I 19 I there's a substantial difference between their results and 20 ! the Lukas line. I'm putting that as sort of a general 21 proposition. How do I resolve what I see in figure 12 with 22 figure A that I was just describing? I would like to ask 23 ; Dr. Kryter to bogin. 24 j A (Kryter) Well, your perplexity is well-placed. (~ '; 25 The switch is forward, I don't know if I -- l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
26042.0 10487 CRT O 1 MR. GAMIN: Judge, point of clarity, are your 2 figures going to go into the record? I think they ought to 3 for purposes of clarity if we are going to have this much 4 discussion on it. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Any objection to that? 6 MR. BAXTER: I think it would be useful to have 7 them in the transcript. 8 (Discussion off the record.) 9 (The document follows:) 10 11 12 13 14 15 l . 16 , i 17 j l 18 j i 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 No.lonwide Coverage 800 3M4M6
1f p p q Q) Q.) Perceised Noisiness ( Annoyance) 297 s, ca w l ~~ l , m [%],, indoor vs. outdoor tolerabihty to noiw may actually be somewhat different than that deduced on the assimiption slut the house attestuatiori, widch was not actually measured in the<e studies, was equiulent to 20 PNdil, as will be discussed in Chapter 9.The at teuualism by a house of outdoor sound may be 0.10
== == == ** "" "" PNdB greater,dependmg on the hcuse and the pasticular sound, than 20 PNdB.
. w ...
Although it has been suggested that this phenomenon could be a subjective i ,,'o c(' *** *oc' M mu i projection of the indoor sound as to how it would appear if audited outdoors,it
- d seems hkely that this apparent difference in the outdoor vs. indoor threshold of acceptahdity of sourids is due to the fact that activities which can be disrupted by noise, such as talking, listening, and mental concentration, are usually
*-'*"' somewhat more denunding and impoatant to people indoors than outdoors. In any event, it turns out hat, eo a first approximation, a single threshold level can
, g' be used for predicting the subjective reaction to rmise heard indoors or outdoors provided the noise source is located outdoors and the measurements of the noise are made outdoors.
_ ,. g , _ la is suggested, for present purposes that a sound, heard and measured sw uicv. = indoors, is said to start occurring when: (a) its perceived noiw level for any 0.5-sec interval exceeds a PNL of 40, and to stop when its perceived noise level I ti; tint to. spectrum of seasJasi .aJ 16-soac <omrasna= stimula tarrer sractio and sm:4tes of spectra of 2- and 5 tone campsi.mi stimula tiower graphs). gg,g,gg g g g mg , g g pg gg,y 1,um isa,,onse6 tit or dB(A*) helow hlax PNI' reached by that sound, and to stop when its g perceived; noise level falls more than 15 below the blax PNL reached by that ( I a sound, provided the mx PNL is equal to or greater than 55.
- i. I A sound heard indoors or outdoors,but generated and measnred outdoors,is j*
a u j 9 O*',,,,,,, :0, *, a
- s id to start occurring when: (a) its perceived noise level for any 0.5.sec interval y,=,',
1 e e of time exceeds 60, and to stcip when its perceived noise level falls below 60;or
;j h !
j 'a - o, :E. k' (b) its perceived noise level exceeds a PNL 15 below the klax PNL reached by g g .,c ,s, :1, == g i i E that sound, and to stop when its perceived noise level falls more than 15 below
!g the klax PNL reached by that sound, provided the klax PNL is equal to or
{ "* '" * '"'**'t , ,,,,,n, 4 *' E5 3hf =*I =al l
. t ,= , greater than 75.
r n. aaen=a L,, " a 3,6 . ain ) i The threshold of noisir.ess of 40 PNdB, dB(D*), or dB(A*) indocrs, and 60
,,,,,,,, g;
( =
", gy outdoors is for the mose sensitive people;it is estimated that the threshold for
**"*"k{- ./, , , " "' "' n Se the average person is about 10-20 dB higher (see Fig. 238, Chapter II). For l
a ,, _
""c*
- au' auie s
- cia 5
j example, in a recent British study of the attitude and behavior of people to everyday outdoor sounds,it was found that sounds that have Peak PN!Bs of 80
$ or less did not appear to add, on the average, to the annoyance os general I ,, maisiness of the environrrent.
,,,"O', " , , " " ' ' " * ' " " ' -- ?O'*" ' " ' " . * *.' ' " , ' ""'"O"' The second alternaine definition of effective duration given above-the sound within 15 dB of bias PNL-follows from some subjec4ve judgment data which I act;nr i70. comparson tiet.cca perceweit mosse scvet 4 aucraf t stroven ar=1 category gg g g g,g g g,o g,g, gg g scales of acceptatadsty, mtrusacacu, anJ mossaness. Sut>Jeds were frons cadian casamuestaes except ti,ose at Edward. who were resiimes of a seconds and then decreased from the maximum level at about the same rate as malatary Aar l'arce Banc. Arter Bishop (67), Rut,mson er d (693L and the sound had increased, the energy in the sound below a level of about 1015 Kry ter er st (473,474).
O of Noise on blan Perceived Nnhiness (Annoyance) '
' ' )
Blowertlunt ine perceived ni umuni level did not appear to contribute significantfy to
.ess of tl.c sound (Krytes and Pemums 146t.]). In reahty g tier; wdl u(tea be httle ddfenence between the magmtudes of lategrated l io erceived Nohe levels achicved when the thicsholdof-noisiness rule, and when i a
i
. ..u. .i. nas' ons
. s n'.*se' se Mn PNI. -15 du sule is i:wd to estabhsh the levels at wluch the miegration k
. n aasoas '*o
rocess is started, the reaum.ofcourse,is that the weaker portions uf the amnd9 ,, , avironment contribute but a frxtion of a du, on a phyucal baus, to the *y N *s N ttegrated Perceived Noise l evel. 'lhe level of 15 PNJB dB(IT) os [ d11( A*) b l Y* e ow w r3 Ma PNL of a sound wdl be called the " practical threshoIJ" of perceived ]"* Q ' I N
% ' ,* * .,i .c ,.
ustness. The Mn PNL -15 dfs rule should not, of cousse, be apphed in she I [Q* Q
- ^-
aluation of an ensuonment where nohe that is more tlues 15 PNI. fs umts below i e Ma PNL levels,Imt sidi apprect.bly above al.e " scal" alues!n.ld values for N recived notuness specatied above for considerable permd> of time. ____._f 2 *- l It b suggested slut i' "'""*"*' : N - i t!.e Integrated Perceived Noise level (IPNL-) of an cuirence of a sound be sepuescuted by the followmg fornsula; [ - ~ -~ 1 yooweuas { _.hs._
}s 8-
, IPNL = 10 log.. lIj!ogi.10 (PNL,/IO){ 3 3 sere i is succes.ive 0.5-see in.tervals of tune. Lo - e Integratmg contmuous PNL as a function of time on a 10 log . baus is / v '*< ova **'" - == tafied because thh sciation fits certain judgment data (see f;g. 171) mn3hly weQ, pa:Liculatly oven durations from about 5 to 30 seconds. Ixmur m. Retauve estest spea FNI of thaat=8 d"'"""I*"""*'"'**
- a .asiaa of 12 acc. Atace rear =as 14 09)-
i l crection to IPNL for Duration raf Onset of Nonimpulsise Sound It seems, osa the luus of evesylsy ed servation, that the longet the duration of se, the less wanted it is. Pe haps more subtle is the apparent fact slut the ger the duration an the budJaip of the intensity of a noise, the mose g ,,,t ,,,,, ,, ,c, y , , ,c., cceptatic it is, even though the total duration remams the same. Naxon etd " * " " " " ' " ' " " tn4*cet'saste e
- 4) reposted dut a sound that increases slowly to a given peak level and then '"*" !
icases rapidly is mucl. anore cLjectiortabic than one of the same total ition and mnunum intensity that increases rapidly and then decreases p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . . dy in intensity (see Fig.172). Comparison of the results for the fiast pair in 172 (an intematy but no frequency shift) vs. Ilmse for the second pan ""' " "'"" ** " " " , , , . .
- nsity as wc!! as frequency shift) reveals that a staf in ficquency, such as =="c'~-"*""'""*- ,,/ N, IJ be presect with an actual moving sound source-the awaI!cJ Doppler
-does not appear as was suentioned earlier, to luve a ugndicant effect on results. Nixon er .d found t!ut, to be juda,ed equally acceptable, the level of
..o u .- F = -d F-"" H a s 4 A of Fig.172 lud to be about 7 dB less alun signal H.1hese investigatoss est that, as long as a umnJ is mereasing in intensity, the listeners presune the source of the uiusal as appioaching and may corne dangerously dose. actint i71 Temtml armt freitucacy pauern of pure *iae s'saat> *acJ *a M'acat efore, the onset postma of the sound isjudged nohier tluni the poitam slut sesi, anJ sess sewis. Note chas a tuppies' facitucacy chaase d8J au8 ms reaw the percentase at Pc"Pic *h" i"d8 'd "8"'I ^ '" h* ""*
unaarpaabte than ugnal B. I susu Nuon er el (584).
= _ 2-x -- = _ . _ - - - -
i O 100 : " l< 90 a Othe< Previous Sr.adies 30 - (Lukas, 1977) l A Steady State o
' i s
j
= 60 1,o ie ,,
g o j j 8
=
_ so
! ". 4# :
5 40 ," oje a 4 c
-% d'A Ch
$ 20 o 0 !Q a 0l l io
- O' **u _,
O " e a y a 9 o s 0 E ' -* ' " - "' ' 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 No'se level - EPNdB f i FIG URE 12. CCM PA RISO N CF A W A K ti N I N G PROB AB fllflE S FO R CURRENT AND PREVIC JS ST UDIES O ll - , , - iw - -*g-*pv--'g
+ _. sv_, -----%.a ,4 -
w--- -------v -------y,-,----
, ----~...-__,.m --,-- -- . - -,. ,_ .
2/s6
.=r =p=: . 6. . f.+s: -m:f a.: : , , 1- . p; ;i ;.:.p-3 agggg.. .;.; pf .
4 :E: L};n; .::{ii - 2.;Es.;J.nyi: q,;; [.i[~i;.{9.p.: l .hLF :$:. T: . !. . ! I p . .l: i l ' p: q. . -
- f.ur .- 1 i. .
.i f. .:. .e -! : 8
- [ ; i i
=-4r- l :-1 : f .1 : . . .
' l ! *. ll l , l H Il - - !T *g~-[---~;", "*M.h -,'~*h*.- ;
I f f
.,g O p3
; g
=_ _:_p_ __. ;
t t._. : $. ,.:_ . t n. . . .__-__:-- t , i c .d; %:E-i@y.[__EifjE- . l !- ! L -t- { } ; ) .l , t.
=-i ;:=i l:=*=- =f===-ipH : l- 4 i i t. .!-. -m 4 .. t l l
-! : ; ' ; : .- 1 - .!!! EE; H:{" j. . f I'g f f j y- g i. p ..i. L .- .!- :]. j . , I l
=i = =:::r : = =-t==m!= ,
V l -i- . ci:: : L: # t
. I EEIi E-ts- =d + a~E=- .24 :t :t. t~ E ~~ f 4 - E n=t! -ic i .
!- 27 l+ . u. : r.I- . {. :1 t- . .
N:cIl;}:J::NI7 =i:sfl! NII . =-hm !!! F _. J
=:. m.= g-4 =;ep.::4ac -
;. t : i.- 3..e4a q= ,
.p - np ;- .i ;i.[ } ;: . . ;. } q .1 !- 4:.- ; p. .[. t j
_.. q .;: . p. _3. . . _. ,
.p., ..i.. ; ; ; ; .
.p j. , , p. . ,
+:- j 1
0 - 2. [ [- j [ - I j } { i . t. :. : i..: . .
. ;;. f h ,'. i ~ f .
j l.., ** . f' * ,_j,^ " ';2* .4 , y ijin :i' :- c:;. i !; j_y-- y .
.I i j. 1, ' . ' i :i . . Juz-i._.y t-yi 8(p i . [ , }.
-: . n .c ..q = i i . ., +. ...:. ... _ i. . .: : i: .=. . m.t.u ,.
t .
~;
- I
- l
'f " f { f. k ', . f . . - i* .* ** h}k" "' . (
u.:, ., r l : p . pr ;. p- r: = t. g g_s. p g. .:9. j y . . . i ,
- I I i !
i i -
! I I .I:i I F L. +E ::"N Ef ;g .ut :_l t ,
l . Il. i } '} i t i { ~ !. :i;[7h!=. .f; : 7=i.M } . . $2i !
! .:!9 p- ;q ..ciz mi.! - i- : ;u t- l L- }.. I- t i l.
I i- ! i i 6 i p H -p .byS !J f*! I ir l , t . I ! i i i.! ;y< a g. p: : . i j / I .' .
' I ' +: i l . j i } [ .: tf~ 3 1.:;.f H / t
! ! ! ; i : i i i i y ri.. p .' f i i i t i i : i
!'i !' . y . ij7/ i.j, j .
/i p
0 -
'ge '- ! i I l_ i l i !/ !L)s Mf %-fi_i /' i ~j '
b l, y ' i ! Mvallmovm m i / /";Yft 1: i
,i i i + i i i .a i /i , i y i - - if i .
h (,O ' ! . l 1 t gf . ,- t M i/ } ' gK. l ! ; j : ;
/ ,
/ / ,
p:: Q go _
\ K i
/$ - / -
t . i ;; e if; i / ./i i i !
, , i s* - ; 1 A / . !
3,, itg 40 - t . i.. . _ t. p yg. ; ije ; y . 1 d ' l -- Ht:.~ typ - i. f . y;- g., uc,a.3 ,
., j i go_
- i=iM : t i se6 i /_i i ( Anuat a 5Ff.* EPN@ -13 ) --
i u...prp=;erF y i ,,
-l ; .; i ,
- l
!/' -
I L !/ " I i l i j i I , l [ ' ! I I I ! ! i i 20' i , i
/ !
j [
! i ; t i i
l fi ; 6 , I / i i / i t i i t , m- , t ! I e i
. . : . t i ' t i i i l l t
! i t i I } , I 1 ! f I i I l !_ ! I I I l i f '" i k- l l l t i ! l I k I . 1 l ; so ao ro so to . no so 1 Soren SEL % Bedroom
- - _ . _ - . _~ -
26042.0 10488 BRT O l 1 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Your perplexity is i 2 well-placed. I looked at these figures before in 3 connection with being concerned with the present problem. 4 Let me start out saying first, if you go to the EPRI report, - l 5 you will find that their basic data are measured in dBA, 6 and the preceding figure shows the data point and figure l 7 4-A, from my previous testimony, was directly from their 8 document, which is the plot of their raw data versus dBA of 9 the various noises they had. i
! 10 And their figure 12-A, in that they converted 4
11 their dBA to EPNdB; they averaged over both -- all their l } 12 l four noises. They did not separate the noises by the test () 13 transmission line or what we call the high frequency versus ] 14 the low frequency noises. But in any event, for my 15 original data I used their basic data and did not use their
)
{ 16 l EPNdB transformed, and the reason I did not do that is I " i !
; 17 l discovered several months ago, and I'm sorry that perhaps i I i
18 we did not think of bringing this up because it is an 19 irrelevant -- irrelevant to our present discussion, except l 20 for academic clarification, and that is they miscalculated i 21 EPNdB. They said they used Kryter's formula, but Kryter's 22 , formula has a constant on the end that says minus 13 dB. l l 23 This is not related to a dBA conversion for spectrum. This 24 ; 13 is a f actor that was placed into the original EPNdB for i () i 25 aircraft noise, to give a number that was in an absolute { 4 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347 3700 Naninnwide Coversee 800 3 4 4446
r- 1 1 l 26042.0 10489 BRT 1 term, like the number 3.5 miles from the s' tart of takeoff 2 for an airplane. 3 That occurred back in 1958 and Horonjeff, et al., 4 forgot about that minus 13 dB, aild did not subtract it. 5 Therefore, these numbers that they have in their figure 12 i 6 are for their data, not for Lukas' data. Now'Lukas used
, f ,
7 the 13, so his data points are right but when they I 8 transferred their dBA points to EPNdB, they plotted them 13 9 dB too high and they are all -- you find they are all 10 shifted downward, relative to the Lukas points. When you 11 make that correction you find that they come back into line. 12 Now, this is a problem that's in the literature. O 13 As I said, I took their basic dBA and calculated SEL from 14 the durations they specify for their stimuli. There is no 15 error in terms of our conversion from their data to SEL. I' 16 But they had an error in converting their dBA to EPNdB. I l' 17 don't know whether that is good enough to help you. 18 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 19 0 Yes. It simply tells figure 12 is in error. I 20 might point out it's not just entirely academic, because 21 the second edition of a book, which seems to be close to a 22 Bible, on page 446 reproduces that figure. 23 A (Kryter) I was talking to Dr. Keast before and 24 I am also embarrassed, because I used their data, thinking ( w) 25 I was correct, and now I'm in the process of having to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage , 233H646
26042.0 10490 BRT ( t) 1 withdraw that figure and point out that the original EPNdB, 2 Horonjeff data, are 13 dB too high. So mp figure, which is 3 based on their figure, is also incorrect. 4 O To pursue that, in the second edition of a book 5 by Dr. Kryter entitled "The Effects of Noise on Man" on 6 page 446 he expresses the view that the difference netween 7 the Horonjeff data and the Lukas line might be ascribed 8 primarily to the dif ference between the laboratory 9 environment and the home environment. Do I take it that 10 that might change that conclusion? 11 A that has to be changed. 12 O That was one of the ambiguities. I might also b-s 13 note in passing that on if figure 12, there's a data point 14 at 65 percent of awakening, and there doesn't seem to be 15 any such data point in the parent volume. 16 l A Figure A? You mean the Horonjeff figure? l 17 i O Yes, apparently Horonjeff not only didn't l 18 compute EPF correctly, but in some way didn't keep track of 19 the percent arousal? 20 A I think we discussed this to some extent in the 21 , previous testimony, whether one used their regression line 22 or -- it was impossible to count the number of dots from 23 their basic data and translate it over to their graph. But 24 I could not explain it -- that part. And I cannot explain () 25 that now. , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10491 BRT f% O 1 Did you want me to -- if you would like -- to 2 pursue why these curves are different for other reasons 3 than that error? I think there are explanations of why 4 Lukas' curve is lower than Horonjeff's real curve that he 5 plotted. , 6 0 I think the board needs to be enlightened. 7 A The Lukas curve, so-called, as you noted, is 8 really an average drawn to a number of data points taken 9 from a number of different studies. These studies were -- 10 included -- some of them aircraft noise, street, I think, 11 traffic noise, a pure tone or two, and they were done in 12 different laboratories under different conditions and they i 13 -- if you look at the data plots, some of which are on -- 14 correctly or incorrectly -- on Horonjeff's figure 12, you i 15 see a wide divergence of data points in drawing the 16 straight line through the middle or trying to miss all data 17 i points but represent sort of an average, a trend curve is 18 what Lukas did. 19 The rationale is that one experiment -- the data 20 point is not necessarily an error, but it was taken with a 21 certain amount of habituation, where the subjects may have 22 been sleeping in the laboratory for X number of nights, 23 whereas another data point for the same apparent sound 24 exposure level had only been experimented with for a few 3 %,) 25 nights. I l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366646 l
26042.0 10492 BRT 1 Also, the measures of the spectrum of the noises 2 in many cases were a little shaky; that is, some of them 3 were measured electronically at the input to a loudspeaker. 4 In other experiments they perhaps had microphones near the 5 sleeper's ear and measured the actual acoustical spectrum. 6 The ages of the subjects were sometimes not 7 carefully specified or the data was not weighted for 8 differences in ages. 9 The type of response that was required, and at 10 night, the time of night when a particular stimuli occurred. 11 As we will find, as Krallmann showed very clearly, this is 12 a variable also that must be taken into account. 13 There are all these various experimental 14 variables, some of them more or less true to real life, 15 i that caused the data scattering and led one to say: Well, 16 these are experimental errors and an average line 17 l represents what the real truth is. 18 Well, on the other hand, when you go to an 19 experiment like Horonjeff's, where they control carefully 20 the number of nights slept, the sleeping conditions, the 21 duration of the stimuli, and expose the people for a 22 significant number of nights, so the data are relatively 23 i reliable, then you find that you get very much more 24 consistent results and the data points tend to fall on a 25 (]) line and so you can say, well, for these conditions and for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 2 2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 900-336-6646
26042.0 10493 BRT 1 these spectra, you now have a pretty good picture of what
,2 the arousability is and it was for this reason that we felt 3 that the Heronjeff data was the most consistent and most 4 definable, much more so than taking the average of the 5 Lukas data which may, in the final analysis, be 6 representative of something, but you are not sure exactly 7 what.
8 The Horonjeff data, it shows -- the data show -- 9 showed a significant consistent difference related to what 10 we call high-frequency spectra and low-frequency spectra, 11 , and the spectra that was off his data that was most like I 12 the siren -- and it wasn't very much like it, but it was O 13 li' certainly more like 1t than the other noises -- was that of 14 the test transmission line noise. It was more like it in 15 that it had energy in the frequency region where 16 l detectability and audibility is the greatest for the human 17 ear, or is great for the human ear. 18 So, this was the reason for saying: Well, the 19 Horonjeff test transmission line noise data was the best i 20 that we knew of that was available. And also, that as you l 21 average over the four noises for Horonjeff, you got 22 something that approached the Lukas line, as a matter of 23 fact. If you threw in the low-frequency noises -- again 24 avoiding Horonjeff's figure 12 but using the -- you see the O 25 line that you took from my figure, 7-A -- or 5-A, which is I l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Covempe 800 336 6646
26042.0 10494 BRT 1 based on Horonjeff's 4-A -- are the data points for the 2 test transmission line noise and not for all those four 3 noises. 4 Well, we see in your figure, which I think is 5 < very representative except there's one point I might 6 mention a little later that perhaps needs some change, and 7 that is for Krallmann. 8 0 We'll come to Krallmann in a minute. We will 9 begin talking about Krallmann by my acknowledging that I 10 started with that, which is opposition to subpoena for 11 Dr. Bastione in which there was a computation of conversion 12 SEL for Krallmann and I simply used that -- that's based on
) ~
13 one minute, not 45 seconds. I'm aware of that, but I 14 thought I wouldn't go any further until we had a chance to 15 talk. t 16 A Fine. I thought perhaps we should do dBC first 17 and dBA -- I understand -- excuse me. 18 0 45 seconds versus 20. l 19 Well, I thought it would be nice to have the two 20 of you sitting side by side. Mr. Keast takes the posture 21 championing the approach, giving equal weight to the Lukas 22 Report and I thought it would be nice to have you help me i 23 with his views, if the Lukas Report is as partinent to the 24 issue of sound awakening as the Horonjeff report. 25 Mr. Keast, could -- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366646
26042.0 10495 BRT rs l '
]
1 A Before he does, may I point out that the other 2 variables that are important have to do with the time of 3 night, have to do with habituation. In addition to the 4 siren signal -- the face validity -- obviously the same 5 signal that we are concerned with for the EP2, this has a 6 direct relationship. The question of habituation, that is, 7 how many test nights the subjects are used for, is an 8 important variable, as we point out in our testimony, and 9 there are data as compiled by Griefahn and Jansen in 10 Germany, over a number of studies, showing that as a 11 function of the number of nights of sleep in an experiment, i 12 I the habituation can count for 10 to 15 percentage points in (c ,) 13 arousability. v 14 i So the spectrum, the habituation, and something I 15 l that is called -- related to spectrum -- saliency, or pure 16 tone -- these are also conditions. We'll find also that l 17 l Krallmann only exposes subjects one time per night. This ! I 18 l is another bit of information I got from him. Whereas in l 19 these other experiments, the tendency was to expose them 20 five or six times a night, as you would an experimental 21 subject to try to get a lot of data from them during one 22 night. Kra11mann chose 21 15-minute periods and he only 23 gave them one shot per night and that was all. So there 24 I was no artificial overstimulation, you night say, in his l 25 i experiment, that there could be in s.me of the other ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationv/Je Coverage 800-336-6646 p--f-..-r-.-,-3.m..~..~.,,._.,....~...--~....~.,-..,y-~,-.,..,...--~..-....~.-- -
- ~ . ~ - . .
26042.0 10496 BRT () L. 1 laboratory tests that other experimenters used. 2 With those points laid on the table -- 3 0 wouldn't you agree, Dr. Kryter, also, in Lukas' 4 compilation, which I take it to be fairly critical, there 5 are also impulse sounds throughout the night. Impulse 6 sounds -- 7 A Yes, there were some. 8 0 -- which contribute, too. Presumably if there 9 was a bigger body of data one could pretty well fill in all 10 the corners of such a plot? 11 A Yes. 12 0 For obvious reasons? 13 A hes. There are good reasons, yes. And I think 14 -- excuse me. 15 0 Well, I would like to turn to Mr.:Keast. We 16 indicate in our order that, having finally got a copy of 17 the Lukas Report where we could read the legend for figure l 18 ! 2, that's the basis for Mr. Keast' original testimony, I 19 couldn't see very many sounds that I, as a layman, thought 20 would sound much like a siren. And it also appeared that 21 the thrust of the Lukas Report was not really a critical 22 l evaluation of our knowledge of the arousability of people l l 23 in response to sound but, rather, the relative merits of 24 the different arithmetic transformers of the sound levels (' 25 to see which one might be the most useful. Is that a fair V) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6 l
26042,0 10497 ERT l ) L~/ 1 appraisal of what Lukas is really -- real intent was here? 2 A (Keast) You are asking me or Dr. Kryter? 3 0 I'm asking you. 4 A I think that's correct. I think Lukas was 5 considered the most useful metric. But he also considered 6 and demonstrated in his figure 2, an average relationship 7 between sound level and sleep awakening. 8 0 Well -- 9 A Could I jump in and comment upon your figure A, 10 sir? 11 0 Okay. Stay with Horonjef f or Lukas to start off 12 with?
/~N l
(-) 13 A I'm going to talk about Lukas as appears on your 14 figure A. The correction 13 dB between EPNdB and SEL is 15 i not applicable in this particular cace. In this particular 16 ! case -- I shouldn't say correction -- the adjustment should b 17 l be between 19 and 20 dB, which has the effect of moving the i 18 curve that you have labeled "Lukas" to the left by 6 to 7 dB. 19 0 I understand what you just said. Can you 20 provide me a basis for what you just said? 21 A I'm going to do some arithmetic, so watch out 22 here. Let me suggest that you make yourself a little table. I 23 The table has three columns. The first column is labeled 24 " adjustment factor," the second column is labeled (^; 25 " computation of EPNdb" and the third column is labeled i V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 686
26042.0 10498 BRT 1 " computation in SEL." Purely as an example, in the first 2 row we will entitle "the sound pressure level of a 500 3 hertz tone." In both columns, for example, we'll call that 4 50 dB. It could be any other number, but I'm using that 5 just for convenience. 6 The second column -- pardon me, the second row 7 will have the title " adjustment to dBA. And under the 8 EPNdB column we have nothing. Under the SEL column we have 9 minus 3. I 10 The third row we will call " tone correction." 11 Under the EPNdB column we have plus 10; under 12 the SEL column we have nothing. (_) 13 i The fourth row we will call " duration," and it's 14 unimportant what the duration is for the purposes of my 15 l example. All we need to do is break out that whatever it 16 is, it's going to be 3 dB higher under the EPNdB column 17 , than it is under the SEL column, because EPNdBs are l 18 j computed on a half second increment and SELs are computed { 19 l in one second increments. That's in my direct testimony. i 20 l So, for that fourth row, under duration, in the i l 21 i EPNdB column we have plus 3, and under the SEL column we 22 have nothing. I 23 ! We have a fifth row that is labeled "on-set 24 correction." It varies somewhat, 3 to 5 dB, but let's just l (> 25 use 4 dB for the sake of correction. On-set correction 4 l
\_) l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-oM6 I
26042.0 10499 BRT ~ l dB under the EPNdB column and nothing under the SEL column. 2 That completes the table. If we add up the 3 numbers under EPNdB, we get 67. If we add up the numbers 4 under SEL we get 47. The difference is 20 dB. For this 5 particular case of a 500 hertz tone with on-sets 6 representative of the siren. 7 The effects on your figure A would be to move 8 the line which you have labeled "Lukas" 7 dB to the left, 9 so that it's typically four or five percentage points below 10 the line that you have labeled "Horonjeff." 11 0 Mr. Keast, in doing that, how confident are you 12 that Lukas did just as you described during the tone h 13 corrections, on-set correction, et cetera, in preparing his 14 figure 2. 15 l A I'm not confident of it. All I can rely on is i 16 that he has said he has used the Kryter method for 17 , computing the EPNdBs. I 18 0 Taking advantage of your joint presence, 19 Dr. Kryter, I noticed that one of the data sets that Lukas i 20 l used comes from a publication coauthored by Lukas and l 21 Kryter. Have you ever looked at the plot; from your 22 personal familiarity with the work that you did with him, 23 j do you have any feeling for whether he did produce a
?
24 : transform of the physical sound that comports with what (^) \_/ 25 Mr. Keast just described? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
26042.0 10500 BRT l A Well, I am familiar with the data that 1 (Kryter) 2 is in our -- the Lukas/Kryter reports, and I might point 3 out that many of the noises that we use, aircraft noise, 4 required no pure tone corrections. 5 0 Required no -- 6 A No pure tone corrections. At that time the 7 on-set corrections, that is the pure tone correction came 8 out to be zero for all intents, because of the -- whether 9 it was a takeoff noise or particular type of noise, some 10 noises did and some noises did not. 11 Exactly what Lukas did with particular noises 12 that these different experimenters used, unlike Mr. Keast I e 13
) really don't know. I tried to find out from him and read 14 his report very carefully. I believe that he did not 15 l consistently do that. I think that he corrected between l
16 dBA and PNdB for 13 decibels for the most part. But I 17 : can't -- I just don't know of my own knowledge what he did l 18 for each of those individual studies that are in his -- 19 most of which were not studies that he and I did together. 20 l 0 I understand. I just assumed the point, in fact 21 there was one data set maybe they used, that you were 22 , familiar with. I was wondering if you can confirm that the l 23 l arithmetic that Mr. Keast described was actually applied to 24 f your data? I r's 25 A Yes. I think it was. But that was -- it was 1 ) I v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 . . . - . . . . - . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . , . . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - -- -- ----. . ~ --
26042.0 10501 BRT 1 not done -- we did not use a 500 hertz tone. So the -- 2 there was no -- essentially for those noises that I recall, 3 the tone direction was perhaps 1 or 2 dB, not 10. Because 4 it was a noise that was btcader spectrum, without an I 5 j intense pure tone component that some of them had. But by 4 6 l and large the corrections will depend upon whether you have 7 a pure tone that exceeds the background by 10 or 20 or more 8 dB, and I don't think that this rule that we have here can 9 be directly applied to all of Lukas' noises. Perhaps it 10 had an effect on some of the noises of some of the studies 11 that he analyzed, but I am a little bit skeptical as to 12 whether he religiously applied them. Maybe he did. I just (~'s (,,' 13 l don't know. But I agree with Mr. Keast calculations, if 14 you take a 500 pure tone and do that, that's the way it 15 l would move. 16 I 0 The arithmetic was irresistible once you change 17 l the numbers. I simply question whether one can generalize 18 that for all the data points in figure 2 of the Lukas 19 Report, that a tone correction of 10 dB was applied. ! 20 i A (Keast) Oh, certainly not. Many of the data l 21 points, as you indeed pointed out in your order, do not 22 include it. The tonal correction would only be applied 23 ! against cases where there were tonal sounds. 24 So, what we are attempting to do here is to take 25 the average Lukas result, that broad array of test data, (~') o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~
26042.0 10502 CRT 1 and apply it particularly to the situation of sirens waking ! 2 up people. And all that I'm trying to illustrate here is 3 that the difference between the Horonjeff data and the l l 4 Lukas data on your figure A is less than as illustrated, 5 Lukas data meaning the average line down the middle. 6 0 One of the reasons, Mr. Keast, that I have some 7 reservations about this, if you look at table 1 from the 8 Lukas Report, which is in the handout, or if you've got a 9 version that seems more legible than this one, I might 10 point out this is more legible than the original one in 11 Applicant's Exhibit 48 -- 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, did you say table l? () 13 , JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes. It's the multi-page l 14 piece, Mr. Eddleman, from the Lukas Report. It's very 15 small print. 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: What I have is from Applicant's 17 answer to the motion to subpoena. 18 JUDGE CARPENTER: In the material that I handed 19 out this morning, Mr. Eddleman? 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm looking through it, Judge. I i 21 have five single sheets, one stapled document. 22 JUDGE CARPENTER: De the other parties have 23 { copies? 24 MR. BAXTER: I don't believe so, Judge Carpenter. (~T 25 MR. ROCHLIS: I don't believe so. U I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 y._._......._.... . .. . . . . . . . ,
.- . _ . : . m. . . . . . _ . . . . . .m.. . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ m
r 26042.0 10503 BRT
/
-' 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: If you look at table 1 that 2 occurs on page 7 of the report, footnote 1, second sentence, 3 says " units of E -- EdBA, can be estimated by subtracting 4 13 from the given value." In my limited knowledge or 5 semi-ignorance I took this as a confirmation of Dr. Kryter's 6 previous view that 13 was the magic number.
7 THE WITNESS: (Keast) If there were a magic 8 number, then we wouldn't use these two different scales. 9 There is not. As indicated in this book, in many cases 10 such an adjustment could be applied, particularly with 11 things that are commonly a source of controversial noise, 12 like aircraft. () 13 In this particular case, an unusual sound, a 500 14 hertz tone, the difference is not 13, and I attempted to 15 ! illustrate that in the table we discussed earlier. 16 d MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, you dropped your voice, N 17 before 13 dB you said the difference is now 13 dB or is i 18 not -- 19 THE WITNESS: (Keast) In this particular case 20 of a 500 hertz tone, the difference is not 13 dB. I 21 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Your Honor, may I add a 22 comment? 23 i JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes, as I say, this is in the 1 24 ! spirit of technical conference. l gS 25 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Two comments. One is c
~ . _ ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 (. - - - , . . . .. .- c. .. .~. ~ ,.. . , .
26042.0 10504 BRT ()
'/ 1 that the application of a pure tone correction or an on set 2 and off-set duration correction, is -- has been sort of a 3 burden to people. They don't like it. It complicates the 4 measurement procedures and requires calculations and also 5 data that are often not reported. So, if there are no 6 corrections for pure tones or on-set, then this 13 dB is 7 sort of a magical number. It takes into account the 8 difference in transform from the spectrum to dBA versus the 9 spectrum to PNdB, so that's why 13 is so often cited, if 10 the other things are not used.
11 But the thing I wanted to mention that is 12 perhaps more interesting to the sleeper arousability () 13 situation is that these pure tone corrections and the 14 on-set and duration corrections -- and what we called 15 saliency in our written testimony and detectability, ' 16 noticeability of the sound once it is above the threshold -- 17 with respect to pure tones in contrast to broad band sound, 18 has been only done on people when they are awake. That is, 19 these were judgments of loudness and noisiness and 20 annoyance and saliency and detectability. 21 Tr.a question of whether or not they were 22 applicable to arousability when you are asleep, that is, do 23 you respond this way to sounds when you are asleep, that is, 1 24 does a pure tone sound -- well, a pure tone for a given dBA r~s 25 sounds noisier, if you will, more detectable than a broad V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 rr_T_ rrrr::
- T T* ' ' ~ -' ' ' ' ~ ** ' '
' " ' ~ ^ *
- 26042.0 10505 BRT pb 1 band sound at the same general center frequency of the same 2 dBA, does that relationship hold when the person is asleep?
3 And even if we made the assumption, which I 4 think is not unreasonable, that it does, that we should 5 apply the pure tone correction, the key to giving one 6 confidence for doing that lies, in my opinion, in the 7 Krallmann study. Because here is the first time where we 8 have had a significant amount of data collection under good 9 conditions with that type of stimulus and where the 10 arousability is obviously so much greater than it is for an 11 SEL of a different broader band sound. 12 So I think that the reason for difficulties has () . 13 been using awake data involving masking and the like and 14 trying to say, well, the same phenomena can be presumed to 15 lholdwhenyouareasleep. And I think the answer is yes. 16 l BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 17 O Do you want to respond at all, Mr. Keast, to 18 what I take Dr. Kryter's assertion is that he's not 19 entirely convinced that one could simply shift the -- this 20 curve in figure 2 of the Lukas Report by 10 decibels, or 7 21 or 8 decibels, for the reasons that tone corrections were 22 applied to the parent data, and going back to SEL, one 23 l needs to take the tone corrections out? I find the Lukas l 24 i Report terribly stenographic. i {) 25 A (Keast) So do I. 1 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nation *ide Coverage 800-336 66M ' = . , . . . - . _ -- _ - - --
26042.0 10506 BRT 1 0 So there are reasons for shying away from it. 2 You are uncomfortable with it and need to find out why. 3 A What we need to do here, sir, is to back off and 4 look at the situation that we faced at the time that this 5 contention was first addressed. At that time I felt that 6 looking at all the variables, both defined and undefined, 7 all the questions associated with the extent to which 8 sirens might wake people up, that the Lukas Report was the 9 most straightforward approach, that the Lukas Report is a 10 clear demonstration of the wide variability of how sounds 11 wake people up. 12 Now we have, which we did not have, the g-(j 13 Kra11mann report. It's much more definitive. It's a much 14 j more applicable relationship to use at this time than the t 15 j Lukas Report, in terms of awakening people up in that 16 particular environment. But I do not think we should 17 reject the Lukas Report for the wrong reasons. 18 ! O Well, looking at what might be a reason to not l 19 have much enthusiasm for the Lukas Report in the presence 20 of other information, it comes from the fact that this 21 attempt to transform the sound pressure levels in some way 1 22 in order to make different sounds psychoacoustically ' 23 comparable really wasn't a very great success as shown by a 24 correlation coefficient of only .5. I took that to be the l (-] 25 l thrust of the report, so that it gives me some caution as a i_/ ' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ~ . . . ~ . . , ~ , - .
26042.0 10507 BRT ,s ~ \) 1 layman, when looking at these transforms, quantities, as 2 quoting from the Horonjeff EPRI report which I referred to 3 earlier. 4 Those authors express some caution. The linear 5 regression which accounts for only a quarter of the 6 variance in the data excludes the data of the study for the 7 reason the data of the Horonjeff study was collected two 8 years later. But they had some concern about whether it 9 really was worth comparing this attempt which showed 10 psychoacoustics is not entirely a mature science. There's 11 still some research to be done. 12 A I think Dr. Kryter just explained why, or to a 13 certain extent why your observation is correct. That is, 14 that the adjustments which are applied to compute EPNdB i 15 l values are based on tests on waking people and those i 16 ! adjustments are spectral adjustments and adjustments for 17 ; the temporal pattern, sound. There are no adjustments for I 18 j habituation. There are no adjustments for whether people 19 l are actually listening and evaluating the sound, none of 20 these kinds of things in them. They are just reasonably 21 straightforward and surprisingly good measures that allow 22 us to bring together a variety of judgment tests of 23 annoyance data, not sleep awakening data. 24 I If you look at annoyance data you will find that 1 25 the variance is less than it is in the sleep awakening case. (J') ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ll02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
26042.0 10508 BRT 1 0 Mr. Keast, I'm not keeping my thought -- I'm not 2 expressing my thought to you in a sufficiently sharply 3 focused way. I look at figure 2, which might be a plot of 4 any two variables against each other, and see that the 5 relationship as displayed there is one which shows that one 6 doesn't understand how to transform the variables, 7 otherwise the correlation coverage would begin to become 8 respectable. Causality, I would expect 9.95, as was found 9 in Horonjeff. 10 The real point I was trying to get to was many 11 of the counds that go into that compilation are dissimilar 12 sounds, and in your testimony you point out that perhaps () 13 some of them are vaguely similar. It would seem to do what 14 Dr. Kryter did would be appropriate, is start with 1000 15 reports -- not all original work -- but start with that 16 body of data and see what we can learn from it. But I 17 l don't see much merit to that. I 18 A Where do you think we should have started? 19 0 To the extent -- 20 A Lacking Krallmann. 21 0 To the extent that Dr. Kryter's testimony that 22 the test transmission line for noise has spectral 23 characteristics the most close to siren of all these other 24 nonsiren sounds, I would tend to hang right there. If I 25 wanted to go beyond that, then I would go in the direction ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Natenwide Coverase 800 3366646
26042.0 10509 BRT ['\ U 1 that you sort of suggest in your testimony, that you want ] 2 to pick some of those sounds, with accommodation, and try 3 to see what the best relationship is. 4 A You recall we did pick one. I feel comfortable 5 with the Horonjeff data myself, because the presumed 6 high-frequency content of that siren is gone by the time -- 7 the high-frequency consent of the siren is gone, by the 8 time you get in someone's bedroom a thousand feet or so 9 away. 10 So, with that reservation, I feel uncomfortable j 11 with that data, I would rather jump right to -- 12 JUDGE KELLEY. Excuse me. It's just not coming
/~} \/ 13 across. I can't hear you myself, Mr. Keast. I know the 14 reporter is having difficulty. Could you just pick up with 15 the last sentence and speak louder into the mike. '
16 THE WITNESS: (Keast) I feel we have the 4-S 17 data, Krallmann data, which is the most specific data to l 18 this problem and that's the data we should use. However I 19 feel looking at that data it was not unusual to use the 20 other data published by Lukas. 21 MR. GAMIN: Excuse me, your Honor, I also lost 22 the sentence in which Mr. Keast was talking about the l' 23 relationship of the sound to the bedroom. There were 24 several sentences that were gone. I really just ask (} 25 possibly he could repeat that for the court reporter, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10510 BRT ( ~~)
'~#
1 please, because it's meaningless to me. 2 If no one else wants to repeat it, I can ask the 3 court reporter to mark that and just read it to me at the 4 break. 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would like to have it repeated. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: The substance of the last 7 question? 8 MR. GAMIN: He started to talk about the sound 9 as it was transferred or went into the bedroom -- I just 10 lost what he was saying. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you think you could repeat 12 from there? () 13 THE WITNESS: (Keast) What I'm saying is 14 high-frequency energy evidenced by the sound close to the 15 siren is more rapid tea attenuated through the atmosphere 16 and more rapidly attenuated through the walls of the house, 17 which is closed. So there's much more evidence -- that why 18 I we worked with the 500 hertz tone rather than higher 19 l frequency tones. 20 l JUDGE KELLEY: Do you want to take a break? 21 JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes. I think this would be a 22 good point. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's take 10-minute break. 24 (Recess.) 25 JUDGE KELLEY: We are back on the record. The ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
26042.0 10511 BRT
~
us 1 parties were asked to get together with regard to 2 Mr. Riley's proposed testimony. I understand Mr. Eddleman 3 has spoken with Mr. Riley. Where do we stand on that? 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: I understand that the Applicants 5 are going to basically object to all of it, so under those 6 circumstances I talked to Mr. Riley and we basically 7 decided it wasn't worth bringing him up here for that sort 8 of circumstances, bringing the board's ruling on the 9 telephones. Of course, I'm not taking back my position on 10 that, but therefore I believe that we have agreed that what 11 we'll do is just not call Mr. Riley and mark his proposed 12 testimony as Eddleman Exhibit 75, as an offer of proof for 13 the record. If I could have gotten him up here and the 14 board had allowed it, this is what he would have said; and l 15 j just preserve that for the record for appeal. i 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, satisfactory to you? 17 ; MR. BAXTER: Yes. Of course we would have l 18 objected, as Mr. Eddleman said, to all of Mr. Riley's 19 testimony, some of it on grounds other than the board's 20 l declaratory ruling. But we would have objected to the 21 entire thing and we have no objection to this procedure 22 I which I understand simply gets the proposed testimony in l' 23 the case file so that the Appeal Board understands what we 24 are talking about. () 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis, is that satisfactory? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10512 BRT 1 MR. ROCHLIS: Your Honor, essentially we would 2 concur. There are other elements of the testimony that we 3 would object to on grounds other than -- as outside the 4 scope of this hearing as well as the board's declaratory 5 ruling this morning. But we would have no problem with it 6 being offered at this time. We would just want to preserve 7 our rights on appeal. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I wasn't intending to say that 9 all of the objections would be under the board's ruling on 10 the telephone. But essentially objections to all of it. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: The testimony speaks to other 12 subjects and might be objected to on other grounds. The n (,) 13 objections may or may not be sustained. But as I hear it, 14 the stipulation, agreeable to all parties -- let me make 15 this perfectly clear: the parties stipulate that the 16 1 testimony, including the attachment, would be put in as an 4 i 17 l offer of proof. I 18 I'm pausing a bit. Portions of testimony, it 19 seems to us, do come within the ruling on telephones. What 20 sort of a posture are we in if, on appeal, other aspects 21 might be considered relevant and the board has never ruled 22 on it? Do we need, nevertheless, to go through the 23 i testimony subject matter by subject matter and make rulings? l 24 MR. BAXTER: My understanding was that what
~
(' 25 l Mr. Eddleman was intending to preserve for appeal was to , y; : 1 I I l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366M6 . . . . . - . ~ . . - , . . . . - . . . . . - . - I
26042.0 10513 BRT V 1 appeal the board's declaratory ruling. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: If it were just a matter of 3 appealing on the declaratory ruling, the other matter would 4 be in there but wouldn't be f air game on appeal; is that 5 your understanding, Mr. Eddleman? 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mine is a little different, that 7 it's all there to preserve it for appeal. I would sort of 8 -- I was sort of presuming that there was -- in light of 9 the effort of bringing somebody 150 miles to hear 10 objections, basically, to only a few things, that it just 11 wasn't worth it to do that. I don't have any objection to 12 having rulings made on the other parts to which Mr. Rochlis 13 and Mr. Baxter or anybody else wants to object. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: My judgment was that, having read 15 the testimony and considering it to be, for this case ! 16 purposes anyway, primarily telephone testimony, and having 17 , ruled on that, that that would address its major thrust. I 18 certainly don't propose to hold up cross now and go into 19 discussions of other parts, but if Mr. Eddleman wants the 20 other parts of fered and to be in a position to argue on 21 appeal that the other parts -- and by "other parts" I mean 22 other than telephone -- then perhaps we will need to spend 23 a little time, maybe at the end of the day, segregating the 24 parts and hearing arguments and making rulings. 25 MR. BAXTER: I guess maybe what I have to make {} j l l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336 6646
26042.0 10514 BRT g
'd 1 clear -- I hoped Mr. Eddleman understood this -- it is not 2 our position that but for the board's declaratory ruling 3 all of the testimony would have been received.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand that. 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I understand that, too. Just 6 another alternative, rather than having to thrash it out 7 here, there's no reason in my mind why the other parties 8 couldn't file their objections in writing sometime after 9 the hearing and if I have any response to that, I'll get it 10 back to you by quick mail and the board can make its 11 decisions in whatever ruling the board makes so we wouldn't 12 have to spend time on it. () 13 JUDGE KELLEY: So sometime/ certainly within the 14 next week or so, the Applicants and FEMA would say "I 15 object" to page 2, line 5 to page 3, line 8 on a certain 16 ground. Then you would get that in the mail and decide i 17 l whether you would argue against that or just drop it? l 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that the proposition? That's 20 one way to do it, it seems to me. The other would be to 21 just -- if we have time tomorrow, to do it here on the 22 record -- 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Either way. I'm just suggesting 24 that as a possible way to save some time here if we are 25 coming up close on the day and everybody wants to go home. w/ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. - 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage - 800 336 66 4 L _ _ 2 ~ ~~ r T 7 m ~rr'm v u ~ = r r ~ ~ ~ "m :' ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ' * ~ ~ ' ' ' ' * * - - ' " ~ '
- 26042.0 10515 BRT
( 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis? 2 MR. ROCHLIS: As Ms. Moore indicated to me, what 3 happens if the objection is not sustained? Then we are 4 going to hear from Mr. Riley, I assume, at a future date. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Not necessarily. That's a 6 possibility, I suppose. 7 I If we get down to four lines on page 9, you are 8 certainly not going to -- I would assume, in terms of 9 practicality, we might not insist on Mr. Riley's coming I 10 over. 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: We could either stipulate that in 12 or have a conference call or whatever. But that's down the j 13 road. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: It might also be stipulated in, I i 15 suppose. 16 i) Well, should we see how the day goes and if we 17 can spend a li ttle time toward the end of the day and if 18 , the pieces of the testimony are more or less reasonably 1 19 i segregable we can address them here? Mr. Baxter? I 20 l MR. BAXTER: Fine. I'm saying if Mr. Eddleman i 21 is attempting to preserve capability to appeal the 22 , rejection of that testimony on the grounds other than the 23 I board's declaratory ruling, rather than me or Applicant's 24 ! attempt to go go through and parse it out, I think he has to take the burden and tell us what parts of the testimony
~
25 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage P00 336-6646
26042.0 10516 BRT fm V 1 he thinks survive, and he wants to offer. 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I could do that, but I 3 think it might be cleaner, since you all know what 4 objections you want to make and I don't, if you'll let me 5 know what they are. Then I can say: Well, this one, this 6 one and that one don't seem to be telephones. Then we can 7 have something that chops it down to the issues that need 8 to go back to the board. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: In the normal sequence you would 10 offer testimony and the other parties would object; right? 11 Could you at least in the first instance segregate out the 12 parts that you think are really telephone testimony and
/~g .
g) 13 within the scope of the ruling? 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Sure. I could do that. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: And then secondly, take another ' I 16 ! look at the other parts and see which of those you wish to 17 press and then if you could maybe do that over lunch, could 18 I you tell the parties sometime this afternoon, so we'd be in 19 a position to then -- hopefully, I think it's probably 20 . better to go ahead and address it here rather than take it 21 home and write papers on it. 22 But if you could come forward to the parties i . _ _ 23 after lunch sometime and just tell them by page and line 24 what parts you want to pursue, then we can have a ruling 25 today and then if it's a significant part -- you might want {>'% ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 633H646 ,_., e - .v . - ..,..._w.,.-. , ,. . . . . . . . . , - . . . . - . . . ~ . .
26042.0 10517 BRT 1 1 to call Mr. Riley, perhaps you can still do it. g 2 But that seems reasonable. Is that, as now 3 defined, a satisfactory approach? 4 MR. ROCKLIS: Yes. 5 MS. MOORE: Yes, your Honor. 6 I I would request that whatever we do with this 7 , testimony be done at this hearing rather than having to go I P. I back and do something else and writing it, if that's. i 9 possible. 10 JUDGd KELLEY: We'd prefer that also. Okay, 11 Mr. Eddleman? t 12 MR. EDDLCMAN: Yes. 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 14 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 15 l 0 To continue, I would like to refer further to I 16 ! the materials I passed out this morning which, not 17 coincidentally, relate to some matters that Mr. Keast was l 18 testifying to roughly an hour ago. l l 19 j I would like to learn a little bit more about 20 i the so-called on-set correction, which Mr. Keast indicates i 21 may be important in using data for sounds other than 22 rotating sirens and anticipating a response to the siren 23 l situation. It's a matter in Mr. Keast's view of 4 decibels, l l 24 which might be 6 or 7 percent arousability. Not a minor (~1 25 issue. Not a major issue but not a minor ' issue. L J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 -,. . . ... - . - . . . - - - r . -~ .-. .. _ ... . _ , . . . . ,. . - . . - ~ . - - _ . - - ~
26042.0 10518 BRT f 1 In looking at the genesis of this on-set 2 correction, it is my impression that it comes from 3 Dr. Kryter's assessment of some work by Nixon, et al., that 4 appears appeared in his book, 1970, first edition, on page 5 298-299. 6 I have made a Xerox copy of those two pages. 7 My reading of those two pages is in the sense 8 that if one has a sound whose intensity increases with time 9 and compares it -- and then abruptly decreases, and 10 compares it with a sound that abruptly increases and then 11 ' decreases slowly with time, that there's a difference in 12 those two sounds. The thrust is basically comparing a (,! 13 rising ramp with a decreasing ramp. Is that a correct 14 impression, Dr. Kryter? 15 I A (Kryter) That's correct. And the experiment 16 and the data were done with aircraft-tyoe -- well, not 17 ! necessarily aircraft-type noise but basically aircraft-type 1 18 noise. And the interpretation of the data and the effect 19 may be peculiar to them. It was ascertained that -- and 20 felt applicable to real life, in that people hearing a 1 21 noise increasing in level as they are sitting in their 22 , living room when the airplane comes closer and closer, 23 greater annoyance or apprehension occurs. And when it 24 l stops, the declining level, they may even feel a sense of l (~'; 25 relief, so to speak. U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 l l 1 l 26042.0 10519 BRT g L) 1 Whereas if the noise comes on abruptly they do , 2 not have this time to build up the apprehension. That was 3 a general interpretation of those data. I don't think that 4 it is too general a phenomenon or does not -- I think 5 perhaps probably is not relevant to the siren. Again, it 6 was another so-called psychological factor that seemed to 7 interfere with a generalization that if you measured -- 8 let's use SEL, or we could use EPNdB, but if you used an SEL, 9 the general assumption is that it does not matter how you 10 package that energy in time, say over a 20-second period, 11 where you have a slow rise and then a rapid decay versus a 12 rapid rise and slow decay, or triangular rise in decay like
\/ 13 you would with a siren sound -- well, it turns out that 14 that, at least in the data of Nixon et al., they found that 15 this was not the case. That people were more -- objected 16 more and found -- judged to be more annoying the airplane 17 noise that increased slowly in time versus one that 18 increased rapidly, again, for a given PNdB, or a given SEL, 19 physical measurement.
20 0 But the essential point is you are comparing two 21 different stimulus patterns with time, one being an 22 ascending one and one being a desconding one. 23 I wanted to ask Mr. Keast a situation. In the 24 situation of a rotating siren where one has both of those () 25 characteristics -- it gets progressively stronger and then ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26042.0 10520 BRT 1 gets progressively weaker -- why doesn't that, in effect, 2 cancel out, since it's symmetrical? The Nixon is comparing 3 the rising side with the descending side. Dr. Kryter 4 ambitiously takes one data point and makes a curve from it 5 from which you read a value. But I, without ccming to the 6 issue how much weight one can give to one data point, I'm 7 just curious. It doesn't seem to me it's an analogous 8 situation. 9 A The other -- 10 0 I was asking Mr. Keast, since he's the one that 11 read your graph. 12 A (Keast) The right person started to answer. I r~s . j L> 13 would defer entirely to Dr. Kryter in this matter. All 14 that we did is follow the instructions in the documents 15 l that we referenced; instructions in the documents, Lukas, 16 and then going back to the cookbook procedure in 17 Dr. Kryter's book. Those instructions say: Add the on-set i 18 i correction. We added an on-set correction. We followed 19 the cookbook. 20 Q But do you see my point, Mr. Keast? If the 21 siren sound simply went from some low value, slowly up to a 22 high value, and then abruptly decreased, I could see that I 23 on-set correction would be appropriate. But since it goec 24 l up, and then goes down, the other half of it would have a i' (^
~
25 negative on-set correction, if you will? o ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26042.0 10521 BRT G 1 A Not necessarily, sir. I think a sound in the 2 real world that gradually increases and then abruptly stops 3 is perhaps unusual. You will recall that the focus of'much 4 of this work is aircraft overflights. People are concerned 5 about the noise, exposure of individuals around airports -- 6 l 0 But -- 7 A -- that is generally characterized by a gradual 8 rise and gradual decrease. 9 O But, Mr. Keast, figure 172 in the handout from 10 page 299, Dr. Kryter's 1980, shows that in the Nixon study 11 they had not the situation you describe. They compared an 12 ascending pattern with a descending pattern. Isn't that 13 what the data point comes from, Dr. Kryter? 14 A (Kryter) Yes, sir. 15 0 So, the front half of the rotating sound is 16 fgoingtobemoreeffectivethanthebackhalf, but I don't i 17 t see how to get a net out of that other than zero. 18 A (Keast) Are you asking me or Dr. Kryter? 19 0 I'll ask you first. 20 A Okay. What you are saying doesn't sound 21 unreasonable. We just used the procedure as it was called 22 out. 23 0 Well the cookbook recipe says apply an on-set 24 correction if appropriate, I think. That's what I'm 25 (]) questioning, for the siren sound, whether it really is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
26042.0 10522 BRT s 1 appropriate. 2 What is your view, Dr. Kryter? 3 A (Kryter) I think that it is not appropriate. 4 O Mr. Keast, do you accept Dr. Kryter's judgment? 5 A (Keast) Yes, I do. 6 0 Fine. Turning to the second characteristic 7 that's involved in the EPNdB values, namely a tone 8 correction, I would like a little help in understanding it. 9 In my ignorance, I simply read Dr. Kryter's book and 10 attempted to learn and my attention comes to page 297 of 11 the 1970 edition, which is also in the handout in the form 12 of figure 169. This is in the section of the book that is
.s 4 13 I talking about tone corrections and perceived noise levels.
14 And I see a comparison of some frequency spectra, one of 15 l which smoothes the area of variation and another of which 16 l shows some smooth variation with some very narrow spikes, f 17 l in one case what is labeled as 16 different tones, all I 18 I represented by 16 narrow vertical lines. And just below I 19 that there's a two-tone case where it shows two such spikes. 20 I need to get a feel for how wide a band of 21 frequency can a sound occupy and be called a tone in the 22 context of this tcne correction. 23 A (Kryter) Right. The final. definition -- again, 24 l it was a practical definition -- was to use third-octave 25 bands -- the maximum band width you can use for identifying ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
..m. . _ m. _ ,_
26042.0 10523 BRT
-x 1 where a pure tone is presumably present. And, if you have 2 adjacent third octave -- say you have three third-octave 3 sound pressure levels and the middle band exceeds the 4 adjacent bands by -- I believe it is testified either as 6 5 decibels -- that is arbitrarily -- well, not so arbitrarily, 6 it's defined as there is a pure tone component present in 7 that middle third-octave band.
8 Now, in the experiments proper, these were 9 actually pure tones that were added to a broad band 10 spectrum of random noise. It was shaped by filters. But 11 in real life, for such things as measuring aircraft noise 12 spectra where you use third-octave bands, if you have one ('s . ()_ 13 third-octave band that exceeds its adjacent bands, again my 14 recollection is that the rule is 6 decibels, then you I 15 assume, or you deduce that level is -- that there's either l , 16 a pure tone or that the third-octave band is tonal in 17 , character. 18 l 0 The board being at an attractive disadvantage in 19 this proceeding as a result of our ignorance of the 20 , 1 frequency spectrum of the sirens that are proposed to be 21 fused in the Harric EPZ, the only evidence wc have is in 22 Dr. Kryter's original testimony, a rather smoothly varying 23 curve as a function of frequency. And when I look at that 24 curve and the curves on page 296, I see very little (~) ( < 25 j similarity in terms of tones, narrow frequency ranges j i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10524 BRT f
\
l containing considerably more acoustic energy than the 2 adjacent frequency ranges. Are there tones that you didn't 3 draw in there? 4 A In the siren? 5 0 Yes. 6 A Yes. I think in my original testimony I 7 mentioned that the spectra are plotted, that is, the locus 8 of the pure tones as a tonal component, the harmonics of 9 the siren, were plotted at the respective points but 10 connected as is often done by the dashed line. But, in my 11 present testimony on page 4, we use a technique that is 12 more appropriate, or is often used, where a line is drawn
- x. J 13 from specific data points or specific spectral points that 14 represent the levels at those third octaves and the levels 15 ;
in between are not specified. Those are called lines -- , i 16 so-called line spectra. 17 ' Well, it's the fact that the -- these l 18 specifications that I saw that were furnished by Dr. Van 19 , Lee were actually octave band levels for the siren. But 20 ! the finer grain third-octave band, or even finer spectra, 21 were not provided, but the understanding was that they were 22 relatively negligible energy between those, where we have 23 drawn those lines in figure 2. 24 Now, I would defer to Mr. Keast on the physical
^} 25 measurement part.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 _. m -_
26042.0 10525 CRT O 1 O Well, I would like to ask Mr. Keast, apparently 2 he disagrees with that because he thinks there's 3 substantial tonality that has a worth of something like 10 4 decibels, in terms of the psychoacoustic response, in terms 5 of arousability, a very substantial tonality. And I would 6 , expect other areas of science, for example, even optics, 7 when one says "line spectra," I expect to see a bunch of 8 vertical lines. Thank you for educating me that in 9 psychoacoustics it is used differently? 10 A No, I think that the method of plotting and 11 connecting data points leaves something to be desired in 12 nany acoustical spectra. () 13 0 Mr. Keast, help. What is your basis for 14 estimating the tonality of the federal signal sirens? 15 A (Keast) The spectra we have, measured spectra 16 of the federal signal siren, this particular siren is a 17 line spectrum. It has a component at 550 hertz. It has a l 18 component, first harmonic, 1100 hertz, which is 12 dB below 19 the fundamental. It has a component of 1650 hertz which is 20 7 dB below the first harmonic, or 19 dB below the 21 fundamental. And I think that is indicated in a figure in 22 Dr. Kryter's new testimony where he showed that line 23 spectrum.
~4 MR. EDDLEMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Keast, did you say
(} .15 12 dB below the first harmonic was the second harmonic? Is ! ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Covernse 800 33MM6
26042.0 10526 BRT
~
l that what you said? 2 THE WITNESS: (Keast) No, sir. If you accept 3 the fundamental as a zero level, then the first harmonic, 4 as I recall, is 12 dB below that at 1100 hertz. I'll see 5 l if I can get the exact -- yes. And the next harmonic, 1650 1 6 I hertz, this is actually 1660 hertz, is 7 dB below the first 7 harmonic, would be a total of 19 dB. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm sorry, I just couldn't tell 9 whether you were saying below or above. The sound 10 acoustics in here isn't very good. 11 THE WITNESS: (Keast) But I think it's well 12 developed in the illustration of Dr. Kryter's new testimony.
;b -
_J 13 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 14 0 Mr. Keast, could you describe for us the 15 , procedure that you used in determining that the federal 16 signal sirens, if they are to be esed with the EPNdB scale, 17 , should have a 10 dB tone correction? I 18 ' A (Keast) Hold on just a moment. I'm going to 19 j the first edition of Dr. Kryter's book. I'm not privileged 20 to have a copy of the second edition. In the first edition 21 there's an excerpt included in the testimony, I believe 22 it's Exhibit 70 or 71. It is an excerpt that describes the l t 23 ' process for computing EPNdB, PNdB or EPNdB given the 24 spectrum of the sound. 25 Do you have that particular exhibit? [ ') ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
26042.0 10527 BRT 1 0 Well, I have the book sitting in front of me. I 2 happened to be looking at page 473. It might be close to 3 where you are. 4 A That is the correct area. If you will go to 5 page 479, a little before the bottom of the page, a little 6 before the middle of the page it has " step 3." It says: "If 7 any band above 400 hertz of a nonimpulse sound - " et 8 cetera. And that is followed by some notes and it refers 9 you to figure 243, which is on page 480. And f rom figure 10 243 you can read the tone correction from the line labeled 11 " frequency 400 to 1600 hertz and 4000 to 8000 hertz." 12 Now, because I am dealing with a single tone, no (~ y 13 energy, theoretically in adjacent bands, I am up at the l 14 right-hand side of that curve, which levels off at 10 dB. 15 [ I'm talking about figure 243, page 480. That's where the
}
16 : 10 dB comes from. If it were in the range 1600 to 4000 Y 17 i hertz, it would be 12 dB, according to this curve. I 18 j 0 Well, you see Mr. Keast, why I had some problem. 19 The only knowledge of spectra I had is Dr. Kryter's sketch 20 l in his original testimony. I wasn't aware that there was 21 such sharp variation. 22 A I testified last time we were together that we 23 I worked with a 400 hertz tone. It's in my testimony. Don't l' 24 ask me to find it. (, 25 Q Well I guess now I'll come back to Dr. Kryter l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nation *ide Coverage 800 336-MA6
26042.0 10528 BRT O 1 and ask him whether he agrees in a 10 dB, if one were to 2 use the EPNdB scale, that it's ' appropriate for the federal 3 signal sirens to have a 10 decibel tonal correction? 4 A (Kryter) Yes, I think so. 5 0 Well, Mr. Keast earlier indicated that he 6 thought some of the difference between the Lukas line on 7 our figure A and the Horonjef f data and associated visual 8 best fit could be ascribed to the on-set correction 9 considerations and the tone correction considerations. If 10 we agreed, perhaps, on-set correction perhaps shouldn't be 11 given great weight and stayed with the tone correction, 12 what would be the consequences of that in terms of -- () 13 A (Kenst) It would shift the new line, the line 14 that you and I agreed upon on the table -- would shift it 15 to the right by 4 dB. 16 0 Say that again, I couldn't hear you? 17 A It would shift the new line to the right by 4 dB. 18 0 or, beginning again -- 19 A Beginning again, your line would shift to the 20 left by 3 dB. In other words, we have gobbled up by half 21 the difference between the line shown on your figure A and 22 the line I proposed a moment ago. 23 0 Did you say would shift by 3 dB7 24 A Yes, sir. 25 0 So that isn't going to help us very much? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 -m - - -
.__._____: .: ___ . _ _ _ _ _ . .- _. ~
26042.0 10529 BRT O'" 1 A What it will do is say that the line, which is 2 on figure A, and is labeled "Lukas," would move 4 dB to the 3 left rather than -- I'm sorry, 3 dB to the left rather than 4 70 dB to the left. You can judge whether that helps us or 5 not, your Honor. 6 0 Well, if we give much weight to the Lukas line, 7 considering its lack of correlation with the data to which 8 it was fitted, we might consider making that adjustment. 9 , Certainly I thank you for pointing out the fact that figure 10 A is incorrect because of the limited exploration of the 11 relationship between SEL and EPNdB the last time we were 12 i together, because it was quarter of 8:00 in the nighttime. () 13 I would like to continue just a few more minutes 14 in what is partially " odd business" that was alluded to in 15 l our office, apparent ambiguities. ' l 16 ; Dr. Kryter, in your November testimony you show 17 several figures as the quantitative aspects of your 18 testimony. As we look at those, we see that figure 9-A of 19 your testimony shows three data points for the Horonjeff 20 data, the so-called " steady state"; and approximately 109 SEL. 21 That's the highest value for that data set. 22 And then, if you look at figure 4-A of your i 23 testimony you find four data points for steady state 1 24 stimulus at approximately 100 SEL, highest value. 25 Since these are presumably the same data, how ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nasionwide Coverage 800-33H646
. g,v . ., - . ,_ . .. ~. - ,:.p-..,,,..: .. . . n.n o. _., .m. n o_ , a. . - , . - ,
26042.0 10530 BRT (~)
\_/ 1 can this apparent discrepancy be resolved?
2 A (Kryter) Well, I have the explanation. It is 3 embarrassing to me. The abscissa on figure 9-A is a 4 typographical -- maybe I'm dodging the bullet by calling it 5 typographical, but I had written down its SEL ranging on 6 figure 9-A, it says 48, 58, 68, 78, et cetera. My original 7 figure says 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110. In other 8 words, apparently my zero looked like an 8 to the typist 9 and 40 was typed as 48; 50 was typed as 58, and I have -- I 10 wert through it and made a table. Indeed the discrepancies 11 between 9-A and the other tables disappear and of course 12 the relations within 9-A remain the same. There is no
} 13 I problem. And it had no -- has no impact on the testimony.
14 But you did discover a mintake on my part -- or a mistake 15 in transcription. 16 0 Well since the figures are the part of your 17 testimony that compares the Horonjeff with all the other 1 18 data sets that are floating around and the board had to 19 look at it, I just could not resolve it with the remainder 20 of your testimony. 21 A I'm very sorry that it happened, sir. 22 0 It's in the same light as the previous hearing, 23 I came thinking the Horonjeff data only went to 50 decibels 24 because that's what the testimony said. It turns out the 25 first correction was it went to 80. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coverese 800 336-6M6 .f .....
-,..,.y.,,,. ,
, . , .g .j .y , , , ,, ,-
26042.0 10531 BRT 7~ 1 You know when a word is mistyped it's not much 2 of a problem. When a number is mistyped it causes a reader 3 great perplexity. 4 Thank you very much. That resolves that line. 5 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Eddleman, I have finished 6 the questions I wanted to ask in the area of comparing the 7 Lukas line with the Horonjeff data. If you would like to 8 ask some questions, help yourself. 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Are you turning them over to me, 10 Judge? 11 JUDGE CARPENTER: I think it would be useful, if 12 you have questions in the specific area that we have just 13 ([ ) covered, to get them in the record at this point. 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Oh, goodness. Let me go back 15 { into my notes then, Judge. i 16 ! JUDGE CARPENTER: Would you rather wait and do 17 l it differently? 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Pardon? 19 JUDGE CARPENTER: Would you rather wait and do 20 it differently? 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, it had been my 22 understanding, and possibly a misinterpretation, that the 23 board was going to conduct board examination and then 24 Mr. Gamin was going to go and then I was going to go. 25 I don't have any objection to doing it, but what 7-)) x_ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336- % 46 ,s., ,p
.m w e . ..s r u e,.-
26042.0 l 10532 BRT l m 1 I'm saying is, in my mind I haven't been trying to prepare 2 questions that just focus on this one area. I'll be 3 perfectly glad to go through. Got some questions about it 4 but -- 5 ' JUDGE CARPENTER: No. I can continue. I just 6 thought I'd pause. 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: May I have just a minute to look 8 here. I don't have it in a form where I can juct do them I 9 right now, Judge, if that's convenient. 10 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 11 0 Then I'll continue and turn to the Krallmann l 12 ; line on page 8, which I indicated was in error because it's k (~'; 13 1 based on the assumption that Kra11mann exposed his subjecta m 14 to one minute of siren sound 'when in f act he exposed them 15 l to 45 seconds. These questions will be primarily to Dr. i 16 I Kryter, in terms of his tectimony which is a review of the I 17 Krallmann testimony. 18 on page 33 of your testimony, Dr. Kryter, you 19 begin the last paragraph saying, "Although certain details 20 j of the study are not fully described in the report"; I 21 would like to ask, did you find any significant details 22 that were omitted? 23 A (Kryter) Well, the one I felt was very 24 l significant that was later uncovered was the fact that the
,_s 25 i report implied in my diagram, if not in words, that the q '~
i 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80M35 &A6
,y -
3 .. . w .g- y,
l l 26042.0 10533 BRT 1 subjects slept -- that they had a sleep room and a l 2 loudspeaker. There's no plurals used, which indicated, l ! 3 particularly since it was a school, that perhaps they were 4 in a dormitory rora. 5 To me that would have raised two issues. One, l 6 how did they measure the sound level? Was it at the 7 average or-just where was it? There is still some question 8 that might be answered with respect -- that the sound level 9 meter was presumably linear, the best dBC. Dr. Krallmann 10 did not know whether there was an A weighting available or 11 used. He referred me to another engineer who I have been 12 unable to get ahold of, even at 3:00 this morning in Bonn. () 13 But details of that sort, I think, were important, or it 14 was worthwhile to talk with him about them. l 15 0 The issue of whother the decibel numbers in his 16 report are on C weighting or A weighting wouldn't make a 17 quantitative uncertainty of the order of 3 decibelo; is 18 that correct? l 19 A That's correct. 20 0 So my question was, are any significant details 21 given, in the sense of producing, in numerical terms, an 22 uncertainty in the interpretation? 23 A No. I think not. He presents his raw data. He 24 presents it in graphical form, in tabular form. The 25 description of the subjects he also omitted, which he ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 3M 4646 f n x;,. , ,r , v .e,; y . _y3 .py . -
,, ___ y 4:4 gg, y_, m 1. ,,o
26042.0 10534 BRT 1 provided, that they only tested one signal per night -- I 2 thought it was a very well done experiment, particularly in 3 view that the number of subjects were specified and their 4 ages. There was nothing major that I could see that was 5 left hanging. 6 l 0 Moving on to page 4 of your testimony, you show, 7 in the upper right-hand corner of that page, an approximate 8 line spectrum series which I now understand means the 9 individual points are simply connected with a line. For 10 Krallmann in the federal signal, 1000 -- are you sure that 11 . the frequency spectrum of those two sirens are the same? 1 12 ! A Not really. The data that I was provided, as I (~^) w/ 13 , i mentioned were octave, band, and perhaps we also had 14 , third-octave band. The Krallmann data are third-octave 15 band. l l 16 j Perhaps I should clarify that, with a 17 l third-octave bar:d filter you don't really know what's the l 18 ! center frequency of the filter. It is not necessarily the 19 i frequency of maximum energy. So it could be -- we know 20 that it's soueplace within that third octave. These line 21 spectra are drawn on the basis of figure 3, page 10 of the 22 Krallmann report, and from the data furnished by Dr. Lee to 23 , me. I am not certain that they are drawn -- they have 24 l exactly the same spectrum, that they are apptoximately the n 25 h i same. i
~
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
. . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . - . . , _ . . , . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . ~ _ . . . -.
{ i l 26042.0 l 10535 l BRT l (:) 1 0 In view of your previous ~ testimony that sound 2 energy in the frequency range of 1000 or.so hertz, while 3 not the dominant energy present in some sound, could l_ 4 contribute substantially to the psychoacoustic response in l ! 5 terms of awakening, it would seem to me it was kind of 6 important to know how much energy was out there, in 7 quantitative terms. 8 A Yes. I think it can be. 9 Q We continue to be frustrated by lack of any' 10 knowledge of the property of these sirens, in terms of 11 energy versus frequency. I found the Kra11mann report to 12 show me a spectrum that I can't find a federal signal () 13 spectrum to compare it against, other than your little 14 sketch. Probably you suffer th'e same frustration. 15 A Maybe I can find in my papers the spectrum, the 16 tabular spectrum furnished me. 17 But to get to the bottom line, yes, it will look i 18 like the Kra11mann spectrum. Let me find it -- here it is. 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Would it be good'to get this in 20 the record? 21 JUDGE CARPENTER: I have been hoping somebody 22 would someday offer a spectrum, Mr. Eddleman. But we can't 23 seem to get there. 24 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) I have here a table from 25 the Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris siren, O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202447 3700 Nationwide coverage geo 33H646 9:- : s3- (, . .r ; y- ,. 3 ., ,. +ya . wui w. v. . rs - s1
26042.0 10536 BRT O (J l SF1000, octave band levels, which of. course will be the 2 same as the third-octave band, assuming these were line 3 spectra. And these are the data that I have plotted in my 4 figure 2. 5 The question as to whether it's going to be the 6 1000 hertz, or say, the first or second harmonic of the 7 siren that would cause arousability is a good question. I 8 think it appears that the predominant tone is the one that 9 is going to control; that is, apparently it only takes one 10 frequency to cause -- one is deducing this -- weighted by 11 its spectrum so that it is a loud tone. The loudest tone ' 12 will probably do the job. 13 (]) Now, as far as the real life situation, the 1000 14 hertz component is going to be attenuated some 3 or 4 dB 15 more than, say, the 450 component in getting into the house. 4 l 16 So, what we have plotted here are the outdoor l 17 spectra. So if you would ask me, well, specify which of 18 these tones is the one that is the most audible, I would 19 have to make some adjustments for the house conditions. 20 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 21 Q Dr. Kryter, would you like to put that document 22 in the record? 23 A It is fine with me. I have no objection. You 24 know, it was given to me by Dr. Van Lee and the heading of I' 25 it is " Carolina Power & Light." I don't know the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3 2 347 3700 Nationwide Covetase 800 3M4646 ~~ W EI '7I*~~ T E_7_ C 1 E*]~~~ 7 "'- - - - '" 7 ' ' ' ^~ " ~ " ' 'J 'E**' ~ ~ T ~ 2 " ^~ M1W --J E-
26042.0 10537 BRT 1 1 procedures to offer this, but here it is. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: It has come up like a 3 cross-examination point like any other piece of paper. Can l 4 we copy it over lunch and pass it around to the parties and 5 see if there's any objection to putting it in the i 6 transcript? That's all we had in mind, l 7 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 8 0 I would like to know if Mr. Keast would agree 9 that that's representative of the Harris sirens? 10 A (Keast) I'm trying to figure it out. 11 . Yes. I think it is. As Dr. Kryter has pointed 12 out, it is reported in octave frequency bands and so it 13 (]) does not discretely identify the dif ferent harmonic 14 components of the tone. But I think in terms of level and 15 in terms of level shape, it is indeed. l 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Could we ask the Applicants or 17 j FEMA to just Xerox that over lunch for the other parties? l 18 MS. MOORE: We'll take care of it. : 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. I 20 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 21 0 Continuing to focus on the spectral ! 22 characteristics and also in terms of our figure A comparing 23 Krallmann with the Horonjeff data, I note part of the 24 Horonjeff experimental technique as described on page 21 of , i ! 25 the Horonjeff, et al., EPRI report, reads as follows. The ( l l l l ! ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 344M6 -4.,.. . . . -
- g. .j - , . . , , , ,
, , s u, .
26042.0 10538 BRT . I last sentence of the first paragraph: "Each sound 2 (originally recorded out-of doors) was electronically 3 filtered to account for the transmission loss of the 4 typical residential structure so that the sound heard by 5 the test participants would resemble that experienced in an 6 indoor listening environment." 7 I, in reading the Krallmann report, couldn't 8 help but be curious. As a layman it seems to me, in very 9 crude terms, what Krallmann's experimental technique 10 amounts to is he put the siren in the room with the subject 11 rather than transmitting the siren through the walls and 12 the windows, so that those individuals in his study might (]) 13 have been exposed to a sound spectrum that may or may not 14 be different from the' spectrum shown in his report -- in 15 any case, where the ciren is outdoors and the individual is ' 16 indoors. Did you examine that aspect of Dr. Kra11mann's 17 study at all, Dr. Kryter? 18 A (Kryter) No. I did not look into that 19 particular point. The recordings -- the initial recording 20 that he made, the initial recording that he made -- I'm 21 trying to refresh my memory, he says he's recorded it. But 22 l he does not state whether he had the recording microphone 23 indooro or outdoors. And he also does not show any ! 24 particular filtering process to simulate a particular wall 25 or house condition. ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Netionwide Coserase soo-)) M 646
. ... . . . . . . , . . . . ~ . . . , . . . . , . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . ... _ . . .
.+- + .
y .- 2 .t._
26042.0 10539 BRT s f i I would estimate -- as a matter of fact, I'll be 1 2 in further correspondence with Dr. Krallmann, but I would 3 estimate that this is probably an outdoor recording played 4 indoors via loudspeaker. 5 On the other hand -- and it may be that this 6 Dr. Senhouse that I'm trying to get ahold of, who was the 7 engineer, will be able to tell us whether this spectrum was 8 measured in the test chamber and whether it corresponds to 9 an indoor spectrum from an outdoor recording or not. 10 The difference it might make, they tried to 11 simulate it -- of course, the loudspeaker characteristics 12 themselves would be important variables. I think one can I (~)
</
13 i only conclude that the house transmission characteristics, l 14 I which we showed in our first testimony, would give, i 15 l relative to the 1000-cycle component here, on figure 8-A of 16 hmyoriginaltestimony, the average wall transmission at i 17 l 1000 hertz is approximately 26 or 27 decibels and that, say 10 j 500 hert: would be around 23 or 24. So there could be a 2 19 l or 3 dB reduction in the first harmonic relative to the i 20 fundamental on the Krallmann spectrum. But I think that 21 would probably be the major change that one might -- might 22 be -- might be present, if one used the indoor versus an 23 I outdoor siren recording. I 24 0 There 's no indication in the report that I
,, 25 anything other than recording a siren sound outdoors was
( , m-I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
26042.0 10540 BRT 1 used. I was wondering, by looking at the frequency 2 spectrum shown on figure 3 of page 10 of the Krallmann 3 report, whether that looks to you like the siren sound 4 indoors or outdoors? 5 A Without more comparative data, I could not see. 6 We might take a look here. We see that we are talking -- 7 the peak level of the Krallmann data, or spectrum, which 8 looks to me about 400 hertz instead of 500, but anyway it's 9 about 80 decibels. And the next peak, which looks to be 10 around 1500 hertz, seems to be around 73 decibels, or 7 -- 11 7 decibels less. 12 If we look at the outdoor spectra we have for () 13 the FS-1000, we find there's a difference of 10 decibels 14 between 500 hertz and 1000 hertz outdoors. This -- there's i 15 not enough data to answer your question, your Honor. There 16 are not enough data available to us, in my opinion. 17 . O Well, if I simply plot my reading from your l 18 I original testimony of the smooth points it looked to me as 19 though the German air raid siren had a substantially -- had 20 substantially more energy around -- frequencies around 1000 21 hertz, than ou( siren. 22 A well, actually 1000 hertz -- the difference is 23 identical; that i .9 70 versur 80 decibels, doing between 4-24 i to 500 and 1000 hertz, in figure 3, and it's 1000 decibels { 25 i in this spectrum we have of the EFS-1000, so in that sense 1 C:) l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cowage 900 336 6646 _T*T_____*_-_-___---_______ _.' ~ _^X T - *** X T s ' M *'
,X**'i E ! U ' *-
26042.0 10541 BRT
<w 1 I think there's close agreement. But the Krallmann data U
2 shows another harmonic or peak at about 1500 hertz, which 3 may or may not be in the -- well, no, it doesn't appear. 4 We don't know, since we have octave bands for the FS-1000, 5 and the Krallmann we have third-octave bands. 6 JUDGE CARPENTER: I think we could probably use 7 some lunch at this point. I would like to consider a 8 little after lunch what I see as perhaps, just using the i 9 Krallmann data, where a siren sound was played through a 10 speaker, individually, to estimate the usability of a siren 11 sound that originates outdoors and arrives at somebody's 12 ear -- that might not be soundly conservative, and that in 13 order to be conservative one ought to decate the Krallmann 14 result for that area of the study and I would like to give 15 you gentlemen over lunchtime to think about that. 16 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Could we make one comment 17 l that might be pertinent? It is unclear whether the 18 spectrum reported in Kra11mann's paper is measured indoors
- 19 or outdoors. However, what is of particular interest about 4
i 20 that spectra is that if you sum it up and determine the dBC 21 value, it comes out about 84 dBc. 22 At 30 meters, otherwise, 100 feet from a siren, l 23 84 dBC is a very low level. The sirens installed around i 24 the Shearon Harris plant are 125 dB. This could, this low 25 level, could indicate that what is shown in the paper is a O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide coverese soM364p6 _ , x. . .
. . e _ ; s,
26042.0 10542 BRT 1 spectrum measured indoors, 100 feet away -- 30 meters, but 2 indoors. 3 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Or, if I may add, it 4 could be measured actually in the bedroom. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: It's after after 12:30. We'll 6 pick up again at 1:30. 7 (The document followss) 8 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was 9 recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., this same day.) 10 l 11 12 13 14 15 ! 16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' O I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nasionwide Coverage 900 33H646 d ,
T:131 i
.ti 1}i a e'ij i= =1 l.
a I$ !!3 is gg )it, ,1 t i , l.i. i n, *1-{ p. i]) j, 18
~g.
4:
; }j ita. 4 1.
l .'. g
'll t
!$f ij s . :I.e!t 1:1 1
}ll 1h : Ikli- i
.; i jz 8 ,
*yI
- i
- - i 1gj!:
8
- i 4 i
ii a1,I. g il'h i {
.I'riI {2 li. Is- li g. :i L 3 t
- .t *jij Is j i
.1 }3.j '? -
O ]
!!bli .1. j t
- 3;3
.3
=11.!1 .i.
!; ..l1i
.fn ,!i.i
.i t 5
-i 2i i
!i . il!( 5,, , uf ,ij ij
,jlil] .
ill! i{[i!! n !! IIl{]312 l 11l: I i t - i?i t!)I L 11 dIt 4. il 4 Ik; I 5I I e
- 1 i e : h! 1 ji a 8 2 I : =i n
1 2 3 .i i i : I i i I e s1r : .i 11 : : ! i! , lt .i J - ; . . . 1 t
.i .! ! . , .i .i i .i- ! i
. I 1ii i
. . .-- t gi : :
- : .. .-~.
3 : ::n -7. . . .. l s J - - , - ,
- = as: : ::
a
. : : s e.
s u s, . . - --
..e i al : s s- *r4
. i. .
. . s er 4 d j
3l s 1 i
- e
- s i
sin i - i- i sii sii
-.. .g . e en e*em l
\
I !. .sense , i I h{- I i 1 5 5 2 #
- j l $ } 1 l
! ,t '.
]
. ) ~.
g; { . 3 -l . 1 3
- a d
I * (eI gg 5 7 g l a : ; I l - I
. a: . 1
= =
p)! * - - - 8
- 1 -
31 f .t . . . s... 31 - 1 - - g (8j OC i g .. $ .I e y a insg :.q dis ein .q .~.7 ,
) s... . risigg i y es : a sess as: I i sii *;;
I
. __ j'_l*]{
_ . i l i. s. ~ 1 - g 3 ]a : } } l I j .:- f i:
, .ll 1 ; g ,
J ;,j 4- i .
. 3 3 1 1 ,
I il [ i 11 }} } d j
- f. ,
3,1 1
,i ,e- ,
i 8 1 : ' ' ar := a
, 8 8 i r a 1
.e :
-., s
.i.'.E. .? "8 .e 4 s .! 3! .E 1 3 I . 1 gg - . . x 5
l t l
,gi, ,,gaie e ** * . . ,
L - - - - ~ ~ ~ .,,_.,_w---M '"
l l l l
.I #*
g 4 ' 'I 1& I.
,O u ,, < . e e's, ; s, 1#f g-}i !a i 5 ,1 i I;i ;'
i , tjJl, E1. i s 1 l I4 8 i .< 3 I}1 i I II glijbf
=
i' !'i 1 558 Sidl<
. I I
fil'
.t!!I I!
A3.ljI.. ql:i b b' h' $ ilf! ilf! ilt (Ir if }
. 2 e : , =
g i 3 2 2 3 3 1 11 88 g g 1 1 1 1 3
. g g 8 3 .. . . . :
- e a .
9 99
- a a :::
E E I i i I I 1 ! Os .: (f .. 3, if} l8 f5 Aji hj 11 1 3k! ll , ifl : ens
!!: ": ;::::: ; ; ; : :!] :
- sissai essagg ding aginggiii=si g gs:
- s::c: 33 :y : a: a s , s e s : r y s_ e a :
- sissai essagg ding aginggiii=si g gs:
t '
, i ti i*
l i i L]3.'s LI i 11 = v4 i I I -1 I I I 1 !1. ;l? ' i
! j i ! s i ,s i, '
I, i I .gh'idi
. , i 11 11 11 I }i-;
<i
< 3 i + 4 1 4 g-
- : : : i : . 13-1 li J! li il !! li i Oh O '
6
- p. ,
J - s .
~
!=
1-ly! g!j 1 iI 4 t:i.g]- II .
- i l i .*. j s'
. {jI- ,
=3 s g4 --2 .
. h- l
- i. .. 5 t 1 , - i =
<. .:..t..
g 13 3 I* l, f ! iljl:siis 1 3 i
!8 2- 1:
- 31 3
'. 3l! 5 3
i
!i- i }.1*
! i,,fI,fil1{1 1 #
is 8 i- J
]J, g}18iii - !Jii l s'8i )1 1 1:-1a]-ii i iIl:
2 n g l. l. illa3,qll 1))53 1 y8 8 1 !j!, j 1 2-3 ijt'13 I !aj1 ti. a 2 - 8 31 1 = g1 i. 1 g =51 f 3 '
- 3 #1,1.i u is . .
i let sisij gjgt= i i 3
} .i-z - .]. ! .l . na3i 21,3,;
>3 : g 81g
- i. n:. t :s -
I t
- .js i Ikl '
r- $! 31 ,5: 5 )1 1: s 1: L.;: .
,!l. l 8 111 i
; 5.83 s ,1 1] I i 1
2 1 4 Ii.ji:21 e i. 2 :
-a .e -.]22 --
t i [ a:
)>
=
i a i a 3 e i:1[I! .: : r l
== =
t . i. I t *2 ::
- i
, }:33 .1. a -
1
.s mg 3
2 8 8
; a si,Ist] .is, 2 .
s .
.. :ll . I 82 8
8 2 r I {ti);i
-8I 31 3I;*
e 1 i 1
,s .! } i
.,.i}
2
.'l
.j 1,-
- a. i 5:: -
8 4 i ui
. . . ~
- t l l i :.
a.: ;1 }
. 1
- 3. a :
i
- e- i 1
3 .g , i I :11 l1 - s
- s
-
- 181!i -
J I8
- ( *- !
i 2- [ !2 !s .i 2 I 3 j
- ., t i --
1 rial is 5 5 -8 i.i;3 s 3.:.1 1i.i : : I>< <' I : 311 i
- -i 1 1 t, i
3i;i.;.i: t- 4
- i i11 - 1 .
- -s-
}. .
* ;gg I__s a t-3f t i. l.}. 1 2
t s . l all 23jil
~......--
l i t ::.r* j i 2 Ni.glis is iiri i ine=iini )3 si I 8
,..,,,., ri is
- = ,I s, d.21 1 ,Iti _ i s. iI a :::: :
si
- - 1 3sti
}]l'.t1 4.Is.g.s -g.l'iilo 1 t
8 . s. t - g
- I i
'f }t iil.i3'3ilIl$
i - i 3 - t y ,:I.'aliI ,} 3 izI t5 st as3.1 :,t i I i :: :
- 1
---- s -
3
!!- I 7
1: a
- 1. *: -st:)a.3y.g.1 g
-1 . - is 3
3 85 I ti f! =4a 3 3 - p 5 j:38=1,1j!:g - 3 l i 2 ;. 12 'I:Is182j1 I . f3 iiil
- 1 - 3 -
- n a
i i g! -si jE 41 I
)
i si 8 . I s.38- - t I;t! j !! j
!!ililiI3:-
n11sti,1.2512.i e e -j=. i. e i .!.! r.1 .. ? r .. .i:11. , s il! 3. 7 . 3
?
4 k
*w."
- --**WM4.IliF9mWup t .w-%*pWP9edilpeph yP"-Mf M Wr et w Wtr N9898 M ***' t *"+9 ** F '#P**h'--We'e**'*-949*=-e'-*8F"'-*_**g*'P"%#
*=*'?*W-'4*.F***" 'F** * * * * * ' ' " * * * N'*'*"**"-**
p , # - .p .# Y +3 . 9 E I ~
ll i i:11- - i.i
. .i a > . z4 .,. , J a
- 13. ,. 1 :!s>
li.33 3 t.t 9 .3 , e 2 3 3 .. : 1a j i a e _er, g s . j II:l* 1't.! *]1 5:
*1:11 .jt a gj ))
*sit i fi 2 3: -) .88]
!== ))
a
- 1;.
=.y,s .
- y .
g a l' 1* 1:4 .. J is 8 =* ij}15 II 1. , f 12 I 3
- I II I.'
.i
- 1 3 gin
.a. l .i 1}85-1 I}I:t .i 8
111.181 I . 8 Ii i 1l as I.i - 1 1 I Id.i : : : II I I 15 i I 5
- i i Ia I l }a I I g a a : 1 &
I I I
! ! ! 3 33 gI gI
.i : : .o.g
- . . es .s
** ,e.., - -- - , ----- -- - --
5 ::::= : = = a an=== x : : ::
. I i sin a i -sini : i i ss 3
i u I ,8:!:!..,* - ,-- , ..
! 28! s s ***!! !! ! :!
2 . 0 - y 1: 1 33-t i: i ij
.s .i .
!b .
. 1 .s s. i i s v. . y
- i .t i 88 2 11 a 15 1- 8]
; -o il.
-: : -i : = 3.
z i .!. lI.l u .i
'il' .II$i!i 1
i .i. -t.: i 1
-2 = =
! i a: gag :::::::::::: ses== ras: 3:ssg ge a ga i}:}
g 33 u igigig ss : issin i si i 8 1 1-1
-i- i 1 3
=I
_I
-!O I re 1
is a i : i. . i!
. 2 1I5 - .i j _ g g g3 g 33 s
- 1. .; i - t . .: : i s,
- : .i s.
. 3 .: s. i .
- s i- .: si -
sa e s := 22 na . a ., 3.. i .s 3 a s. 5 s . .
. !. -E.
Ia.E g _. .l e. 1' I.-. 22, 4
.I],j .
*/ 8 r
p -. . .,,s , . _ ,__a
,.u a 7. m 5 . _ .
w"-" __
^ ' ' -
-_--W
\
i / + '/ : .
/
,cy ,
f' V s' I i
+ /, fI CAROLINA POWER n 1.1ENT CCMP M Y SKE.%RCN MfSRIs M S SIREN llo-F51000 d N015E S0JRCE F0WER LEVEL IM.*JT T_. _ -l f M ton 2*o en ** mzi
- = = 35 a 125 250 om m.. a m., u ,., ,., o., m.. m.. in.o
, ,1 .,, m.2 .
= = * = = aa
,,, ,., ,o. .... ro.
us;o. a. e # 4
, e- . ,-
s .,.m -R,um mm,
\ gy,gg:n HAKRIS MS SIREN 1,0-FS1000
~i,'I P.ETECROLOSICAL IMP'JT CCMDlIIDMS
.J i m. ... -
.. ,..es mm L- nin n e SetEn w S) estag) g"'""$,,,ogni mM .m .R um- = *2 3._ ,m ,,
u 2s.7 28.2 su ,s u
,, , , , >2 m.. 2.s M '
,.e -
p r'% o
).
Y . w , A '
T l l -
/
r
. *e >
P
-t I, 6 CAROLINA PC'KR n LISHT CCRPANY SHEARCN HARRIS MS S! KEN 870-FSICC0 y = N0l!! SOURCE PC KR LEVEL IN?'JT n- (
2000 4000 9000 (HI) i,.. 250 $00 1000 31.5 63 125 . DBA CBC . INCEI SOURCE 149.0 147.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 163.0 153.0 163.6 0.0 0.0 - 161.2 1 S!RD SHH070 . z 50.00 435.00 E16HT ABOVE GRounta 10 0.0 YO= '0.0 20= 1
. i i
s. i s - . t
'\ CAROLINA PCER L LISHT CCFJMY , '- SHEARCN HARRIS es SIREN 870-FS1000 P.ETECROLDE! CAL 1hPUT CCMDITIONS .
H2= 60.05 MET G S Hl= 10.04 MET D S I~ kr . MIRD WIND SPEED (MPS) TERPGATURE(C) RELATIVE BARCMETRIC H1 H2 HUMIDITY PRESSURE (MR OF H6) H! H2 R XTH DAIE HOUR DIRCCT10M >~~ YEAR SEASCW 23.2 54.0 752.0 2.5 2.8 28.7 7 7 12 222.0 1984 S r i (av}
-) .
- 4. .';4 1 .
x ,
'-----~~-_3--.:.~..n._,_- __ -~ - -. . . . . . - . . ,.
-~ '< . * ' :- = - 3,.
T y J' l i
'/ 1' .
1
/ l 1
C x m. t -
+ I, fI 9
~
CfJiOLIMA POVER n LIShi CCEPW SHE ncu HE Rts AMS $1EEN 870-FS1000 d NOISE SOURCE PCWER LEVEL I!G'JT ' _g 250 5H 1m 2W W - M M3 31.5 63 125 INE1 SOURCg t!A CPC 141.0 147.0 0.0 0.0 163.0 153.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 161.2 163.6 1 $1 REM SRS070 . EIET AM SW S.M 0.0 10= 435',.H ids 0.0 T0=
.' i
-b i
s e. . f
'\ CAROL!MA PCUER k (ISHT CWW SP.EARON HARRIS Ans SIREN 870-FS1000
=
..ETECROLCSICAL IMFUT CCMDlilCMS
, j H2= 60.05 METERS His 10.06 EETERS
)- $.r. WIND WIND SPEEDIMFS) TL9PERATURI(C) RELATIVE BARCHETRIC H2 H! H2 HuntDITY PRESSURE (M CF M61 HOUR DIRECTICH Hi )- YEM SEASCH HCNTH DATE 752.0 22.7 29.2 54.6
222.0 2.5 2.8 7 7 12 g964 S
~1
/ :
a
*f
- l 2.
re I' .
" , j
- - + _ _ - _.. _
c7,-.-, .
T s i /*
- / r .
/
(s ,
.- e t
t 9
-r 4 fI CMOLINA PCER & LISHT CC. ANY SHcMCM HARRIS MS SIREN 870-fS1000
"-~ NOISE SD $CE PCMER LEVEL INPUT
-{
250 5M 1000 20g e p ml) 31.5 63 , 125 23A CBC IMPEI SOURCE 149.0 147.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 163.0 153.0 163.6 0.0 0.0 1 SIREM SHH070 161.2 50.00 0.0 10= 435.00 HEIGHT AB0VE GROUMD. iqs 0.0 Y0s 1 4
*I i
s - . C McLIMA PCWER & LISHT CCRF MY
.x , - sf SF.EARCN HARRIS AMS SIREN 870-FS1000 METECROLCSICAL IMPUT CCMDli1CNS H2= 60.M ES H1= 10.06 RETERS
} L'<. WIND WIND SPEED (MPS) TEP.PERATURE(C) RELATIVE I M0PETRIC H2 H1 H2 10110111 PRESSURE (MM OF H6) HOUR DIRECTIUM Hi >- YEM SEAEM RCNTH DATE 752.0 2s.7 29.2 54.0
" 2:2.0 2.5 2.5 7 7 12 1986 S O
s O'
.j .
.I .
<- .'y i .
W
-_._ T ** _ _ ___{*
- t .s s .~ n,s
i 4
. riv U h J'
./
*/ .i '
[
/
m . . ,
-(.)'
t t, t Y s
=
CMOLINA POWS h LISHT CD.PANY SHEARCN HARRIS ANS SIREN 870-FSIC00 d NOISE SOCRCE KWER LEVEL INPUT ' T l ] r,.. 63 125 250 500 1000 2M0 4MO
- 0000 (HI)
C8A D8C 31.5 IN00 SOURCE 0.0 153.0 149.0 147.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 163.0 161.2 163.6 0.0 -
'. I SIRO SHH070 .
50.00 HEISHT A80VE GROUN p gg. 0.0 YO= 0.0 !> 435,.00
, 4
- e i
e 4, i
.x - .
i CAa0 LIMA POWER & L!EMT CORFf.NY SPIARON HARRIS ANS SIRD 470-FS1000
- METEOROLOGICAL INPUT CCMD1110NS .
H2= 60.05 MET B S His 10.04 HET D S }* L., . . TDPDAT1)REIC) RELATIVE BARolETRIC WIND WIND SPEED (MPS) HURillTY PRESSURE (Igl 0F HE) N2 H1 H2 H1 DATE HOUR DIRECT 10M ) ~~ ' EAR Y SEASCM MCMTH 29.2 54.0 752.0 2.5 2.8 28.7 7 7 12 222.0 1994 S V i
/
'O s.
1 J.
#- .),
(*., . -e
- .s.
b.%q ~ e.- ~~ ,,- . :~ , , . .. - . , . n.' ~
' y r.- n: . r., _. ..,., , , , , ,
26042.0 10543 BRT rm 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.) 2 Whereupon, 3 DAVID N. KEAST 4 and 5 KARL D. KRYTER 6 were resumed as witnesses and, having been previously duly 7 sworn, were examined and testified further as follows: 8 MR. ROCHLIS: We'll go back on the record. 9 Judge Carpenter will resume his cross-examination. 10 EXAMINATION (Continued)) 11 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 12 O When we broke for lunch we were beginning to e' q) 13 focus on the question of whether the sound that's the 14 subject of the Krallmann study were exposed to - people 15 were exposed to were outdoor siren sounds or indoor siren 16 sounds, in terms of their frequency spectrum, and the 17 question of whether that would be a.significant issue in 18 trying to interpret the results of the Krallmann study for , i 19 the applicability of the Shearon Harris situation. l 20 I would like to ask the witnesses if they have 21 any further thoughts? 22 A (Kryter) Yes, sir, I have a thought or..two to 23 add. 24 First, let me say, in thinking about the figure 25 3 in Krallmann, the levels are such that they could have g)3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 . ~ -
..n.,,,., ... ~. _ . , ,
.~.....,,,....-....-...,..,,...~,-.,r,,<, _~
26042.0 10544 BRT
.n 1 been measured indoors.
2 Secondly, if you couple that with the fact that 3 they specify the level in the bedroom for each bedroom, in 4 terms of the overall level, 40, 50, 55, et cetera, dB, and 5 presumably dBC, or dB linear, I would think it is not 6 unreasonable to think they also made a third-octave band 7 analysis, since they obviously had sound measurement 8 equipment in the bedrooms. 9 But let's set that one side and ask the question: 10 If this was an indoor spectrum, or an outdoor spectrum, 11 which one would be more conservative as a comparative basis 12 for an indoor FS-1000 in real life Shearon Harris? () 13 If we look at these spectra we find that the 14 outdoor spectra is given in the document that we were all 15 given a copy of, showing the cctave band levels of the 16 i FS-1000, we find that the level in the 500 hertz octave f 17 i band was 163, 1000 hertz, 153, and 2000, 149. 18 . In brief, the difference between the 500 and 1 19 1000 hertz was 10 decibels lower in the 1000 hertz band. 20 Now, one would think that, as far as audibility 21 is concerned, that the 500 hertz band would be the dominant, 22 j most detectable and stimulating frequency on the PNdB, or A 23 weighting, they are given relatively the same weight. 24 In terms of tone correction, the 1000 hertz band, r-) (_/ 25 I, as I show in figure 3 of my present testimony, page 10, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646 y;, . 3 .-~..-~-.,-.,.m.-..,_--.....,.-...~.. - - , - . . . . , . . - .
..--.-.,:.---_.e._,.m
26042.0 10545 BRT
'# 1 1000 hertz _ band-i:s given'perhaps half a dB downtone 2 correction, perhaps half a tone greater than the 500 is, 3 which would reduce the difference between the relative
-4 detectability or audibility of the 500 versus 1000 hertz 5 component of the FS-1000 siren by, let's say 1/2 to 1 6 decibels. In other words, the psychological difference 7 would only be 9 dB, rather than the 10 dB, as reflected in 8 this spectral measurement.
9 So that in that regard I think that the outdoor 10 spectra would not -- the dominant component would 11 definitely be 500 hertz. But if you listen to this FS-1000 12 inside a house with the windows closed, now you find you () 13 can expect the 1000 cycle component to be attenuated - 14 approximately 3 decibels -- 2.3 decibels more than the 500 15 hertz component, which would, relatively speaking, make the 16 500 hertz component even more outstanding than that siren 17 sound indoors and outdoors. 18 If the Krallmann data are the outdoor spectra, 19 this would mean that the 1000 hertz tone could have 20 contributed somewhat more to its audibility than the 21 FS-1000 cycle component would contribute to the audibility 22 in the house in the Shearon Harris EP2; because of the the 23 greater attenuation of the 1000 cycle component. 24 However, as we look at the Krallmann data, we 25 see the difference between the level at approximately 450 O l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Na6onwide Coveraer 800 3366646
- ' -n' - ~ '- '
Xf'n _ _-_-__ -_ - - '- - - - :~~~~r-
26042.0 10546 BRT 1 hertz and 1200 hertz is only 6 decibels, which would 2 suggest either that -- which would suggest that the 3 Krallmann indoor -- the Krallmann siren is presented and 4 shown in this figure as a indoor siren spectrum. Or at 5 least it's a siren spectrum that would be more like the 6 i FS-1000 spectra indoors would be. 7 To say it perhaps in summary, the difference 8 between the 500 hertz component and the next prominent 9 harmonic is 10 dB in the FS-1000 outdoors. In the 10 Krallmann data, the difference between the 450 hertz 11 component and the next most prominent harmonic at 1200 12 hertz is 6 dB. () 13 Now, if we consider attenuation, we find that 14 the FS-1000 difference between its 500 cycle component and 15 ; its next harmonic, 1000 cycle component, should also be of 16 ! the order of 6 to 7 dB. 17 I don't know whether this is clear but I would i 18 I deduce that the Krallmann data are for a indoor siren 19 spectrum, or at least there for a siren spectrum that is i 20 l relative, in terms of its line spectrum components, about l 21 like what you would expect from the FS-1000 heard indoors. 22 l That's really the bottom line that I get from this. And I i 23 l think the ancillary question you asked, Judge Carpenter, is I 24 , whether the 1000 cycle component that in 7, 6 decibels less l
,- 25 than the 500 component, whether it contributes O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3)2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 s - . - ,
26042.0 10547 BRT I ) 1 significantly to the arousability of that sound, and I 2 think that possibly it adds 1 or 2 decibels, at the most, 3 to the overall arousability. 4 In short, if you got rid of the 1000 cycle 5 component and had just the 500 hertz pure tone without the 6 harmonics of the siren, the effect would be 1 or 2 dB less 7 arousability. But having these harmonics adds some small 8 amount. The reason they don't add more is because their 9 level is so much less than the fundamental component. 10 Dave? 11 A (Keast) I think I agree with that with a 12 slightly different interpretation. That is, I think that 7 (j _ 13 it is the frequencies in the range of 500 hertz which 'are 14 l contributing to arousability in both the case of the 15 Krallmann sound spectrum and the 1000 spectrum. We do not 16 know whether the Krallmann spectrum is a indoor or outdoor i 17 spectrum. At worse it is an outdoor spectrum and so if we 18 f took it indoors and removed all these higher frequency 19 components, I'm saying that isn't going to significantly 20 affect the arousability. 21 If you go into Dr. Kryter's book and look at the 22 adjustments for dB, you'll find that they are essentially 23 flat in the range of 500 to 1000 cycles and then begin to 24 peak up in the range of 3- to 4000 cycles. So that sound (~, 25 which is going to have the greatest effect on arousability V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 ., yg. g , , e. . . . . - . - -. . . . . .,
26042.0 10548 BRT O 1 is in the 3- to 4000 cycle range and it's negligible on 2 both these spectra. 3 So whether it's attenuated through a wall or not 4 is not important. It's the 500 hertz -- the component in 5 the 500 hertz frequency range which is the most significant. 6 I would like to take the opportunity, too, this 7 morning -- we talked about spectra and I indicated that I 8 did not know where in my testimony last time I had 9 indicated that prior work was done at 550 hertz. I have 10 found it referenced. Actually, Lisa was good enough to 11 find that reference for me. It's on transcript page 9631, 12 the question and answer that appear at the bottom of the () 13 page starting with line 19, which indicates that all of our 14 work was done assuming a tone 550 hertz. Some of the work 15 { was done with data in the frequency band about that range, 16 such as background noise studies, attenuations, frequency 17 l loss, and so forth. I 18 Let me clarify that by quoting the transcript, 19 on page 9631, the answer that begins on line 21, it says: 20 "Yes, the analysis with respect to the siren tone was done 21 assuming a siren tone of 550 hertz, the data on attenuation 22 l of that tone through the walls or the window of the house 23 was based on published data and the data that we measured 24 in the octave band -- that's garbled -- or the 25 one-third-octave band centered at 500 hertz, which is the (a-) l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 m ma unn- : .cmamm --~- n r - - ~ ~-- ~ - - -
<-r - -~~- --- -a~~~- ---J
26042.0 10549 BRT
> 1 standard band."
2 0 Continuing to move through your testimony, 3 Dr. Kryter, with respect to the Krallmann report, on page 9, 4 line 5, well, starting the previous line I'll read the 5 whole sentence: "The most apparent explanation for some of l 6 this difference is that the siren signal is more salient of 7 I
, noticeable and sleep arousing than" -- it seems like 8 notis sable is trying to modify something that's not there.
9 A (Kryter) The word "of" should be the word "or." 10 Salient or noticeable. 11 Q Oh. Would I be correct in interpreting this, 12 ! that this is qualitatively analogous to the tone I
/.
13 l corrections that we have been talking about earlier, s/ i 14 without attempting to put any quantitative interpretation 15 % on it? 16 , A In that sentence, that's correct. l 17 l 0 Thank you. 18 j Moving onto page 12, which shows your figure 4 1 19 j relating to the ef fects of habituation, sleeping 20 ! disturbances due to noise, I am not able to understand what 21 the two curves are. The lower curve, I take it, is the 22 reduction in response as a function of the number of 23 awakenir.gs. The upper curve shows an increased frequency 24 i of response as a function in time? I
, 25 i, A The upper curve is zero reactions. The people
%s ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 - p. . - y .. 7w, -~<r.,.,-.. .. ~ ~
>- - - - ~ -
- r _ -
26042.0 10550 FRT 1 in the sleep research have discovered that it is just as 2 important to record the number of zero reactions to a 3 stimulus as the converse, as an actual reaction. So these 4 two curves are complementary. In other words, if you had 5 30 percent awakenings you can expect that 70 percent of the 6 , time there were no reactions. So this is just the converse, 7 although they don't add up completely to 100, they do 8 record the zero reactions to a stimulus. That is, they 9 observe no effect of the noise and that is recorded as a 10 data point. 11 0 So they are not two different things? 12 A No, sir. They are from the same experiments. 13 ( ') O Reflection of the same phenomena. I4 Moving onto page 14, the eighth line up from the 15 l bottom is part of a sentence that reads, beginning the I 16 previous line: "All things considered, it is estimated 17 j that the probable somewhat underestimation of arousals from 18 the Krallmann zero to 1:15 a.m. data, relative to Horonjeff, 19 i approximately all night data, is compensated at least I 20 l partially" -- and then it goes on. I didn't understand 21 this underestimation of arousals from the Krallmann data. 22 They are the data of midnight to 1:15 a.m. They are what 23 they are. 24 ) A (Kryter) Well, what we are saying is relative gx 25 l to the Horonjeff, approximately all night data -- the thing 1 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686
- - . . . . , . , ,, ,- , ,, . .- -l
26042.0 10551 BRT
> 1 we are trying to point out here is that Horonjeff tested a 2 number of hours during the night and then averaged his data 3 except for the final hour. He did not test final sleep 4 hour, but he averaged his data so that his data presumably 5 showed more arousal because, through the night as Krallmann 6 found and others have found, you become more easily aroused 7 later on in the night than you do this first hour and 15 8 minutes. So, therefore, relative to Horonjeff, Krallmann 9 for his first hour and 15 minutes, his data would 10 underpredict arousal relative to Horonjeff who averaged for 11 the whole night.
12 In other words, if Horonjeff stated for his ([ }; 13 first hour, there was no underestimation relative to 14 l Horonjeff. But because Horonjeff averaged it over the 15 whole night, there would appear to me to be a possibility i 16 l of some of that underestimation, comparative s 17 underestimation. It is not, of course, absolute. I 18 l The other factor that we mentioned, and which we 1 19 had to soften, was that -- and also in Krallmann in his l 20 I sleeping arrangement, there was presumably a little more { 21 l arousing than the "own bedroom" in the Horonjeff studies. 22 These factors are commented on. I 23 f Q Coming to the conclusion of your review, do you l 24 j feel the Krallmann study, because the sound stimulus was a 4 zs 25 l siren sound, and because the number of subjects -- I l ( : \ l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M66 3 , ; .-
1 26042.0 10552 BRT
.n J l believe something like 615 were substantially greater than 2 the number of subjects that Horonjeff used, that the 3 Krallmann data is a better basis for a night -- an 4 empirical estimation of siren arousability?
5- A Yes. I think there is more positive factors 6 than those that recommend the Krallmann data. There are a 7 few negatives that might be mentioned. 8 For example, we mentioned the fact that, using 9 the Krallmann data for the first hour and 15 minutes of 10 sleep is conservative, because then is when people are in 11 tne deepest sleep. Using the data for that time frame 12 seems to be appropriate because it is conservative. If the n () 13 siren occurred presumably at later hours of the night, 14 there would be more people aroused than we are showing for 15 , that time period for Krallmann. So, in that regard our 16 suggestion is that the Krallmann zero to 1:15 a.m. data are 17 conservative. 18 ' The fact that the Krallmann data were not 19 overstimulated in their experimental procedures I think is 20 also a recommendation; the fact that the subjects had to 21 get up and get out of bed, to indicate their arousal -- 22 that they were aroused is a good measure of having been l 23 aroused. We are able to explain the differences between 24 the Horonjeff and Krallmann data because of the saliency or f3 25 pure tone factor and the habituation factors, both of which U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 3- T : ~ .. . ~:;mv . . i g n ~ mv /m. :az' .wm - :n w = r' m -
26042.0 10553 BRT 1 have been quantified and substantiated by other research. 2 So there we can explain that discrepancy or that difference. 3 We have already explained the differences 4 between the Horonjeff -- one set of Horonjeff noises versus 5 the other set of Horonjeff noises, on the basis of spectral 6 differences. And the Krallmann data, while they have these 7 conservative features, it is still true that it's still a 8 situation where the people are not sleeping in their own 9 beds, which would, in my cpinion, be something of an 10 increased arousability, but that this is more than 11 relatively minor compared to the sense of the quantity of 12 the data that are obtained and I think the calculations and () 13 the data clearly show, at least a 20 percentage point 14 difference for a given indoor SEL, between the F.rallmann 15 data for the zero to 1:15 a.m. period and the analysis we 16 ! made of the Horonjeff test transmission horn data in our 17 previous testimony. 18 i 0 In preparing your previous testimony, if the 19 Krallmann report had been available to you, would you have 20 pursued the Horonjeff data? 21 A No. I think that the Krallmann data are several 22 j orders of magnitude more relevant, both in terms of 23 validity with respect to the stimuli involved in this sleep 24 response measure, in the way it was measured, and 25 reliability in terms of the number of subjects involved and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
- y. g. .. . , , ,y .. m .
26042.0 10554 BRT
's 1 the range of ages.
2 O Thank you. 3 A I should observe that when I talked to Professor 4 Krallmann just to discover whether he was alive or not, I 5 think he was a little surprised in this very limited area 6 of psychoacoustics. Apparently this work that he never 7 f published turns out to be the definitive piece of research. 1 8 May I add that I hope to continue correspondence 9 with Dr. Krallmann and asking him to publish. 10 0 Mr. Keast, what is your reaction to Dr. Kryter's 11 review of Professor Krallmann's report? 12 A (Keast) I agree with it. I agree with it.
; 13 O Do you feel that we should continue to riddle in 14 our minds about whether the line, straight curve that Lukas 15 l got by applying the regression techniques to a wide i
16 l assortment of data, whether we should puzzle over why 17 j there's a difference between that Lukas line or that i 18 i Krallmann line? Or since we don't have to apply a tone I 19 correction, I don't believe, while using the Krallmann data, 20 because it's siren sound, it's relatively straightforward. 21 Only time integration of the stimulus, it seems to me, to 22 apply the Krallmann data. 23 A (Keast) Well, you have asked a couple of 24 questions. First of all, I do agree with Dr. Kryter that 25 Krallmann is most pertinent to this issue. However, I also ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6686 p.ny . . _ , -
,y., c .. .. . .e, - u m e. ,n~
26042.0 10555 BRT 1 feel it is really appropriate to try to see if we can 2 explain the differences between the results that Krallmann 3 has reported and the results that have been observed 4 elsewhere. I think in Dr. Kryter's new testimony, he's 5 done a very nice job doing that, particularly the element 6 of habituation is very important. 7 Let's face it, we are all habituated to ordinary 8 noises. We are. We are all habituated to trucks going 9 down the street, airplanes going overhead. 10 It is highly unlikely that very many of us are 11 habituated to siren sounds. It's probably a kind of unique 12 sound popping up in your bedroom. So I do think it is () 13 important to explain why the Krallmann results are higher. 14 We are not picking something out of the blue. They are 15 !. higher. I think Dr. Kryter has explained why. Just as a i 16 matter of interest, I have taken Mr. Krallmann's results 17 . and put it on the Lukas curve in order to show that it is l 18 I well within the range of variable data that pairs on the 19 Lukas curve. If you wish, I will give you that data point. 20 0 I'm still frustrated with comparing apples and 21 oranges. For the purposes of resolving this contention 22 that's before us, which speaks only to level of sirens -- 23 wnat levels of sirens do in terms of awakening people, I 24 I think the Krallmann data are applicable directly. And l 25 whether or not some other sounds with a limited number of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 r e .n-. w - n p ..e.,ywm+,,, , ,
, -, . v c. + w u ., s . . ? v~ . . - ww~ +x v vn.
26042.0 10556 BRT 1 people gave different data doesn't much affect our decision 2 as to where it will come out. 3 A I will accept that. 4 Q For a review article for some psychoacoustics 5 journal, yes. But for a decision in this proceeding -- 6 that's my question, whether we need to resolve the fact 7 that these other sounds when converted to effective 8 perceived noises don't predict what Krallmann observed 9 exactly, isn't really much concern in terms of resolving 10 this contention. 11 A Fine. I might point out that the board's 12 l interpretation of Krallmann, as Dr. Kryter has just pointed
- i 13 1
( a) out, is the most conservative interpretation of Kra11mann 14 because it uses just the deep sleep time. 15 O Yes. i 16 j A (Kryter) Your Honor, may I adjust one point s 17 i with respect to Krallmann? Although I agree and address I 18 i myself strictly to Krallmann in conclusions, I do believe i 19 i that it is helpful to point out that Krallmann's data are i 20 substantiated by these previous research; that is, we can 21 predict his data if we look at some of the psychoacoustic 22 principles that are available and that he is not out there 23 I all alone, but that his data are entirely believable frcm a 24 ; psychoacoustic point of view.
,- 25 l 0 Yes. But that's a path you were reluctant to s i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 ...c~.w . , - . ... v. p . . . , - x . m ,. . .
26042.0 10557 BRT
~
l walk from Horonjeff and absent some point where you might 2 come to -- I presume specifically the tone -- what you are 3 suggesting is the major difference of the tonality of the 4 sirens still, and yet vis-a-vis the test transmissions -- 5 A And the habituation. 6 ! O And the habituation? 7 A And those two, on the basis of those, predict 8 there will be about 2 percent greater arousability by 9 Krallmann -- once we know Krallmann -- than from the l 10 Horonjeff data, which I think is comforting. 11 O Well, I think, Dr. Kryter, it's a useful 12 , perspective. Because if the board simply used figure A as (~ 's li (_) 13 a finding in a sort of naive empiricism as to the range of 14 estimates that one could have made in this proceeding, we 15 I go all the way from that as a particular SEL, from 30 16 i percent to 70 percent arousal. That's an intimidatingly r 17 , large uncertainty. 18 A Yes, sir, it is. I 19 ! O So that your description of how we might look at 1 20 ! this is very different than just simply looking at these 21 three lines and saying that's the testimony we had before 22 us up tc this morning. That's the way to decide. 23 A I think the Lukas line, so to speak, as you 1 24 ! pointed out, is merely the best fit to a hodge-podge of I
~
25 r ') l data and there's no rationalization of it. l l l l I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 j - . - . , _ . _ . . _ . , . . . . . . - . ~ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . , . . - . . _ . , , . . , ,
1 1 26042.0- 10558 I BRT g () 1 The Horonjeff data, on the other hand, are 2 consistent high correlated data and require some 3 explanation and this is what we tried to provide. 4 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. I have a few 6 questions. 7 EXAMINATION 8 BY JUDGE KELLEY: 9 Q First of all, just so I understand in my mind in 10 a sort of simplified way what this problem appears to be 11 with respect to interpreting Krallmann, whether it was 12 inside toise or outside noise -- I know both witnesses () 13 spoke to that. But do I understand it correctly that if it 14 were outside noise as we've used that phrase, they would i 15 have gone cutside to some distance away from a siren and i 16 turned it on and recorded it; then they would have gone 17 inside and turned down the volume to some level because 18 they were inside, just to account for the walls? But that 19 would not completely approximate our situation, because 20 when you really listen to noise inside, certain frequencies 21 are filtered out or muffled out? But the better way from 22 our standpoint would have been to locate a siren some 23 distance away from the building, go inside the building and 24 turn it on and record it and we really don't know which of 25 I the two approaches he took although as I understand it O i 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ll02 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 c , - . -- ....,.....- ~.-,.-. . . -.,. . ., .. _ t ,.- . . ,_ ,.. ,., .,.. . . , _ - _ _ , . . . . . . . . . . , _ . ._.
26042.0 10559 BRT 1 there are indications from your reading of it that they may 2 have done it inside, is that correct? 3 A (Kryter) That's correct, it was either done 4 inside or it turned out that the spectrum that they 5 actually used was like the spectrum you would expect from 6 the FS-1000 inside the house. 7 Q Okay. When they hit on these different levels 8 that they achieve by different muffling effects, I believe, 9 anywhere from 40 to 60 in 5 decibel increments, was that'an 10 attempt to approximate the level of incide noise that might 11 realistically be expected? 12 j A Yes. That's correct. It was both, I think, l (j 13 experimentally determined -- or nice, as'well as realistic. 14 j Whether it's realistic depends upon how far away you are 15 from a siren, of course. What siren levels they had in 16 mind I don't know. Perhaps Dave, you know? 17 i A (Keast) I was just going to say that what they l 18 mean by " muffler" is obviously an attenuator, a calibrated I. 19 ) version of a volume control on your microphone. And my 1 20 interpretation of the Krallmann paper is that they were 21 attempting to control these lines that we have been talking 22 about all day, here. It's not a single point but a line. 23 l In order to do tnat you have to expose people to a variety 24 of different sounds.
<-~1 25 l 0 But for our purposes, since we know or we have a
- I RJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 rgw- ,
.e
26042.0 10560 BRT
/,,
J l record basis for concluding what the inside and outside 2 noises are, as long as we know that the noise they are 3 talking about are noises inside, it doesn't matter except 4 for the possible effect of filtering out certain 5 frequencies; is that right? 6 A (Kryter) That's right. 7 0 I think you both said that you feel the 8 Krallmann data is really the best available thing that we 9 know about now. Dr. Kryter in his testimony has analyzed a 10 number of different factors which would go to explain the 11 different results derivable from Horonjeff. As I read your 12 testimony -- well, it wasn't entirely clear to me, 13 (]) Dr. Kryter -- if I'm sitting here as a decisionmaker and I 14 have to decide, ultimately, well, how many people are going i 15 to wake up and I've got three-studies in front of me and, 16 let's say, take Horonjeff versus Krallmann, and just as a 17 hypothetical number, not for purposes of asking my question 18 -- let's suppose that Horonjeff gives me 70 percent arousal 19 and let's say Krallmann gives me 85 percent arousal. Then 20 if I believe that Krallmann is overall better than 21 Horonjeff for my purposes, do I just take 85 and forget 70? 22 j Or do I take these different factors you pointed to and try 1 23 to weight them in some way? 24 { For example, you focus particularly on the 25 saliency and habituation, on page 15 of your testimony, l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33H646 ...7. ., _. . ,.y .,.:,. . .,..m..,.. ,-x
,,2., .
- t. , - ,.s sqv , ,
26042.0 10561 BRT 1 The saliency is actually the pure tone siren. Sc, if 2 that's worth as you indicate a 9 -- 8 or 9 -- 3 A 9 decibels, or 8 decibels -- let me get my 4 glasses on. 9 decibels. 5 0 Okay. Let's say salient -- let's accept for a 6 fmoment that saliency is worth 9. If I can arbitrarily 7 convert that to percentage of arousal, it will get me 8 another 5 percent people awake? 9 A 10. At least 10. 10 0 okay. Let's take 10. And I say well, obviously 11 I'm dealing with real sirens and thess were real sirens, so l 12 i t'll take all 10 percent, and I'll Horonjeff my base and n
,) 13 this moves me from 70 to 80. Habituation to me was a 14 l little less unclear, whether that was a plus or a minus, 15 L whether I would regard habituations as a plus or minus in 16 ! this analysis?
t 17 l A well, with respect to Krallmann, there was much 18 i less habituation than Horonjeff had because he tested the 19 j subjects over four nights and he averaged, which gave you a l 20 ' two-night average, whereas Horonjeff was over 21 nights and 21 then averaged. We presented data, again from other studies, 22 independent studies, showing that that would give you about 23 ; a 10 percentage point difference in arousability. Again, 24 another 8 or 9 decibel effective difference in level. So, 73 25 I if you say, it's a plus as far as the siren is concerned re LJ \ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
26042.0 10562 BRT g)
\-) 1 Horonjeff --
2 0 So if I were doing this computation, columns 3 with pros and cons -- 4 A Yes, sir. 5 0 -- I would say, for habituation here -- a la l 6 Horonjef f -- is something that produces more reliable l 7 results and, therefore, I won't give the Krallmann analysis l 8 any credit on the score of habituation? Isn't that the way l 9 that goes? 10 A Well, you will take Krallmann as it is, as being 11 what is more real life, in the sense that this is an 12 alerting signal that people are not habituated to. () 13 0 Right. 14 A Whereas the Horonjeff data you have to, if you
- 15 want to convert it into real life arousability numbers, you i l 16 should add about 8 or 9 decibels, or 10 percentage points l
17 to it, because his subjects were habituated over 21 nights. i 18 l 0 So they got used to it or slept through it, or 19 tended to? 20 A They tended to sleep through it a little bit. 21 0 I guess I got confused. When we were here last 1 22 time, I may be misrecalling what you said, but I thought l 23 that habituation among experimenters was deemed to be a 24 1 virtue in the sense that if you only do it once or twice, 1 1 25 l you are just not oriented to the situation and the results Os l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ll02 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 600-33H646
. . ..... ,. . . .. .. ,...._.m.-...-- .
.y_,.. ._...,__m-..
7 .
. 7, ,, . y . ,,-. . _
26042.0 10563 BRT m k~'I 1 may be kind of all over the map. Whereas, once you go into 2 a longer program you get more consistent data. 3 A Well, it depends upon what you are trying to do. 4 If you are trying to establish or measure the difference, a 5 close difference between spectra, for example, or between 6 age groups, then you want to get a lot of data. I was 7 speaking to that. 8~ 0 In other words if you were comparing 9 10-year-olds and 40-year-olds, you want to habituate them a 10 long time? 11 A You don't want to test one night, because they 12 reach a more stable level after a number of nights of () 13 testing. So, in that sense, that'was not an appropriate 14 statement of mine -- or it was not in proper context. i 15 l 0 So would you say -- I think you have said, , 16 habituation here is a plus for the Krallmann side of the 17 account? I 18 A In my opinion it is. It's more real life, yes, l 19 the lack of habituation is real life. 20 0 So if I take that approach, and that's worth 21 another 10 percent -- 22 A Yes. 23 0 -- that gets you up around 20 over Horonjeff 24 while being able to say that those factors being taken into 25 account, that they were consistent? 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 -..,--.re- ,, ., 7
, 7_ , ,
26042.0 10564 BRT s 1 A That's correct. 2 O Are there any others? I think you indicate that 3 those two factors are the major ones in your mind; is that 4 correct; is that right? 5 A That is correct. ', i 6 1 Q You didn't do a bottom line, did you, in terms 7 , of who would wake up, Dr. Kryter? i 8 A No, I did not. l 9 0 Do you have an opinion on the subject? l 10 A Well, my figure 1, which is a rather free hand, l 11 ! in a sense is a bottom line, and I have also a figure, 12 essentially the same figure drawn on a large scale with ( ( .) 13 grid lines, in words the bottom line is that between the 14 : SELs, in the bedroom of, oh, 55 to 95, the percentage h 15 arousal will be 20 percentage -- at least between 20 to 25 16 lpercentagepointshigherbyKrallmannthan it was found to e 17 l be for the Horonjeff, et al., curve. i 18 0 That's helpful. Thank you. 19 , A And this could be added to the bottom line 1 20 j conclusions of direct arousal from the siren that were 21 deduced in the previous testimonies. 22 O Mr. Keast, I have been speaking with Dr. Kryter. 23 Would you concur in general with what has been said? 24 A (Keast) Yes. (m , 25 i O Thank you, Mr. Keast, just a few small ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 . - ~ . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .
._.. . . ~. ., :,. .,
26042.0 - 10565 BRT r~s ( l 1 questions about your testimony, just for clarity on my side. 2 Page 4, the bottom of the top paragraph,.the only change -- 3 you are talking about the map here: "The only changes are 4 the house locations identifiers and the size of the siren 5 designations." I'm not quite sure what the " size of the 6 siren designations" means? 7 A (Keast) Each siren is labeled with a number or 8 a letter. 9 O It made them bigger? 10 A It made them bigger, yes. 11 O The calculations you did following, in part, the 12 board's procedure and in part your own procedures, led you () 13 , to the bottom lines that are set forth' there. The thing I 14 l wanted to ask you about in particular, you begin to discuss l 15 ! on page 11 the differences between your calculations and 16 the board's are in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 percent and i 17 i you point out in your answer 14 at page 11 that the biggest l 18 single factor arises out of the fact that you counted 19 everybody, as I understand it. Dr. Nanaveja for FEMA and 20 the Staff, in his approach, had eliminated anybody under 18. 21 You spelled this out and I won't belabor the point. He had 22 knocked out those under 18s, I understand. Am I right that 23 your figures assume everybody in the EPZ? 24 l A That is correct. 25 I g- , O And this would be down to, infants, anybody?
\J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646 , -_...r-,.. . .....,y_., ,, .
- m. w, . ., %
- 7. , x _
26042.0 10566 BRT !
- 1 A That is correct.
2 O I find that including everybody -- I find that 3 raises questions in my mind. I'm inclined to agree that 18 4 is pretty conservative. It's not too conservative in terms 5 of somebody waking up and waking up the rest of the house, 6 I would think any teenager, anyway, could do that. 7 Probably would. But to go down to infants, from two 8 standpoints -- we have some evidence, I believe it's in the 9 record, that curving on arousability on age -- I guess 10 that's it here -- yes. It's Dr. Kryter's original 11 testimony, 6-A on page 22. What that shows is a line that 12 depicts age -- I'm trying to translate it too much -- do a (') 13 i you know the curve I mean? 14 A I am familiar with it. 15 ' O It just suggests to me that up to page 10 it is i 16 i pretty hard to wake people up. Even 10 through 20 is r 17 l harder than 20 through 30, and so on up the line. It i 18 ! reminds me of the phrase " sleeping like a baby." There is t 19 1 something to that. Might they not sleep harder, sleep 20 through sirens? And, even if they don't, if they are 21 really very young, would they roll over and go back to 22 sleep or would they realize there's an accident at the 1 23 plant and go wake everybody up? ' 24 ; I guess on that theory I wonder about going all I
,_, 25 the way down to infants? ? '\ l l
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 --.n... ....--..--. - . .. ... ...- . . ., .-. ~. . , , . .
._..n--......-
26042.0 10567 BRT ( ' J l A Well, it's certainly true that children are much 2 harder to wake up. However, as the children get younger, I 3 think the parents are more likely to be awakened if the 4 children are disturbed. 5 If you have a very young child in the household 6 and that child for some reason is awoken, at least my wife ' 7 used to pop out of bed pretty fast, even if the child 8 didn't do anything more than just roll over or let out a 9 little cry. ! 10 So I think parents become sensitive to sounds 11 produced by very young children. Very young children are 12 very hard to wake up, as you have just pointed out.
/m l ; ) 13 i However, we have to look at the other end of the age 14 spectrum and realize that there are very old people out 15 ! there in the EPZ too. If you look at the census data it 16 turns out that .here are approximately 20 percent of the 17 ; people who are below the age 13 and approximately 20 18 ! percent of the people who are above the age 55 in this t
19 particular EPZ. f 20 For purposes of developing a statistical model, i 21 which is all we are trying to do here, we are saying -- I 22 am saying that we can offset the greater sensitivity to 1 23 arousal of the elderly people against the lower sensitivity i 24 l to arousal of the youngsters. 25 0 I'm not sure I agree with you, but I understand 7-C ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 M46
~~ ^'
e .a_
26042.0 10568 BRT ' \ l your point. But it is a pretty significant difference in 2 the two calculations. A percentage point, one could ignore 3 it I suppose -- but what about the approach of saying, well, 4 18 is too conservative but infants are too young and so 5 I'll say 9, cut it down the middle, or 12? What would you 6 think about that approach? 7 A I'm happy with the approach that I've taken. 8 However, the data are available in my testimony for you to 9 do it anyway you wish. 10 O It's a pretty simple matter of arithmetic, is it 11 not? 12 A Yes. (,) 13 l-i 0 It gives you more people, so more households 14 wake up and so on down the line. I don't know that either 15 j of our witnesses are really experts here on just where to 16 draw that line, the variables that I have mentioned. r 17 Dr. Kryter? i 18 A (Kryter) I might add that since we proposed, or l t 19 ' I proposed the cutoff at 18 years in my original testimony 20 and that's what Dr. Nanaveja used, it was on the basis of 21 this curve that was cited. I think there's one thing to be 22 said. I get the impression that people say: Well, a child 23 15 years old is going to go around and wake people up. 24 Obviously they will if they are awake. rm 25 Our recommendation had only to do with arousal l l l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l
1 26042.0 10569 B RT 1 from the siren. It had nothing to say about this cascade 2 effect, or the interfamily effect, that the children go and 3 wake up other people. I don't know whether that entered 4 into the -- in some people's consideration that 18 was too 5 high an age at which to suggest arousability cut off in the 6 l data. But what we were addressing ourselves to was i 7 l strictly arousability from the siren on the argument that 8 any 18-year-old or younger would not be living by himself. 9 l You would be living with, on the average, two adults. And 10 since the two adults would be more easily aroused than he I 11 - would be, according to the age function, sleep arousability 12 , curve, it seems to me to be conservative; or to expect that (~' ' (_ 13 usually one of those two adults would be awakened and would l 14 l start the chain reaction, awakening the youngster. 15 l I'll admit that this is conservative and I would 16 have no reason to feel that one could not reasonably say: 17 l Well, let's lower it to some extent. I just wouldn't make 18 it clear that the rationale was that these youngsters would l 19 I always be in a house with adults and that the adults would I 20 be more easily aroused by the siren than the people under 21 18. Therefore, there is no -- increasing the probability 22 of arousal of a household via the 18-year-old and younger 23 group is not necessarily -- may be a little bit i 24 l unconservative. ( ') 25 I
, O But, if you do count the under-18s all the way
(_- ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10570 CRT k '1 I down to zero, then it does wonders for your percentage. At 2 least it does six or seven points. 3 A Yes, if you consider them. 4 0 Because you don't go around separating out 5 18 year-olds and adults and all the rest, it's just people. 6 And then you make certain assumptions based on the 7 arithmetic, if you go through with two , three , four-family 8 houses? 9 A That's correct. Two- and three- and four-person 10 households. 11 0 If you were basing this just on the likelihood 12 really of two things, whether a teenager is going to awaken () 13 and, number two, when they wake up whether they will wake 14 up everybody else or somebody else; what age would you pick, 1 15 most realistically? Or would you go down to an infant? ' 16 Wherever? 17 A No. Again to fall back, rather than on 18 intuition, on what little data or -- what the data will 19 tell you is that as soon as you go under the age of 18, on 20 i the assumptien that 18-year-olds and younger live with I 21 older people -- 22 0 okay. 23 A Then I think the probabilities are that the 24 household -- that someone in the house -- that an adult in 25 the household is going to be the first one awakened and not ( ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366646 3 ~,.~ .; .7 ,7. ,. . , .. _3 _ - . . . - ..7-- _;.~._ ~ - . - .
26042.0 10571 BRT (~) ks 1 the 18 or younger person. l 2 I'll admit 4here will be times when this won't 3 be true, probably. But statistically you would expect, I ! 4 think, that to happen. Perhaps someone could calculate the 1 5 probabilities here, on the basis of deriving these i 6 functions. If you could, then I agree that you should go 7 get it. If it's going to go in any direction it's going to 8 go down to the age of where the trade-off or probability of 9 a two-person household versus a three-person household -- 10 may take you down to the age of 15. It is beyond me. I 11 couldn't calculate that. Maybe Dave can. 12 A (Keast) All I want to do is offset those people () 13 with youngsters under the age of 18 against those people j 14 who have a mother-in-law or father-in-law living with them l 15 l in the house and say: Hey, this one is more alertable, 16 this one is less alertable. Let's balance them off. The 17 l model is complicated enough as it is. I 18 0 You would say that ages are randomly distributed 19 and for every house that has got some young kid, there's 20 somebody over 60 who never sleeps -- 21 A That is the assumption, yes. 22 EXAMINATION 23 BY JUDGE CARPENTER: 24 O Just to follow along just a little bit, a little 25 while ago we were talking about programs using the results O l j l
)
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6H6 [ , _4 l *[e*__ =
- of '
af w _, . ' A F f_ -- - ea - -
26042.0 10572 ERT
'x- 1 of the Krallmann study as a basis for estimating the 2 alerting that might occur in the EPZ. All we know is the 3 mean age is something like 43 years old for those subjects.
4 And in Dr. Kryter's previous testimony, he suggested three 5 , curves based on his interpretation of Horonjeff, one for 65 i 6 years, one for 45 years, and one for 25 years. I can't l 7 really tell that they are anything more than symmetrically 8 around 45. So I take the balancing you were referring to 9 as being around 45, plus or minus 20, gets me down to 25 10 years of age. Offsetting, now, the greater arousability of 11 those older than 45 with the less arousability of those 12 younger than 45, I think I've used up my offset by the time f; t-13 I get down to the age group 25 or so, if the population 14 frequency is uniform as a function of numerical age, if 15 { there is the same number of people at all ages. That's why ; I 16 I was curious about the census data. Do you see what I'm 17 i saying? i 18 l A (Keast) We have in Dr. Kryter's original 19 testimony -- 20 l 0 Another way of doing this, if we were going to 21 do as you suggest, I'd take the central point as age 35, if l 22 we use a life expectancy of 7 -- 70. And then I don't use 23 a 45-year-old curve, 1 use a 35 year-old-curve. 24 A It's a physiological phenomenon and not a l 25 l mathematical phenomenon we are dealing with. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
I I 26042.0 10573 BRT 1 If you go to Dr. Kryter's original testimony, he 2 has the sleep adjustment curve that we have just talked 3 about which, as I recall is his figure 6 -- 4 A (Kryter) 7-A. 5 A (Keast) I'm talking about the age, 6-A, which-6 goes up to age 75 and down to age even zero or 5 -- l 7 depending on how you interpret it. I call that curve 8 reasonably symmetrical about roughly the 40-year age. , 9 Mr. Horonjeff's data were acquired with people I 10 whose age centered around 40 years. I don't recall what 11 Krallmann's data were, but I suspect they were about the 12 i same. I (]) 13 ) A (Kryter) 43. 14 A (Keast) 43. 1 15 There is, in addition, of course, another table 16 in Dr. Kryter's testimony having to do with adjustments in 17 threshold for the elderly which I don't think are 1 18 particularly pertinent in this case. , 19 JUDGE KELLEY: We'll probably have some recross l 20 later. I think the board is through now I'll suggest a l 21 short break, 10 minutes or less, and then we'll get to the 22 state and Mr. Eddleman. 23 (Recess.) 24 JUDGE KELLEY: We'll go back on the record and 1 l 25 go next to Mr. Gamin for the state of North Carolina. I i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4646 l ? . 7 . . .. ._ ,.;
. 4
..g,,.,.y......,,..7,..
, ,.y
26042.0 10574 BRT N 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. GAMIN: 3 Q Mr. Keast, I want to thank you for coming today. 4 Where is your business located? 5 A (Keast) We are in Concord, Massachusetts. 6 0 You are here on behalf of CP&L; is that right? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q Are you being paid for the present hearing or is 9 this just on a voluntary basis? 10 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I'll object. This is 11 a limited hearing held to consider matters that the board 12 b has raised in its memorandum and order of January 16. 'x_) 13 Mr. Keast testified last November 4 and 5, and was 14 available to have his qualifications considered generically 15 at that time, and the Attorney General's office was not I 16 there. This is not, as I view it, an opportunity to go l 17 ; over ground that could have been covered then, that has not 18 l been raised anew by the testimony offered by either party. 19 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I have a very limited i 20 j purpose. I'm going to be asking a series of questions and 21 I want a very limited amount of background just to set the 22 i stage. I am not intending tc go into a great deal of 23 ; qualifications, so with the Court's indulgence, if I could I i 24 just have one or two more questions I'll leave that line. (^') 25 l JUDGE KELLEY: As a general matter, I think l x_/ , 1 l 1 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 2D2-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10575 BRT O 1 Mr. Baxter's point is well taken. If you have a question 2 or two, go ahead. 3 BY MR. GAMIN: 4 0 You are here then in a business capacity with CP&L; 5 is that correct? 6 A (Keast) That is correct. l 7 0 I noticed late in your testimony you said words 8 to the effect that all we are trying to do here is to 9 prepare a statistical model. Do you recall having said l 10 that? 11 A Yes. 12 j O And I believe you also said, in the last few I l 13 minutes, that the model is complicated enough as it is. Do 14 you recall having said that? 15 A No, I don't, but I'11 accept it. l 16 0 Okay. Now, towards the latter part of the 17 afternoon here I believe that at least Dr. Kryter, on one 18 I or two occasions, perhaps you, talked about the necessity 19 to be "real world" in this kind of analysis. Do you recall 20 words to that effect? 21 A Yes. 22 O And do you accept that as a proposition? 23 i A Yes. 24 0 Now, do you understand what is at stake here, 25 Mr. Keast? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Comase 800 336 4646 p . .. _ . . . .....~...y..- . . . _ , . .
26042.0 10576
.BRT ~ - - 1 MR. BAXTER: I object to the question, 2 Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. GAMIN: I'll rephrase the question. 4 BY MR. GAMIN: 5 0 In your opinion, Mr. Keast, what is at stake 6 here in this hearing? 7 MR. BAXTER: 1 object to the question again. It 8 seems to me he's calling for a legal conclusion. I don't 9 understand the question as it relates to the direct 10 testimony or the issue. 11 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I'm attempting to 12 ! determine if the witness knows the importance of his own I () 13 testimony and I think it's germane in some limited sense of 14 the word. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Briefly. 16 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Yes. l 17 BY MR. GAMIN: l 18 0 And in your opinion, what is that? 19 A (Keast) From my point of view, it's to give the 20 best estimate that I can, based upon my knowledge and 21 professional experience, as to what percentage of the 22 l people would be alerted by the siren system. 23 0 Thank you. Now, I believe in some of your 24 testimony you talked about on-set correction. Do you 25 ! recall having done that? i C:) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 6646 ..g.m. .
...... .,r . g . ... , . . _ , .
. ,1,. , 1,._t . m _.:....
26042.0 10577 CRT C 1 A Yes, I do. 2 O I'll confess that I don't know one heck of a lot 3 about what on-set correction is, but is it fair for me to 4 say that that has something to do with whether the sound 5 will be hearable? 6 A No, it does not. 7 0 What does it have to do with? Strike the 8 question. Let me ask you another question. 9 Does it have something to do with the number of 10 people who will be aroused, in some sense of the word? - 11 A Yes, it does. 12 0 And by making an on-set correction in this () 13 particular context, will we be essentially saying that more 14 people will be aroused or less people will be aroused? 15 A Slightly more. 16 0 Now I believe there was a question -- I'll ask i 17 you if you recall this question, I believe it was a i i 18 question of Judge Carpenter to Dr. Kryter: ' 19 " Question: Well, the cookbook recipe approach 20 says apply an on-set correction if appropriate. I think 1 21 that's what I am questioning for the siren sound, whether ! 22 it really is appropriate; what is your view, Dr. Kryter?" 23 Do you recall that question? l l 24 A Yes, I do. I
} 25 0 And do you recall Dr. Kryter's answer saying:
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Covernoe 300 336 4646
-.m ~. . m . ~ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _
26042.0 10578 BRT 1 " Answer: I think it is not appropriate." 2 Do you recall that answer? 3 A Yes, I do. 4 0 Now I believe there was a question then directed 5 to you by Judge Kelley, in which you said -- in which he 6 said to you: 7 " Question: Do you accept Dr. Kryter's judgment?" 8 A Yes. 9 0 And do you recall your response being: 10 " Answer: Yes, I do accept Dr. Kryter's judgment"? 11 A Yes, but you should understand here what's going 12 . on. We followed a procedure prescribed by Lukas for (y) 13 ! computing EPNdB the way he said he did. We followed that 14 , procedure. It's a cookbook procedure. 15 Dr. Kryter, who is one of the originators of the 16 ( EPNdB concept said, in his judgment the procedure published 17 , in his book -- the procedure used by Lukas -- is not 1 18 l appropriate..I will accept that. i 19 l O I see, so essentially this on-set correction is i 20 i in some sense a scientific adjustment, is it not? Or I 21 I mathematical adjustment? Or a psychoacoustical adjustment; 22 is that true? 23 l A It's a numerical adjustment. 24 l 0 And you made that adjustment even though you 7-) 25 don't have confidence in it, under this context; is that i 1 e ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natic nwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10579 BRT ! I true or not? 2 A No, that's not true. 3 0 All right. Now, I believe, ad ; recall, some of 4 the testimony, that there was some testimony about the 5 science of psychoacoustics, and I believe I recall Judge 6 Carpenter having said something on this order: "This 7 attempt" -- and he was referring to this process - "showed 8 psychoacoustics is not entirely a complete science. 9 There's still some research to be done." Do you accept 10 j that proposition? 11 A Yes. 12 0 I believe you answered, "I believe Dr. Kryter es i' (_) 13 just explained why, or to what extent your observation is 14 . correct" -- referring to Judge Kelley - "that is, the 15 l adjustment applied to impute EPNdB values are based on testt 16 on waking people and those adjustments are spectral 17 adjustments for temporal patterns, sound." 18 Do you recall having made that answer? 19 A No, I do not. 20 0 Will you accept the premise that you did make 21 that answer or not? 22 A I could never have said anything like that. 23 M P. . GAMIN: Your Honor, could I reserve that for E 24 later and have that brought to the record? This is a i rN 25 I verbatim rendition of testimony that I received from the ( I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nation *1de Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10580 BRT 1 l 1 court reporter. Let me strike that for a moment and let me 2 go on. l 3 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not clear what you are asking , ! 4 the board to -- 5 MR. GAMIN: I'd not offering anything. I am 6 asking the question to see if Mr. Keast can help me with i 7 i this. 8 BY MR. GAMIN: l 9 0 Do you recall words to that effect? 10 A (Keast) I recall that general line of 11 questioning but I don't recall any answer like you just 12 read. l (]) 13 0 Well, if you had given an answer like that, 14 would it have been wrong? i 15 l A No. - l 16 0 Do you think, then, in fact that there are some 17 ' limitations to the psychoacoustic science? - la MR. ROCHLIS: I'm going to interpose -- 19 MR. GAMIN: I withdraw the question. I withdraw 20 the question. 21 BY MR. GAMIN: 22 0 Do you believe there are some limitations on the 23 i reliability of the psychoacoustic science, such as it could 24 affect the decisionmakers here today? ; l 25 MR. ROCHLIS: I'm going to object again. We are I O - ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 M l646 ,,..;-.....,,.m.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , - . . . . . . _ _ .. . . x : . ..: . .. . ,- .. . . . . - - .
26042.0 10581 BRT O 1 not here on the general nature of the psychoacoustic 2 science. 3 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I think it's -- 4 MR. ROCHLIS: This is a limited hearing on six 5 limited issues that the board set out in its memorandum and 6 order dated January 16, 1986. I assume that the Attorney 7 General's office was privy, in fact Ms. Sanford was on the 8 conference call a few days ago. I don't think we should be 9 going into this at this time. 10 MR. GAMIN: In response, I would just like to 11 say that I'm simply going into the witness' testimony and 12 statements that were made about the reliability of the () 13 I science. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we stipulate that the science 15 doesn't know everything it would like to know? Beyond that 16 ; I'm not sure I see the point. Does anybody object to such t 17 l a stipulation? l' 18 MR. BAXTER: Applicants would agree with your 19 statement, Mr. Chairman. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't we go on to the next 21 question. 22 BY MR. GAMIN: I 23 0 Mr. Keast, io it fair to say that some of the 24 uncertainty in that science could af fect the reliability of p 25 your results? Is that true?
%)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 33m ..7.-.s..,.,~....3.. ..,.,,....,s. ~ . , _._._ . , , . .,, , .eo . . ,, u .m ,m. s . .. ...,, ,-,m. _
26042.0 10582 BRT 1 A (Keast) I think considerably less so in this 2 round of hearing, because I think that we have successfully, 3 this morning, primarily through Dr. Kryter's testimony but 4 also, I hope, somewhat through mine, eliminated a lot of 5 that uncertainty. I think that was the purpose of this 6 hearing, to try to eliminate some of that uncertainty. We 7 have done that. 8 0 I believe that during your testimony you 9 testified about your assumption on bringing the arousal 10 factor -- if I'm expressing it correctly -- down to infancy. 11 Is that true? Let me rephrase the question. 12 Essentially you were saying that perhaps ( ,) 13 everybody could be aroused by a siren. Isn't that 14 l basically what you are saying? i 15 l A If it's loud enough and lasts long enough, yes. , 16 0 Okay. And the effect of every -- I withdraw 17 l that. l 18 i Now, is it your opinion, then, that if anyone is i 19 I awakened by the siren, that that adds to the alertability l 20 i under this system? Isn't that true? 21 A Yes. 22 0 Can you conceive of a situation where someone l 23 waking up would, rather than contributing positively to 24 l alertability, could in fact contribute negatively to 73 25 l alertability? (_ ACE FFDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 4 686
26042.0 '10583 BRT O 1 MR. BAXTER: I object to the question. I don't 2 understand what " contribute negatively to alertability" 3 means. 4 MR. GAMIN: I'll link it up. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Would you? 6 MR. GAMIN: Yes, I will. 7 BY MR. GAMIN: { 1 8 0 Do you understand the question? 9 A (Kryter) No. 10 0 If, in your opinion, one more person is awakened, 11 that contributes to the general level of alerting; is that 12 not true? () 13 l A Yes. 14 0 And that could be because of the actions of that 15 person or simply the fact that that person is awake; is 16 l that true? 1 17 A Yes. 18 , O Now, you testified, I believe, about your 19 experience with your wife and children; isn't that true? 20 i A Yes, I did. 21 0 Have you ever had any experience with crying 22 babies? 23 A Unfortunately, yes. i 24 0 Yes. Now, do you have any experience with 25 decibel levels or tonalities or sound experience with ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 JhMIM6 m w :n m . n - , - m - am ,- ,~ ~ - c~- - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - -
26042.0 10584 BRT t. I crying babies? 2 A Yes, I do. 3 0 Could the sound of a crying baby to some extent 4 mask a siren at any level? 5 A 'Yes. 6 0 You didn't figure that in when you were making 7 this computer model, did you? 8 A I didn't make a computer model. 9 0 Well, when you made this mathematical model, you 10 didn't figure that in, did ,rou? 11 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I don't 12 understand the scenario that is being postulated by the () 13 witness. We are testifying that a baby is crying loud 14 : enough that the parents are awake but they are not going to 15 hear the siren? 16 MR. GAMIN: No. We are testifying -- no. That 17 is not what we are doing. And I don't think there's i 18 l anything in my question that suggests that. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: That's what I understood. What l 20 i is the thrust of the point about the baby waking up and 21 crying so that the siren couldn't be heard? 22 MR. GAMIN: Well, I think the board can take it 23 Into its experience that some parents learn to sleep l 24 I through a crying baby. i 25 MR. BAXTER: Combined with a siren? O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 8003364646 . :T':~*~ * " ~~l* L_L LL__'rLL*2 *T *L2~'L 22 7L:~ ~:: 2 ?: ~ '*r * ~ = ~^ '?= T'TT r2 W 2 *T=t': ~ mrL*=r ? "--
l l 26042.0 10585
- BRT o
1 MR. GAMIN: Well, if the baby's sound masks the l 2 siren then, in fact, the baby is another background noise 3 that affects the alertability of the parents. I believe 4 it's a small but a very valid point. i 5 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not sure it's within the 6 scope of this hearing, which, as Mr. Rochlis pointed out, 7 is limited to certain points. 8 Conceivably it might have been within the scope 9 of last fall's hearing. We had some discussion then about 10 having a witness in to testify about the ef fect of sirens 11 and impacts on the other sirens which, under the 12 circumstances, we ruled out. We didn't raise any questions () 13 here in reopening this hearing about the effects of crying 14 babies on the ability to hear the sirens. 15 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, if I could pursue it one 16 step further with you and then I will back off, of course, i 17 if you feel it's not right. We are here to talk about 18 nighttime alertability at the pillow. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: It's not that broad, considerably 20 narrower. We are hear to talk about the board's order 21 reopening the caso dated January 16th. The question is 22 outside the scope of the hearing. 23 MR. GAMIN: One further statement for the record ~~ 24 JUDGE KELLEY: The board is excluding it. 25 MR. GAMIN: One further statement for the record, l ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 3M eN6 e -
26042.0 10586 BRT O 1 if I may? Under your number 1, the board does talk about 2 the probable alerting of residents in a five- to 10-mile 3 area around Harris has not been estimated by the board. 4 I would submit, your Honor, that my question 5 goes to the probable alerting, because it goes to 6 background noise, masking, and whether or not a person who 7 -- an adult who is sleeping is likely to hear the sirens. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: The board disagrees. 9 BY MR. GAMIN: 10 0 Now, Mr. Keast, do you agree that the 11 supplementation that has been performed in the interior 12 zone is reasonable? Don't you? () 13 A (Keast) You are referring to'the offer.to 14 provide emergency radios to people within the five miles? 15 i I'd agree there is a reason for it. I 16 l MR. ROCHLIS: I would ask that at this time the 17 answer be stricken from the record because we have not 18 1 gotten to the second panel which deals with that -- 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Keast is on the second panel, 20 are you not? 21 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Yes, I am. 22 . JUDGE KELLEY: I believe that would be more l 23 j appropriate for the second panel. 24 BY MR. GAMIN: 25 0 In your October 18th testimony, I believe you ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' 202 347 3700 Neaionwide Covermy 800 336 6646
- * * - - - + , _. _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . . - - .
I 26042.0 10587 BRT 1 said you analyzed 68 sirens in the EP2, did you not? 2 A (Keast) That's my recollection. 3 Q Now, I think we both realize that there are more 4 like 79, 78 or 79 sirens; is that true? 5 A Yes. We ignored those that are around Harris 6 Lake, because we assumed they would not have a significant 7 effect on residences. We also ignored one which is to be 8 installed, may indeed now be installed, in the southeast 9 corner of the EP2, because at the time of the study its 10 location was not yet definite. 11 0 You are familiar with maps of the EP2, are you 12 not, because your company makes them; isn't that true? () 13 A Yes. 14 O And you have worked with those maps, haven't you? 15 A Yes. ' 16 0 Now, is it fair to say that the EPZ is roughly a 17 ! circle 20 miles in diameter? 18 A Yes. 19 0 My math isn't all that good, but if it's pi r 20 squared, that means we have roughly 300 square miles in 21 that areat isn't that true? i 22 A Yes. 23 0 Now, we have about 10 sirens around Harris Lake 24 and yet we have only about 70 sirens for the rest of the l {) 25 300 miles; isn't that true? i l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6 l m . . _
26042.0 10588 BRT 1 MR. BAXTER: I object. I don't know what we are 2 doing, but it doesn't seem to me to relate to the reopened 3 testimony. It doesn't matter how many square miles we have. 4 We are talking about arousability during night and the 5 response to specific board questions. 6 l MR. GAMIN: A few more questions will link it up. l 7 ! JUDGE KELLEY: What's the general direction this 8 is going. 9 MR. GAMIN: General question is supplementation I 10 i as it relates to ef forts which have been taken to 11 i supplement in and around the lake. I just have one or two l 12 ! more questions and I'll end this line. ,, i . () 13 j JUDGE KELLEY: It's outside the scope. 14 l Sustained. 15 BY MR. GAMIN: 16 ! O Well, Mr. Keast, how many people do you expect r 17 will be sleeping on Lake Harris or around its shores 18 between 1:00 and 6:00 a.m. in the morning? l 19 i MR. BAXTER: Objection, Mr. Chairman. The 20 ' testimony is that those sirens have not been considered and 21 I don't see any basis for speculating, in the record, that 22 ! people are sleeping within the lake. n 1 23 JUDGE KELLEY: It's certainly not within the 24 , scope of our order. This is a limited hearing on a limited ( 25 I, number of matters and none of which include the question (s]' > ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10589 BRT O 1 you presented. Sustain the objection. 2 BY MR. GAMIN: l l 3 0 Now, in your testimony, when you are coming l 4 under attachment E, in your prepared written testimony, you 5 did work out some written percentages of people awakened, 6 did you not? 7 A (Keast) Yes, I did. 8 0 And, in order to reach that, those percentages, 9 you considered some background noise, did you not? 10 A Yes, I did. 11 0 And I believe in your October testimony, and ; 12 perhaps again in your February testimony, you talked about lO l n 14
! ai= condiuoner and window fans as the e.ckgroune noise that would be factored in to the sound level, did you not?
I 15 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, objection again. 16 Background noise levels was relevant to last fall's hearing, 17 but what the board is asked about here is the change in 18 arousability depending on which sleep awakening study is t 19 used. We are not inquiring about or examining background 20 noise icvels here. The same background noise levels that 21 are here were in last fall's testimony. It's outside the 22 i scope of the hearing. 23 MR. GAMINt Your Honor, if necessary, I'll make ! 24 an offer of proof, but I refer you to statement number 1 in 25 which Mr. Keast was asked, by the board, to do a study on ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364H6 , _g_ m-- -o .
26042.0 l 10590 BRT 1 the probable alerting of residents within a five- to 10-mile 2 area around Harris. This has been tendered to the board 3 and I think the basis under which those assumptions were 4 made are very germane and very relevant. 5 MR. BAXTER: Yes. But they were explored last 6 fall. The only substance that changed in response to 1 is 7 whether we are going to use Lukas or Horonjeff or Krallman 8 sleep curve. We are not going to change the background 9 noise level assumptions. The board didn't ask for that. 10 MR. GAMIN: One limited response. Mr. Baxter is i 11 perfectly free to conclude that kind of limitation on the 12 board's order, but I don't see it expressly put in the em () 13 order. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, the order itself does have 15 its own historical context. We talked about a lot of 16 i things last fall, most of which we did not propose to come 17 , back here and talk about again. 18 ! We did not undertake to list each item under a 19 heading called "the following are excludable." We made a 20 couple of specific references. We excluded informal 21 alerting, for example, just to make it clear we weren't 22 going to talk about that. We did say explicitly we were 1 23 ? taking the sound levels f ro.n Exhibit 46. I suppose 24 arguably one might say, well, anything beyond the sound
,e ' 25 ; levels in Exhibit 46 is up for discussion. We certainly
\ )) l!
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804 336 6646
26042.0 10591 BRT 1 didn't ask anything in our listing of concerns about the 2 factors that obtained following determination of outdoor 3 sound levels. We had a computation which -- as I 4 understand it, Judge Carpenter can correct me -- made 5 certain assumptions about muffling and the liker is that l 6 correct? 7 JUDGE CARPENTER: Attenuation. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me a minute. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 JUDGE KELLEY: It's ultimately up to the board 11 to interpret its own order. In this instance we'll give 12 you a question or two along this line, coupled with the w i (j 13 caution that we question whether it's within the scope and 14 l we'll see where it goes. 15 l MR. GAMIN: In light of that, I'll attempt to 16 i sum up some of my questions. 17 BY MR. GAMIN: 18 0 Mr. Keast, isn't it true that a generator, a dog, 19 ; a crying baby, when you have one or two air conditioners, 20 l the placement of those air conditions in relationship to 21 l
; the bedroom, whether there's a TV on, whether there's a i
22 l radio on, all can affect the reliability and the certainty 1 23 l of the figures that you put in attachment E? I 24 ; A (Keast) The figures that are in attachment E 25 are based on assumptions as to background noise that are ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coveragt 800-3MMA6 m - . . n ,. ..
..-,..p;.,.--. , . - - . . . - .----n .~
26042.0 10592 BRT (a3 1 spelled out in some detail in the testimony I gave at the 2 original hearings here. They are unchanged. They are 3 defined in shorthand notice -- in shorthand form in the 4 attachment D. 5 They are the best figures that we could develop 6 to be representative of conditions in the normal Harris EPZ 7 hot night, when people were using their air conditioners. 8 MR. GAMIN: I object to the answer as being not 9 responsive and I would ask the court reporter to read the 10 question to the witness and ask him if he'd respond 11 directly to the question. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you reread the question and 13 the answer 14 (The reporter read the record as requested.) 15 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Yes. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: And the answer? So the new I 17 answer is just "yes"? All right. 18 BY MR. GAMIN: 19 O And I assume, then, that "yes" would mean in 20 some sense that would lower the percentage of persons who 21 were awakened; isn't that true? , I 22 A (Keast) No. i 23 0 Do you have an opinion as to -- withdraw that. l 24 MR. BAXTER: The problem with the question is I l (} 25 Mr. Keast has a lot of testimony about background noise ) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
l 26042.0 10593 BRT (~h N/ 1 levels that he has put into his analysis to say, "does a 2 generator make your numbers go down," is meaningless. You 3 haven't established that the generator is louder than what 4 he assumed and it isn't going to go down if it's not louder 5 than what he assumed. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: The board is aware of the 7 testimony last fall along these lines. 8 BY MR. GAMIN: 9 Q Mr. Keast, is it true that the probable 10 alertability of residents in that five- to 10-mile area may, 11 to some extent, relate to their very own conduct in their 12 life style and some of their. actions during the 1:00 a.m. (~h
\> 13 to 6:00 a.m. time frame?
14 MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, I don't understand the 15 question. Are we talking about conduct while they are 16 asleep? The contention is about sleeping residents. 17 l MR. GAMIN: It's my question and I think it's i 18 plain. 19 MR. BAXTER: It isn't to me. I object on the i 20 grounds of vagueness. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you mean people who are doing 22 things other than sleeping? 23 MR. GAMIN: I mean people who are doing anything, 24 including sleeping. () 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, how does one conduct a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
26042.0 10594 BRT tm U 1 lifestyle while you are asleep? I don't follow that. 2 MR. GAMIN: I'll be happy to break it down, but 3 sleeping is part of my lifestyle, your Honor. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: We are only concerned here with 5 people who are asleep, except insofar as the people who are 6 awake might wake up people who are asleep. 7 MR. GAMIN: I withdraw the question. Thank you, 8 your Honor. 9 BY MR. GAMIN: 10 0 Well, referring to people who are asleep between 11 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., then, would you have any 12 recommendation for them on their conduct as far as whether ~ 13 they leave radio: playing? That's the question. 14 A (Keast) I am afraid I can't recommend conduct 15 to people. i l 16 l 0 But you do accept that their conduct could l 17 l affect whether or not they are going to be awakened, based l 18 on your studies? 19 MR. BAXTER: Same objection, your Honor,
- 20 Mr. Chairman. I don't know what he meanc when he says
! 21 based on their conduct when they are not awake. j 22 JUDGE KELLEY: l Could you be more specific? j 23
- l BY MR. GAMIN: I 24 0 Is it true that if a person who is asleep is 25
(]) playing a loud radio or they have been drinking heavily at l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10595 i BRT (3., \_) ' 1 night, that that could affect their arousability? 2 A (Keast) Drinking certainly might, yes. 3 O Okay. So, would it be fair to say that someone 4 in the five- to 10-mile zone who had been drinking heavily 5 might be at greater risk fo: being aroused than someone who 6 isn't? 7 A I'm not interested in "someone." I'm interested 8 in an estimate for the population at large. I think that 9 those who would be less sensitive, simply because they have. 10 been drinking, might be of f set by those who would be more 11 sensitive because they hadn't been drinking or for some 12 other reason. 13 O But you haven't studied it, have you, Mr. Keast? 14 A No. 15 0 Now, I notice under attachment E that you have 16 done a rather detailed job of showing the board's order and 17 the percentages with the Horonjeff and the Krallmann 18 studies, and then by treating that percentage in various 19 ways you come up with different percentages; is that not 20 true? 21 MR. BAXTER: Objection. I don't know what the 22 word " treating" means, i 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you clarify? 24 MR. GAMIN: Okay. ( 25 BY MR. GAMIN: ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366646
26042.0 10596 BRT p~ -- t ; 1 O Well, at.the top of your attachment E you 2 indicate a line with the board order, and say, under 3 Horonjeff, that there is a 62.8 percent wake up rate; is 4 that not true? 5 A (Keast) That's what attachment E says. 6 0 And then under that you have a series of four 7 subcategories, all under the large category "by Applicant," 8 in which you treat some of the data or calculate the data 9 with different assumptions or different counts, and you 10 come up with different percentages; is that not true? 11 A Yes. 12 0 And, under "sub 1" you use the board's count of l
/x
!j 13 fExhibit 46 and all of the board's assumptions; nevertheless, 14 you come up with a percentage which is 2.7 percent higher 15 ,
than the board's; is that not true? i 16 A That is true. B 17 , O And then under number 2, when you use CP&L's 18 l count and the board's assumptions, it raise to 66.8; isn't 19 that true? i 20 l A It is 66.8. 21 Q And then going further, when you use CP&L's 22 count and CP&L's method it rises to 76.6, and with a 23 certain adjustment you settle or arrive at a figure at 75.9; I 24 ' isn't that true?
<~s 25 A You don't understand this exhibit at all, do you?
w.) ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
26042.0 10597 BRT i
~
l O Well, isn't it true? Yes or no? 2 A There is no adjustment between line 3 and line 4. 3 MR. BAXTER: The fourth line is clearly not an 4 arrival or conclusion. It's a listing. 5 MR. GAMIN: I'll rephrase my statement. 6 BY MR. GAMIN: 7 O By using a different map, so you are using CP&L's 8 count, CP&L's methodology, and a different map you arrive, 9 then, at a figure under Horonjeff of 75.9 percent; isn't 10 that true? 11 A (Keast) That's correct. 12 O Now, I notice throughout your testimony that you r^s j - (_) 13 h did not create the same kind of graph for the five- to 14 10-mile part of the EPZ; isn't that true? I 15 l A I didn't create any graphs. i 16 i O Well, could we call attachment Ea table? Would 17 l you be comfortable with that? l 18 A Yes. The equivalent of attachment E is in the l
'9
. testimony --
20 ! MR. BAXTER: I ask that it be struck as not 21 responsive. 22 MR. GAMIN: Excuse me? 23 JUDGE KELLEY: I think he's explaining what l 24 attachment E is in his view. Go ahead, Mr. Keast. 25 THE WITNESS: The equivalent to attachment E for ('s~') s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
if 26042.0 10598 BRT p, t 1 five miles -- 2 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I object to that. That 3 isn't what you said. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Overruled. Just tell us what 5 attachment E is, Mr. Keast, and we'll move on. 6 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Maybe you better repeat 7 the question, sir. 8 BY MR. GAMIN: 9 0 Okay. Attachment E is a table, is it not? 10 A (Keast) Yes. 11 0 There is not a comparable table for the area 12 from five to 10 miles, is there, in your exhibit? () 13 A There is not a comparable table. 14 0 If there was a comparable table and you used the 15 board's count and all of the board's assumptions, there ' 16 would be the possibility in that five- to 10-mile zone that 17 ; there could be over 700 homes that wouldn't be alerted; i 18 isn't that true? 19 MR. BAXTER: Objection, Mr. Chairman. The board 20 hasn't done a count for the second five miles or a 21 calculation, which is why there's no comparable table. 22 There's no basis for that calculation. 23 MR. GAMIN: May I be heard on that? 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. 25 MR. GAMIN: I specifically refer to the board's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3)2 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 _--;.,~,-..-..~
. .:... - - _ . - . ~ - :-. - . ~ . . -
26042.0 10599 BRT
~
l order of January 16th, page 8, under number 1 in which it 2 says, "the probable alerting of residents in the five- to 3 10-mile area around Harris has not been estimated by the 4 board." 5 Then the board goes on to say: "We, the 6 Applicant -- we ask the Applicant, CP&L, to carry out 7 technical analysis of the probable siren arousal frequency I l 8 in the five- to 10-mile area of the EPZ, using both the 1 9 i Horonjeff, et al., data and the Krallmann data; and then it 10 goes on to say "as the board has done." Now, in 11 Mr. Keasts testimony, he decided to use certain of your 12 assumptions when referring to the five to 10 and ignored r~; i (). 13 l some of r.he other assumptions. I'm simply asking him what 14 result he would have gotten in a real-world sense had he i 15 j used your methodology completely. e 16 l JUDGE KELLEY: If you can answer the question.
?
17 ; THE WITNESS: (Keast) Well, the answer that the 18 board asked for is given in attachments A and B. It is 19 also summarized in the technical -- pardon me -- the verbal 20 testimony, on page 6 of my testimony. Attachment A, 21 attachment B and page 6 of my testimony gives the 22 information that the board has asked for. 23 BY MR. GAMIN: 24 l 0 When you worked the figures for the five- to (~') 25 l 10-mile area, you didn't use exactly the same assumptions x_ l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26042.0 10600 BRT
") 1 that the board used, did you?
2 A (Keast) I used the assumptions the board asked 3 me to use, which is the Krallman relationship and the 4 Horonjeff relationship. To the best of my knowledge I have 5 responded to the board's request. 6 Q Mr. Keast, referring you to attachment E, under 7 number 1 by the Applicant, using the board's count of 8 Exhibit 46 and all of the board's assumptions, you arrived 9 at a calculation indicating that there would be a 65.5 10 percent -- percentage awakened; is that true? 11 A (Keast) Using the Horonjeff data. 12 Q Using the Horonjeff data; is that true? /~n (,1 13 , A That is correct. I 14 0 Now, I believe in your October 18th testimony, f 15 you added 3 percent based on the Arbitron rating service, 16 i did you not, for people who would already be awake during h 17 , the 1:00 to 6:00 a.m. period? I 18 A That's correct. 19 l 0 That's a TV rating service, isn't it? 20 A Yes. 1 21 0 You don't know whether that 3 percent awake I l 22 figure referred to people who owned TVs or all people, 23 l whether they own TVs or not? l 24 ! MR. BAXTER: Your Honor, I object at this point. i 25 s l He's had his two-question limit and this is way outside the ACE-FEDERAL RErORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationw!a coverage R00-336-6646
26042.0 , 10601 BRT 1 scope of any of the reopened hearing issues raised by the 2 board. 3 MR. GAMIN: I'm attempting to determine what 4 result would have been obtained in real-world numbers of 5 i houses that wouldn't have been awakened had he used the 6 board's methodology. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: I thought he did use the board's 8 methodology. He did the calculations, did he.not? 9 MR. GAMIN: If you'll bear with me -- 10 JUDGE KELLEY: The objectio,n is getting into 11 questions about the Arbitron rating service. That seems to 12 be well-taken. Do you have a response to that? () 13 MR. GAMIN: Well, your Honor, my response to 14 that is that perhaps that question is premature, because we 15 j have to get -- i 16 l JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe it's late. I 17 ! MR. GAMIN: I think under the circumstance we 1 18 first have to get to the proper percentage and then we can 19 calculate it down to determine the number of houses that 20 will probably be aroused. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: I say late, I mean maybe it 22 should have been asked about last fall, about the TV 23 i Arbitron rating system. We didn't open that. l 24 i MR. GAMIN: All right. I'll withdraw that 25 question, your Honor. l O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M616 ._ - - - ~. . - .. . ,.....~..- .-.. ...,. . . . . . _ . . - - . . . . . . . . , . . . _ - _ . . . . . . . . .
26042.0 10602 BRT 1 BY MR. GAMIN: 2 0 Referring you to page 7 of your February 21, 3 1986 testimony, I refer you to the first and second line. 4 A (Keast) Yes? 5 0 I ask you to read that first line, halfway 6 through the second line, to the period, silently, to 7 yourself, and tell me when you ,are done reading it. 3 A I have read it. 9 0 All right. Now at this point do you have before 10 you a copy of the board's January 16 memorandum and order? 11 A Yes, I do. 12 0 I'd ask you to refer to page 7. 13 A Yes, sir. O 14 0 There are a series of assumptions on page 7, are 15 there not? 16 A Yes. 17 l 0 And, in your testimony of February 21, 1986, 18 l you've stated that you do not use any of the other 19 assumptions or approximations on page 77 of the board's 20 order? 21 A I responded to the statement on page 8, under 22 item number 1 of the board's order, which reads as follows: 23 " Ele ask the Applicant to carry out technical analyses of 24 the probable siren arousal frequencies in the five- to 25 10-mile area of the EDZ, using Horonjeff et al., and ($) ; 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646 -.-----.--...p._-------.--- - ;-- -m - ,- --- , - - - l
26042.0 10603 BRT i 1 Krallmann data, as the board has done." That is what I 2 have done. 3 O And you acknowledge you didn't use all of the 4 board's assumptions and approximations; isn't that true? 5 A Indeed. I took issue with them and that is one i 6 i of the purposes of Exhibit 5. l 7 ! JUDGE KELLEY: For the sake of clarity, I'm a 8 little un -- I understood you disagreed with certain of 9 your assumptions and you started out with the same base and 10 , then used some of your own. However, in the appendices we 11 l were just looking at, A -- just which one -- I was under 12 the impression that you had made the calculations using the i () 13 ! same assumptions as the board also; is that correct or not? l 14 THE WITNESS: That is correct. In some of the 15 rows. 16 l JUDGE KELLEY: In which? 17 THE WITNESS: In some of the rows. i 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Last word? 19 l THE WITNESS: In some of the rowr. I 20 i MR. GAMIN: R-o-w-s? l 21 THE WITNESS: Right. But this gentleman was 22 asking whether we had done the same between five and 10 -- l 23 l JUDGE KELLEY: You did not between five and 10. 24 It was between one and five? (~'x 25 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
26042.0 10604 BRT 1 BY MR. GAMIN: 2 0 So it's fair to say you did the calculations 3 using the board's assumption on one to five miles, but 4 despite what the board said on page 8, whatever effect it 5 had you chose not to use the board's count and assumptions 6 on the five- to 10-mile area; isn't that true, Mr. Keast? 7 A (Keast) No, that's -- 8 MR. BAXTER: It's on page 7 and page 6 what he 9 did, and we have gone over and over it again. 10 MR. GAMIN: I'm trying te get a straight answer. 11 MR. BAXTER: No. You are trying to get an 12 argumentative agreement. (_/ 13 JUDGE KELLEY: All rignt gentlemen. So, 14 Mr. Keast did what he did. What does that show? As long 15 l as we understand what he did, which I think we do, what 16 difference does it make? 17 < MR. GAMIN: I think the difference it makes l 18 comes out into the numbers of people -- number of 19 households, numbers of families that wouldn't be aroused in 20 that much more populous outer ring. That goes to the 21 probable arousal and the need for the board to interpret 22 , what the pcreentage of arousal ought tc be in the five- to 1 I 23 i 10-mile area, because the Commission doesn't give a bright 24 line and even though in the order the Commission suggests (~'; 25 that the board might accept a figure less than 90 percent, L) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5M6
26042.0 10605 BRT 1 I believe that the inference is at least as strong that 2 perhaps the board could have a percentage higher than 90 3 percent. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Well let's suppose then we 5 understand the record, we understand what Mr. Keast did. 6 When we go back home maybe we have to do some arithmetic we 7 might otherwise not had to have done. If we are not 8 complaining, what difference does it make? 9 MR. G AMIN: Well, in light of the board's 10 willingness to do that arithmetic then I truly believe -- I 11 ! guess it doesn't make any difference. 12 Just a moment, I would like to check through my
/>
(,/ 13 notes. 14 BY MR. GAMIN: 15 O To your knowledge, have you or anyone with CP&L i 16 i run the number of houses -- strike that. 17 l To your knowledge have you, anyone in your 18 company or anyone at CP&L, calculated the number of i 19 j households that would not be awakened in the five- to l 20 i 10-mile zone, if all of the board's assumptions as they 1 21 appear in the board's January 16th order had been carried 22 out? 23 l A (Keast) I haven't done that calculation. I 24 l Q Do you know whether anybody at CP&L has? 25 ! A No, I do not. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 26042.0 10606 BRT
~'
1 JUDGE KELLEY: You have provided, Mr. Keast, a 2 house count in both segments, have you not? 3 THE WITNESS: (Keast) (No response.) 4 MR. GAMIN: You are -- you weren't directing 5 that question to me, were you? 6 JUDGE KELLEY: No. Mr. Keast. Frankly, one of 7 the reasons for asking Mr. Keast doing that calculation was 8 the dif ficulty you have with small dots on maps and he has 9 now done that count and we know and will confirm that, but 10 I expect his number is a reliable attempt to come up with 11 the total dots. If that's so, then the arithmetic is not 12 , particularly complicated beyond that.
~
i (_) 13 MR. BAXTER: The board also indicated that its 14 computations were not final and may be subject to revision 15 l on further examination of the record. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: You indicate our numbers were
?
17 . wrong in the first filing because of the smaller map. We 18 i now have a better map. The exact numbers probably don't i 19 ! matter that much; it's percentages we are after anyway. I l l 20 i believe the testimony indicates the difference in numbers l l 21 of houses, in this case, don't affect percentages very much. 22 THE WITNESS: (Keast) And the particular 23 numbers I think you are asking about are in attachment C to 24 I my testimony, that shows the counts of houses with each of l (-] ss 25 j i the sound level coverages inside and outside of five miles. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10607 BRT ( JUDGE KELLEY: 1 That's crucial in the computation. 2 Further from the state? 3 MR. GAMIN: Just one or two more questions. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 5 BY MR. GAMIN: 6 O The figures that you have calculated for the 7 number of houses in the outer ring, the five- to 10-mile 8 zone, is 6,300-some-odd houses, is it not? 9 A (Keast) That's on attachment C that I just 10 referred to. That is correct, ,i t is 6,338, 11 O And 10 percent of that figure might be roughly 12 600, 650 houses; isn't that right? em : (j~ 13 L A 633.8. i i 14 i MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, if I wanted to ask some l 15 ! questions about the number of houses that weren't going to 16 be awakened within the interior zone prior to the time that j 17 CP&L decided to use the tone alert radios, is that a proper l 18 question at this time or should that be reserved until l i 19 i later? 20 MR. BAXTER: It seems to me irrelevant at any l 21 time. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: The proposal now includes the 23 radios. That's really all we are focusing en. We are 24 l focusing on the whole package, sirens plus radios. I think p 25 ! it is -- (> l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 ,..-...--.-y.--~.--.---..,,-4 , . - - . . -- . - - . . . - - - - - - - - - . ~ . . - - - . , - - - - ~ . - - - - - ~ .--
26042.0 10608 BRT 1 MR. BAXTER: It would have been open for 2 cross-examination -- 3 JUDGE KELLEY: It would have been before, but I 4 don't think it is now. 5 MR. GAMIN: I have no further questions. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. 7 Mr. Eddleman, do you want to get a start and 8 maybe we'll c uit for a break in 15 minutes or so? Is that 9 all right with the witnesses? 10 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Sure. 11 liR . EDDLEMAN: That's fine with me. 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION (~. , ()_ 13 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 14 , O Gentlemen of the panel, what I would like to I 15 l start off with is the excerpt to Ed's motion to subpoena 16 Dr. Bastione, et al., dated November 22, 1985. Do you all 17 l have that available to you, the one that Judge Carpenter I 18 ! passed out this morning? 19 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Eddleman, it might help if 20 , you used the microphone. i 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm sorry, sir. 22 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 23 0 Do you have the excerpt to the Applicant's i 24 l November 22 answer that Judge Carpenter passed out this I 25 morning? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- D2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26042.0 10609 BRT O 1 A (Keast) I have them. 2 0 All right. I'll wait until Dr. Kryter gets his, 3 also, if that's all right. 4 A (Kryter) I can share this one. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Was your mike on, Mr. Eddleman? l 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's pushed up in the on position, 7 Judge, and I'm talking right into it. Is it working? 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Doesn't sound like it. 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I can speak louder if that's 10 helpful. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: We can take remedial action 12 during the break. (/ 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me try to keep it loud. I 14 ask you if you'can't hear give me some indication and I'll 15 try to keep speaking up. 16 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 17 f Q Gentlemen, concerning that excerpt that Judge l 18 Carpenter passed out, I would like to refer you to page 14, 19 which I believe is the third page of the excerpt. Now, it 20 refers, there, beginning at the end of the second line, to 21 the one-minute siren duration apparently used in the German 22 tests, see German study at 3261, being converted into 23 seconds. This is for the SEL formula in the Kryter 24 testimony; do you see that? 25 A (Kryter) Yes. I ; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10610 BRT 1 AF (Keast) Yes. 2 O Now, it says the SEL for the one-minute siren 3 sounding for the German test can be found by adding 18 dB 4 to the peak dBA' level. 5 Now, that 18 dBA is the log to the base 10 of 6 the 60 seconds, is it not?
~
7 A (Kryter) Yes. 8 0 Or, rather, pardon me, it's 10 log to the base 9 10 of the 60 seconds. That's really correct, isn't it? I 10 wasn't trying to confuse you, I just slipped. 11 Do you gentlemen have Eddleman Exhibit 24, the 12 English version of the Krallmann study? I would like to () 13 refer you to page 9 of the English translation. Ms. Rdgway 14 informed me both the English version and the German version 15 are numbered Eddleman 74. I'm referring to the English 16 version. I imagine Dr. Kryter can read either one. 17 A (Kryter) No, sir, I can't. 18 0 Do you have that page, gentlemen, page 9? 19 A (Keast) Yes. 20 A (Kryter) Yes. 21 O Now, isn't it true that in the figure, figure 2 22 on that page, the duration of the signal covers only the 23 first three -- 24 A (Keast) I'm sorry, I'm not sure we have the 25 right page. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646 sm ann n_~ n_n- u . . . ~-. ~ _. ~ ~ , _ , .~ ~ ~ . - . . _ _ . . ~ . - - ~ . . . - - - _ - . - - - . . _ _ - _ _ -
26042.0 10611 BRT ' t
~
1 0 Pardon me, there's a 9 up at the top and an 8 at 2 the bottom. Maybe page 8. 3 A Now we have page 8/9. 4 0 Okay. Sorry. I don't know what that "9" is. 5 It's possibly a footnote. 6 JUDGE CARPENTER: I think it's a page number in 7 l the German version. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Thank you, Judge. It's 9 page 8 in the English version. 10 I BY MR. EDDLEMAN: i 11 O What I'm asking you about is the figure that 12 l appears on that page, figure 2. Isn't it true that the r~1 I (_) 13 i signal duration covers only the first three partial periods 14 , while the time for the signal, that is, for the person to 15 i get up out of the bed and make the registration with that 16 device that Dr. Kra11mann was using, extends for another 17 l partial period; that's correct, is it not? t IS l A (Kryter) That's correct, yes. I 19 i 0 So, in fact, the German study used the three I 20 : 15-second intervals of sound or 45 seconds; isn't that l 21 correct? 22 l A That is correct. i l l 23 Q Okay. Now, the procedure for the conversion ' 24 i would be the same, however. We'd simply take the log 10 of i I 25 45 and multiply that by 10 to get the correction that we'd (~' s_- i l l l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26042.0 10612 BRT b)~' 1 have to use; that would be correct, wouldn't it, Dr. Kryter? 2 A Yes. 3 0 The -- I want to refer you over to page 15 of 4 j this excerpt, again. The sentence beginning on page 15, at 5 i the third line. "Thus" -- pardon me, is there a problem? 6 A No. 7 , O "Thus, the EPNdB for the one-minute siren l 8 j sounding in the German test can be calculated by adding 60 9 l dB plus 10 dB plus 3 dB plus 21 dB. Now, that 21 is the -- l 10 l is 10 times the log 10 of 120 half seconds, is 60 seconds; I 11 l is that correct? 12 A (Keast) Let me answer this because you are
,, 13 asking Dr. Kryter to answer questions with regard to the 14 ,
Applicant's document. 15 0 I'm really referring it to either one of you, so l 16 go ahead. r 17 A (Keast) You should specify either one of us, l 18 because I would like to take this on. l 19 MR. ROCHLIS: As I understand it, we are doing 20 - this for the convenience of the board and they are not 21 really a panel like a regular panel that the board would 22 have. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we had a little discussion 24 of this last week in connection with whether Mr. Black 25 would be on the panel or not. It seems to have some (~N v 1 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
- X)2-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10613 BRT 1 bearing. I think what I said is consistent with what we 2 have done before. 3 If Mr. Eddleman is talking with the two 4 witnesses coming from different places with different 5 backgrounds and so on, he can choose in the first instance 6 to whom he wishes to direct the question and if he's got a 7 line,'he can pursue a line with a particular person. But 8 when that's through, the other person, if he wishes to 9 speak on it, whether he's asked or not, should go ahead and 10 speak, as I think we have done so far today. That seemed 11 simple enough an approach. 12 MR. ROCHLIS: No objection. 13 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I have another 14 comment, though. I don't know why Judge Carpenter handed 15 l this out, but I think the record should make it clear, i 16 I chronologically, that at the time we filed this on November 17 22, we did not have the English translation of Krallmann's 18 study which Mrs. Moore distributed to the parties by letter 19 of December 3. There it became apparent that it was not 20 one minute but rather 45 seconds and that math was done 21 appropriately in our proposed findings which we filed later. 22 So the validity of this calculation which is not 23 f in evidence, I fail to see its important to the record here. 24 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Eddleman, can't we j 25 stipulate that all parties agree that Krallmann used 45 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ) 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433M646
26042.0 10614 BRT b
'/
1 seconds? 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think so, Judge. 3 JUDGE CARPENTER: The purpose I was going to use 4 this for was to simply make this point that this magic 13 5 dif ference between SEL and EBNdB didn't seem to appear 6 everywhere that I looked. But the question made this 7 obsolete before I got to it, so I didn't use it. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Could I just for completeness let 10 Mr. Keast answer the question? It is true that if you just 11 take 10 log 10 of the number of half seconds in the actual 12 period of the sound, that gives you that figure that you (_/ 13 havs to put in with the corrections, is it not? 14 THE WITNESS: (Keast) If you are computing 15 EPNdB, yes, sir. 16 ! BY MR. EDDLEMAN: l 17 O And the SEL was in the one-second increments, 18 right? 19 A (Keast) That is correct. 20 ' A (Kryter) I think we should add that for the SEL, 21 the conversion would be about 16.5 dB for the 45 seconds. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I didn't catch that. I'm sorry. 23 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) For the SEL, the 45-second 24 dB conversion we put at 16.5 decibels. j'"] 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you. v ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 .~,..... ..
I 26042.0 10615 BRT
\m.#
1 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 2 0 Mr. Keast, in your calculations that you made in 3 your attachments, did you in fact use an on-set correction? 4 A (Keast) Which testimony are you referring to? I 5 0 Your present testimony of February 21st? 6 l A No on-set correction was used anywhere. The 7 EPNdB concept was not used for any of the results, other 8 ; than a few for comparison purposes. I 9 1 0 Mr. Keast -- well, let me ask Dr. Kryter this. 10 I Your figure, 6 A, was the one in your November I 11 testimony, is the one that gives the alertability of 12 j various ages, does it not? N I
/^J u 13 A (Kryter) Yes.
14 0 Does that figure take into account that 15 i differences in hearing that older persons might have? 16 A These are empirical data, and the tests were 17 l conducted with superthreshold noises or sounds, so that the 18 . sounds were all above the threshold of hearing of each of I 19 ( the age groups. I 20
- O So, in other words, the sound was loud enough so 21 any difference in the ability of someone to hear sounds 22 would be overcome by that loudness?
23 l A That is correct. I 24 l 0 Okay. Let me refer you -- if I can find Judge t 25 Carpenter's handout, I think that's the cleanest copy of (' } ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M(46
26042.0 10616 BRT 1 this. Judge Carpenter's attached -- figure A, which; by 2 Murphy's law, I cannot find my own copy of -- thank you. 3 May I? 4 Now, what I want to ask you about, gentlemen, is 5 the assumption that you can project these straight lines 6 I out from the data points. Isn't it true that the data l 7 points shown here basically stop, that is, there aren't any 8 higher than about 60 percent alerting or arousal 9 probability? ' 10 A Yes. 11 0 And in the absence of that, can it be assumed i 12 that the true curve that this data represents, without 13 going into the question of how f ar you can slide. the 'ines 14 back and forth with respect to the SELs, the true curve
; 15 that this data represents may not in fact be a straight 16 line, but may Exhibit some kind of a cutoff phenomena?
17 A Yes. My original testimony, I developed figure 18 7-A, which is essentially the Horonjeff -- lower part of 19 the Horonjeff curves, or curve that appears on the board's i 20 figure A. But as I testified then, on the basis of my own 21 data and on the basis of other experience, the -- when you 22 use in the bedroom a sound that has a sound pressure level 23 of the order of 90 to 95 dBa, we always got 100 percent 24 i arousal. () 25 In figure 7-A, an anchor, 100 percent arousal at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4 646
26042.0 10617 BRT O 1 was -- it was an SEL of approximately 115. 2 I then connected that point to the Horonjeff 3 data curve intersecting at about 90 SEL of this SR in 4 bedroom. 5 So I did not project a progressive straight line 6 as shown on figure A. I projected a straight line that 7 ascended to 100 percent arousal and SEL of 115, 8 As I said, this was based on data we had 9 collected. We always got 100 percent arousal and we had 10 sound pressure levels of that magnitude. 11 I think that this was justified -- or verified 12 on the basis of Krallmann's data, as shown in figure 1 of 13 < my present testimony, and as shown in his report itself, 14 namely, that when he had'SELs of 105, if one projected a 15 straight line from his data points you would get 100 16 percent arousability. And, indeed, for the 4:00 to 5:00 i 17 a.m. data with 75 percent SEL, he got 98 percent 18 arousability. 19 In other words, we do have reasons, data and 20 reasons to show that the curves from Horonjeff's data do 21 not decline, but actually tend to rise at a somewhat 22 greater rate at the higher levels than one would draw from 23 i a freehand curve through his data points. And that is 24 shown in figure 1 of my present testimony and in figure () 25 I 7-A of my previous testimony. I ACE-FFDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 6646
26042.0 10618 ! BRT l O 1 0 As far as the anchoring of that SEL to 115, in 1 2 any of the corrections that you have discussed this morning 3 with Judge Carpenter, do any of them impact that SEL being 4 about 20 above the dB in your figure 7-A? 5 A Well, I specified, if you will look at figure 6 7-A, and plot Krallmann's data on it, or if you look at my 7 figure 1, which has both the Krallmann and the Horonjeff I 8 data on it, you find that up to an SEL of 95 the Horonjeff 9 data show an arousability of approximately 70 percent, l 10 whereas the Krallmann, zero to 1:15 a.m. data show an 11 arousability of 90 percent. Again, if you follow these two 12 curves downward you see that at an SEL of 55, the Horonjeff ( 13 analysis gives you a 20 percent arousal and the Krallmann 14 data gives you approximately a 39 percent arousal. 15 So, in between those two extremes, the 16 dif ference is over 20 percent, in some places rising to 25 1 17 percent -- percentage points. Excuse me, not percent but ]
- 18 percentage points.
19 When you get up to 100 percent, of course, the 20 difference has to get smaller. 21 O Now, the Krallmann study explicitly took into 22 j account the stage of sleep and sleep that was needed. 23 A Yes. This gave the stimuli at different times 24 of the night and found that in the early -- first hour and a () 25 15 minutes of sleep, the arousability was much less for a 1 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10619 BRT g (_) 1 given SEL than it was in progressively later hours of the 2 night. 3 0 I'm trying to find the 90 percent in Krallmann, 4 Dr. Kryter. Can you help me out with that? 5 A Excuse me, the 90 percent for the zero to 1:15 6 data, it is an extrapolation. But for the 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 7 a.m. data, he got 98 percent arousability with an SEL of 75. 8 And if you look at my figure 1, page 2 of my testimony, you 9 see we have a family of curves which, I think, indicates l 10 that the extension of the zero to 1:15 a.m. data above the 11 -- his last data point, which was a percent arousal of i 12 about 62 percent, or 60 percent, is justified. 13' O So, in fact, the measured data of Krallmann 14 gives you about a 62 percent arousal with a 60 dB exposure 15 between midnight and 1:15 a.m.? 16 A That's correct. 17 1 0 That's true? That's the actual data? I 18 A For that time period, yes. 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: This is a convenient break point. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Good. Let's take about 10 21 minutes. 22 (Recess.) 23 JUDGE KELLEY: We are back on the record. I 24 want to amend something that I said earlier. Mr. Gamin, l () 25 toward the end of his questioning, if I recall correctly, , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-34T 3700 Nationwide Coverage M33H646
26042.0 10620 BRT n v 1 said he wanted to put a question about how many people 2 would be alerted by the sirens alone in the first five 3 miles as opposed to sirens plus the radios. Was that the 4 question? 5 MR. GAMIN: Yes, it was. With a view towards 6 asking the same question about the second five miles, too. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Of course there's no radios in 8 the second five. What we are addressing here today is 9 siren levels. Of course we'll come to conclusions there.
! 10 When the question was raised, I think Mr. Baxter suggested 11 that the separate breakdown wouldn't be relevant due to 12 their proposal. I agreed. Thinking about it a little bit 13 more, though, it seems to me we do have to determine the 14 separate components in order to come up with a total l v.
! 15 arousal. So the question of which separate systems wake 16 how many people seems proper enough a question. 17 MR. GAMIN: Can I get an answer at this point, 18 your Honor, or not? 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, any comment on my 20 second thoughts? I'm not saying whether it's appropriate 21 right here or not, but the idea that it is not pertinent to 22 figure out what the sirens alone do in the first five'seem 23 to me, on further reflection, not to be correct. 24 MR. GAMIN: If I may suggest, I would make a (]} 25 l motion to reopen my cross for the very limited purpose of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ] 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10621 BRT 1 pursuing that line of questioning. 2 MR. BAXTER: I agree, Mr. Chairman, if the 3 question relates to the new testimony as opposed to the old 4 testimony. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. With that qualification. 6 Well, do you want to try that, Mr. Gamin? 7 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I hate to ask you and 8 Mr. Baxter for a little help, but I'm not sure that I 9 really do understand the distinction that you are making
- 10 between whether it refers to the old testimony or the new 11 testimony. I thought it simply refers to whether or not --
12 , how many people will be awakened by the sirens as distinct s ; ! _) 13 from the sirens and the radios, or the radio as distinct 14 from -- 15 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we are using the term a 16 l little loosely. We have had some questioning that's gone i ! 17 I back to the old testimony, but the questioning has in turn i 1 18 ! been tied to the concerns that are raised in the January 16 j 19 ! order. 20 MR. GAMIN: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. If I 21 can then pursue those limited questions? 22 , CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 23 BY MR. GAMIN: l 1 24 ; O We have been together now for almost a day and
'~ I / 25 l I'm getting to the point where I'm not sure if it's "Keast" ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4% 46
I 26042.0 10622 BRT O or "Kest." 1 Could you give me the correct pronunciation of 2 your name, sir? 3 A (Keast) It's like beast, with a K. 4 0 I'm sure it's not like a beast, but, in any 5 event, Mr. Keast -- that helps. 6 The board's order indicated in the first five 7 miles a certain number of houses would be awake and 8 conversely a certain number of houses would not be awakened, 9 based on sirens alone; is that correct? 10 A That's correct. 11 O Now, I don't have that order right here in front
- 12 of me. You don't happen to recall what those rough numbers O
j 13 are, based on Horonjeff and Krallmann, do you? I 14 A They are spelled out in Exhibit -- attachment E, l 15 to my testimony. 4 16 O The one that we had talked to before? 17 A Yes. The first row.
- 1 18 O Now, there it's done in terms of percentages, is 19 it not?
20 A Yes, it is. 21 O In the board's January 16th, they also reduce it 22 , to raw numbers, do they not? 23 A Let me check. 24 O I would call your attention to page 8. 25 A Yes, they did. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Neuonwide Coverner 800 3 4 4646
26042.0 10623 BRT f.. b 1 O And I believe that is under Horonjeff's figures, 2 135 houses, and under Krallmann's figures, 67 houses, based 3 on the board's counting and the board's computations 4 specifically; is that true? 5 A That's correct. ] 6 O Now, you've run some calculations in which you 7 used at least some of the board's assumptions, and that's 8 reflected in attachment E, is it not? 9 A Yes. 10 0 What is your assumption, then, of the number of 11 houses that will be not alerted under Horonjeff and 12 Krallmann, based on siren alert alone as you have 13 calculated it? 14 A Inside of five miles?
- 15 0 Inside of five miles.
16 A The answers are given in attachment F and 17 attachment G to my testimony. 18 l 0 Are those in raw numbers? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 0 Now, under attachment E, that's given in 21 percentage terms, is it not? 22 A In addition to the raw numbers, yes. 23 0 Oh -- 24 A I'm sorry. You are correct. In attachment E, () i 25 it's just in percent. 4 I l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 300 3 4 4646
26042.0 10624 BRT O 1 Q Okay. Now, on attachment F and attachment G, 2 you talk about it in terms of houses that are awakened. 3 And in order to get the unalerted houses, we would simply 4 have to subtract your Horonjeff and your Krallmann figures 5 from the total amount? 6 A That is correct. 7 0 Would you kindly do that for me? 8 A Yes. Attachment F, the unalerted houses would 9 be 142. On attachment G, the unalerted houses would be 61. 10 0 How many? 61? 11 A 61, sir. 12 , MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, I'm done with that line
- C- 13 of questioning. The question is would you permit ne to ask 14 comparable questions about the second zone, five to 10 15 miles? '
i 16 MR. BAXTER: Objection, Mr. Chairman. This is 17 . pure arithmetic that I think anybody can do, including this 18 board, in writing its decision. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Even us? 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. BAXTER: Did it sound like that? I'm sorry. 22 MR. GAMIN: I'm not trying to take a great deal 23 of time, but -- 1 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Aren't those numbers derivable? i () 25 If I'm told there are 6000 houses, 73 percent, can't I just ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverser 81 5 336 4 646 1
26042.0 10625 BRT O 1 figure that out? 2 MR. GAMIN: Yes, you.can. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's go back to 4 Mr. Eddleman, then. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 6 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 7 O Mr. Keast, I have borrowed a copy of your map, 8 Exhibit 46-A, I think it is. Applicant's Exhibit 46-A. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Did we ever get the mike fixed? 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. We got the mike fixed 11 l and even got informed that these cords when they plug into 12 the box over there don't have any locks on them so pulling 13 on the cords or people stepping on them can disconnect the 14 mikes. They think that's what the principal problem is. i+ 15 JUDGE FSLLEY: Okay. { 16 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 17 O Do you have the map? l 18 A (Keast) Yes, I do. 19 O All right. The boxing of the houses is 20 indicated down in the lower right, as for example there, 21 i 19H indicates number of houses inside the box. That's 22 correct, isn't it? f 23 j JUDGE KELLEY: We are now on the map that's 24 dated revised 2/6/867 (} 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's correct. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
4 26042.0 10626 BRT LO l 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Has this been numbered as an i 1 l 2 Exhibit?
, 3 MR. BAXTER: 46-A.
4 THE. WITNESS: (Keast) 'You are correct about the 5 boxing. j 6 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
)-
7 0 What I would like to do is refer you to siren l l 8 number 36, which I believe is in the upper right quadrant, j 9 oh, abcut one siren up from the fold. I j 10 A (Keast) I have found it. 11 O Okay. Now, what I want to ask you is in making l 12 the calculations of households alerted, taking, for example, i p v 13 the 113 houses that are in the right-most box, near siren 14 36 up on the zone boundary, how do you account for the fact I
. 15 that there is an even 5 dB sound pressure level line i
16 running right through the middle of that box? ]; 17 l MR. BAXTER: How do you account for it? l 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: How do you handle that? Are yott i c 19 allocating the 113 by some formula, or are you simply i 20 counting the houses between the pressure lines, sound i
- 21 pressure lines? I 22 THE WITNESS
- (Keast) On the original map that 23 we worked with, we have done all our counting on. Those 24 houses in that box labeled "113 houses" would be treated as
() 25 having three dif ferent sound exposures, depending upon i' . ,- y . } l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Ceerage 2 3364646
l t i 26042.0 10627 l BRT 1 where they lie with respect to those contours. l 2 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 3 0 Right. There's another contour line that comes 4 through the lower left of that box, that's wha'. fou are 5 referring to? 6 A (Keast) Yes. 7 0 So the fact that there were 113 houses in that 8 box was not used in your calculation; is that what you are 9 telling me? 10 A This map was not used in my calculation. 11 0 All your calculations -- is it true that all 12 your calculations come from the large map that you referred ( 13 to in your testimony? 14 A That is correct. l 15 O All right. I would like now to refer Dr. Kryter, l l 16 please -- I'm going back to some of the stuff that Judge i l 17 ! Carpenter asked you. i 18 At page 14 of your testimony for this hearing, 1 l 19 the February testimony, at the top there are a number of l l 20 columns there. What I want to ask you about is the column
- 21 that's next to the right-most column labeled, I think, l l
22 average, "A-v-e-r," period. Do you have that? l t ' l 23 A (Kryter) Yes. I i l 24 0 We see the averages developing from 59, then 1 (} s 25 suddenly drops down to 52 and then comes back up to 60. f I ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Covernor 800 336 4646 i I L '. a.
26042.0 10628 BRT
~
l Is it possible that those numbers were reversed 2 or are they really the averages of those lines? 3 A I believe that I doublechecked those, 4 Dr. Eddleman. But I will do so again. 5 0 Are they averages of all the previous columns? 6 Because if it's all of them, I think you may be correct. 7 A Yes, it is the average of the previous three 8 columns. 9 0 Of the previous three, not of the previous six? 10 A That is correct. 11 0 Okay. Yes, your math checks out to even numbers, 12 according to my calculations. ,/~\
~ 13 Let me follow you backwards through your 14 l
testimony. The references you made when Judge Carpenter 15 I was asking you about the federal signal 1000 siren and its 16 I intensity at 500 hertz and 1000 hertz, indoors and outdoors; i 17 I would like to ask you a few questions about that, l 18 Dr. Kryter. 19 First thing, the intensity information for the 20 siren, the siren power level data that you supplied us 21 through FEMA counsel, the various octave bands that are 22 I there, is the hertz number given across the top? 23 A Yes. I 24 i O Right. And is that the center of the band? c'^^)' 25 Center of the octave? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Covetage 80n 336-6646
26042.0 10629 BRT O 1 A That is correct. 2 0 Okay. So, fer example, the 2000 hertz octave 3 will go somewhere in the range of 1400 to somewhere in the 4 range of 28007 5 A Correct. , t 6 0 Okay. If you have a siren with a fundamental 7 ' frequency of 500 or 600 hertz, in that range, you would 8 have the third and fourth harmonics both falling into the 9 octave at 2000, would you not? 10 A You say 600 hertz? 11 0 500 to 600. 12 A 500 -- ( 13 0 What I'm figuring is three 500s is 1500, three 14 600s is 1800, four 500s is 2000; they all appear to be in 15 that range of that octave centered on 2000. 16 A Yes. 17 0 okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether the 18 inclusion of both those harmonics there would give you a 19 somewhat higher decibels in that octave than the lower 20 octaves, which presumably only have one harmonic in them, 21 at 500 and 1000? 22 A Yes, it would. 23 0 All right. So now the delta of this federal 24 signal 1000 siren, I believe it's CP&L siren number 70, {} 25 drops 10 dB between 500 and 1000 hertz bands and only 4 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 23364M6
. ~ . . _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 26042.0 10630 i BRT ( ! 1 between 1000 and 2000. That's what those figures show? 2 A Yes. Yes. 3 0 And I believe you were saying that the dropoff ! 4 in the Krallmann data was about 7, between the second and 5 third harmonics? 6 A We -- yes. The Krallmann, the two peaks in the 7 Krallmann spectra, which are shown in his figure 3, show a 8 peak that I would say is at 450 hertz. Well, it's 9 somewhere around -- somewhere around 450 hertz you have a 10 level of 30 dB, and then again at approximately -- I'm 11 reading a logarithmic scale here -- around 1200 hertz. 12 There are peaks at 72 to 73 dB, for a difference of 7 dB 13 between the two peaks. 14 Just exactly which harmonics those are is not 15 l possible to identify. 16 1 0 In other words, it really could be the third l 17 ; harmonic of a 400 hertz tone that's showing up at about l l l t 18 1200? l l 19 A That's correct. l 20 0 or it might conceivably be the second harmonic l l 21 of one in the range of 550? 22 A Yes. 23 0 Without respect to which harmonics are involved, 24 in that Krallmann data, the greater attenuation of the 1 (} 25 sound coming through the walls or windows of a house is 1 1 I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nacionwide Coverese 800 344M6
i 26042.0 10631-
- BRT O 1 found in the 1000 hertz band as you testified; isn't that
, 2 right? 3 A Yes, it's approximately 3 decibels greater than 4 at 500 hertz. 5 0 All right. Then wouldn't it be true, Doctor, if 6 you start out with a difference of 10 dB between the first 7 and second 'tarmonics on the federal signal 1000 outside, 1 8 and you ha ve about 3 dB more attenuation coming through the 9 walls and windows of the house to the inside, that you 10 would then have about a 13 dB difference between the sound 11 pressure level at the first harmonic and the second 1 12 harmonic once you got inside a building? ( )~ 13 A Yes, that is true. c 14 0 That's true; and not the 6 or 7 you testified to 15 l earlier? 16 l A " hat is correct, yes. I i 17 I O Thank you. Now, if the 1000 hertz component is I 18 l 13 dB lesu than the 500 hertz component, it would add 19 rather less than the one or two dB you estimated for a 6 or 20 7 dB difference? Let me rephrase that. I think I'm 21 getting too far off -- unless you know what I'm saying? 22 A I would say it would be zero instead of 1 or 2 23 , dB. 24 0 okay. So if the second harmonic is 13 dB down, i , ,A 25 you are saying it would contribute zero additional instead a G) I
~
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 900 33H646
l 26042.0 10632 CRT l 1 of 1 or 2, to the arousability? t l 2 A Tha;'s correct, yes. 3 O All right. Thank you. Concerning these 4 third-octave bands, one-third-octave bands, those are bands 5 that would span a frequency range of -- let's say we had 6 one that started as 1000 hertz and went up one-third-octave 7 from there, would I get the upper end of it by multiplying 8 1000 hertz by the third root of 2? About 1.26? 9 A Would you repeat that question again? 10 0 Referring to the one-third-octave bands, these 11 third-octave bands that you referred to and that you have 12 for the Krallmann data, but not for the FS1000 -- l () 13 A Yes. 14 0 -- if I have one of those bands that has a 1cwer 15 limit of, say, 1000 hertz, I'm just using that for 16 i illustration -- 17 A Right. l 18 0 -- do I get the upper end of the third-octave 19 band by multiplying 1000 by the third root of 2? 20 A Mr. Keast? 21 A (Keast) That is correct, the cube root of 2. l 22 O Right. Which I believe is about 1.26. Anyway 23 that can be calculated. I'm not going to pester the board, 24 1 I think it's 1259, to four places. Close enough, anyway -- (~T 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Close enough.
\) '
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nasionwide Coversee 800 3 4 4646
i l i l [ 26042.0 10633 !. CRT () 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Even I can calculate that. Thank 2 you, Judge. I 3 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: ! 4 0 Dr. Kryter, I have here in my notes that you ! 5 said earlier that the Krallmann data showed a peak of 73 dB l 6 at 1650 hertz. Did I hear you wrong? Was that referring 7 to the federal signal 10007 i 8 A (Kryter) 3 dB7 l l 9 0 73, at 1650. I just want to be sure we were I j 10 talking about -- l 11 A We were referring there to the Krallmann l 1 12 spectrum. 13 h That's the Krallmann spectrum. 14 A Right. i 15 , O Now, let me turn back to Krallmann's figure 3 16 which we were just discussing. I just want to be sure I i 17 l can locate that. I think we were talking about 1250 just a l 18 l moment ago and I just want to make sure that we have a i 19 record that's clear on this. Yes, I see what the problem 20 is. It is tricky to interpret this logarithmic scale, is 21 it not? 22 A It's plotted on a linear grid, but it's a log. 23 0 Well, Doctor, since you are more familiar with 24 this matter than I am, let me ask you if the numbers up the (} 25 left side are 30, 50, and 70 dB going up, are they not? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide cowrese 8003 4 4646
t 26042.0 10634 BRT O 1 A Yes. 2 0 Now, going across at the bottom of figure 3, 3 these would be kilohertz, would it not? 4 A Yes. As a matter of fact it says, little 5 "kH2," kilohertz. 6 0 I read that as 0.25 to the far left, then 1 7 there's a mark with nothing, then the next mark is 0.5, 1 1 8 then a mark with nothing. Then I presume the next one is 9 2.0, just because multiplication by four would be 10 concistent with the logarithmic scale. Can you read that? I 11 A Well, I wrote in pencil that the first tick mark 12 between .125 and .25 was 250 or 250 hertz -- I'm sorry, it () 13 would be .25 kilohertz. 14 I O Right. And then 1.0 would be the particular l 15 mark between 0.5 and 2.0? 1 l 16 A Yes. i 17 O Okay. I just want to establish the scale and 18 then I think we can just read it off so I'm done with that 19 point, I think. Thank you, Doctor. 20 In the Kra11mann data, with about a 7 dB i 21 difference between the first peak and the second peak -- l 22 A Yes. l l l 23 0 -- where whatever harmonic that second peak may 24 be, if it had been measured inside, that recording had been (~) 25 made inside from a siren sounding outside, would that not L.J l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 4 6646
26042.0 10635 ' BRT O 1 imply that the siren sounding outside had a second peak 2 only about three or four dB below its primary peak? 3 A Yes. I must stand corrected on my earlier 4 testimony that the -- that would be the case. Again, 5 whether this is inside with room acoustics involved or not, 6 we don't know. But indeed, from our analysis of the 3 dB 7 I or greater atteneation at that higher frequency peak, you 8 would expect the dif ference to be more like 4 decibels than 9 the 7 decibels I earlier testified to. 10 0 Doctor, do you know of any types of sireiw which 11 actually do produce a second or third harmonic that's only 12 3 or 4 dB below the first harmonic? ( 13 A No, I do not. 14 0 Okay. Mr. Keast, do you? 15 A (Keast) Sirens come in all sizes, shapeo, and 16 , varieties. I think it's entirely possible that such a h 17 ' thing could exist, yes. IR 0 would either of you gentlemen know the specific 19 type of siren which Dr. Krallmann recorded? 20 A (Kryter) I do not. 21 A (Keast) I do not. 22 O okay. Dr. Kryter, in reference to your mention 23 oE room acoustics, what do we know, if anything, about the 24 acoustics of the sleeping rooms in which Dr. Krallmann's (} 25 air raid defense school students were sleeping? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nation =ede coverase soo 3364He
l l
'26042.0 10636
- BRT
() 1 A (Kryter) We do not know that information. 7 2 O Okay. Do you think it possible, Dr. Kryter,
- 3 that people who are students in air raid defense might be a J
4 little more sensitivc to a siren, a little more willing to
- 5 wake up if they hear one than the average person?
l 6 A Well, we thought about that in preparing our ! I 7 I testimony. My conclusion was that the subjects were 8 experimented or heard the signal four nights, at least they ! 9 were subject for four nights. l
) 10 Secondly, they knew that the signal was not an ,
i > 1 11 alerting signal, it was not a warning signal of any type. I ! 12 It was merely they were subjects in an experiment on (:) i' 13 1 arousal. I would come down to the point that there was a : 1 4 14 trade-off here, that there was some habit'ation, u not as 7 15 much as in the Horonjeff, but there was, vis-a-vis real {
- 16 life, there was some habituation in terms of the fact that !
I
- 17 a they were tested for four nights and averaged for two; and 18 also there was some desensitization in terms of l
! i I 19 instructions; that is, that this was not a warning signal, l 20 that there was no danger, they were not to. flee the l 21 building. 1 j 22 on the other hand, I think it's fair to point l 23 out that they were not sleeping in their own bedrooms, but ] 24 in the school and I believe that, I guess intuitively and ) () 25 also f rom the experiments that have been done on sleep, i
- ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{ M M 3M Neden=WeC m un mme
l 26042.0 10637 BRT 1 that the first few nights of sleep in a laboratory, the 2 people are a little more easily aroused than they are later. 3 0 okay. Did you possibly take into account the 4 Hawthorno ef fect or any kind of tendency for people to want 5 to perform well on an experiment in your analysis of this 6 Krallmann data? 7 A No. I have no information related to that at 8 all. 9 0 Did you ask Dr. Krallmann about those, whether 10 he took them into account? 11 A He did not take into account -- I tried to probe 12 with respect to the audibility data he got and at that time (/ 13 our -- on a telephone circuit, our language differences 14 were insurmountable and I could not probe too deeply. But 15 my impression was, and from his writeup, it was a very 16 straightforward, rather objective experiment with no 17 attempt to minipulate motivation. 18 l 0 Well, I understand that, but I think -- are you 19 familiar with the Hawthorne experiments? 20 A Well, I'm familiar with the so-called Hawthorne 21 effect. People like to be paid attention to, et cetera. I 22 have never seen any data with respect to sleep data where 1 23 I it has been intimated that there was a Hawthorne effect 24 l operating. / 25 l 0 What I'm asking you is: In the Hawthorne ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Comage 800 336 4646
E l l 26042.0 10638 BRT O 1 experiments, wouldn't you agree that there wasn't an l 2 attempt to manipulate the response to the various 3 conditions, that is, conditions were improved or made worse, l 4 and yet performance continued to improve because of this 5 effect; that's correct, isn't it? 6 A You have to specify the conditions. We are 7 talking about work output by paid employees where the 8 manipulation of motivation is controlled by doing things 9 for them and they work a little harder, even though the 10 environmental conditions may get worse. 11 In my opinion, this experiment did not delve 12 into those variables or conditions whatsoever. O 13 O Okay. So you don't know whether the effect j 14 occurred there or not? 15 A I don't think there was any attempt to create l 16 such an effect. 17 C Well, the Hawthorne experimenters didn't intend 18 to create it, they discovered it by accident; isn't that l ! 19 true? 20 A Well, I don't think this is a measure of that 21 phenomenon. 22 O But the answer to the question I just asked is ! 23 "yes," isn't it? That they did not intend in the Hawthorne f
, 24 experiments to create this effect?
() 25 A Some Hawthorne experiments did and some did not. 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. m.347 37ao s.iion.ia.co r iion.3a4a. L
l l ! 26042.0 10639 ! BRT O 1 So-called Hawthorne effect is a very vague body of data l 2 done in industry, in some cases they deliberately 3 manipulated. In others it was acts'of chance. Changes 4 were made that led to.a deduction that the motivation took 5 care of environmental -- adverse conditions. 6 0 Okay. I want to move onto a slightly different 7 aspect of this, but I just want to clarify here that I was 8 referring to the original series of experiments, before the 9 experimenters were aware that the effect was happening. " 10 What I would like to ask you is, doesn't it seem 11 logical to you that air raid defense teams would have some 12 intrinsic motivation to be alert to a siren, even though it , 13 wasn't an emergency situation? 14 A We'd have to ask Dr. Krallmann that question. I 15 really in all fairness don't think I can answer it. Well, 16 I know I can't. 17 O All right. Likewise, the matter of whether l 18 people might self-select themselves for an air raid defense 19 school in part because they are better at hearing sirens 20 hasn't been explored, has it? 21 A No. I don't know how the school attendees were 22 selected, whether they were volunteers or whether they were ; 23 assigned. [ 24 0 Let me see if I can reference, in the English 25 (]) version of the Krallmann study, again. I just want to see l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 203.M73700 Natiosswide Cowrese 800 344M6
l 26042.0 10640 BRT l 1 specifically -- 2 A I believe he merely says that they were students 3 at the school. , 4 0 It says on page 6, the classes were supposed to 5 take place at regular intervals, but it didn't really say 6 anything about the students. Well, this exhibit will show 7 what it shows about that, if anything. I don't want to 8 waste everybody's time. ' 9 A I don't think there are comments on that. 10 0 Okay. Mr. Keast, with respect to.the Harris 11 siren spectrum, I believe you said you had a 1 12 ; one-third-octave band spectrum for it? Do you have that ( 13 i
' availabic to you?
14 A (Keast) What I have is a narrow band spectrum. , 15 1 0 A narrow band spectrum. Okay. May I look at 16 that? l I i 17 is If I can fii A it, sir. l 18 l 0 All right, sir. 19 May I ask you while you are looking if you have i 20 any spectra of fire sirens or other sirens other than the 21 federal signal 10007 I would like to take a look at those, ! 22 too. 23 l HR. BAXTER: I object, Mr. Chairman. This isn't 24 discovery. It's f air to ask what Mr. Keast has used, but () 25 not if he has in his bag somewhere, some other studies -- l i I l Act'#EDERAL REPORTERS. INC. l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ 202 347 3700 Natiosswide Coverage soM 44M6
~\
26042.0 10641 BRT O 1 THE WITNESS: (Keast) This is the only spectra 2 I have. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: I guess that answers the question. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 5 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 6 O Mr. Kcast, this shows some f airly strong peaks 7 at 550 hertz, 1100 hertz, and 1660 hertz, does it not? 8 A (Keast) Yes, it does. 9 O And -- 10 JUDGE KELLEY: We don't, obviously, have any 11 copies of this. 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Could we have it reproduced in 13 the record? 14 JUDGE KELLEY: If counsel and the board want to 15 l waive their rights to look at this, we can go ahead. 16 Otherwise we can pass it around -- 17 ) MR. EDDLEMAN: I'll be glad to pass it around. 18 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 19 0 The next questic.. I was going to ask about it is, 20 there are also a few narrow band peaks 10 or 15 dB lower 21 than those strong peaks that kind of stick up out of a 22 background curve, just dropping away as you go up in 23 ! frequency. Is that a fair characterization of that chart? 24 A (Keast) That's not what this chart shows. () 25 0 Well, I guess I better wait until it gets passed I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 Nationwide cowreer an3364M6
26042.0 10642 BRT 1 back to you to see if you still agree with that. 2 A This chart shows the first fundamental and first 3 two harmonics. The chart stops at 2000 hertz, so it does 4 not show harmonics at 2000 hertz because that's the end of 5 it. 6 0 I wasn't asking you that. The ones I was 7 1 showing to you show little spikes, much less than the l l 8 harmonics and show up principally, I think, to the lower l 9 side of 550 hertz. 10 Wait until it gets around to you. 11 A I better look at it again. l l 12 . JUDGE KELLEY: Not the best way to proceed, but
\
13 I hear no vociferous objection. 14 I THE WITNESS: (Keast) They don't mean anything. 15 That's the 1600 cycle they pick up from the instrumentation. 16 I BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 17 0 That is an artifact of the instrumentation and I 18 1 has nothing to do with the siren; is that what you are 1 19 saying? l 20 A (Keast) And they are at a very low level, very 1 21 l low frequency compared to what we are interested in. 22 0 About how many dB below the fundamental peak of 23 550 hertz is the highest of those 60 cycle spikes, 60 cycle 24 ! harmonics? f~) v 25 A The first one I would eyeball here as being at ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MM6
.. - - ._- .-. - .- _ -~ -
26042.0 10643 I 1 60 hertz, and being at 15 dB below the fundamental of the 2 siren which is at 550 hertz. 3 Q Now, if we were to take this graph and convert 4 it into octave bands that integrate over the entire octave, 5 have you got any idea how that would shape up? , 6 A Yes. 7 0 Could you tell us? i 8 A It would be easier to start describing how it 9 would look if it were in one-third-octave bands.
! 10 0 Okay. Why don't you do that. Then I'll go back i 11 to octaves because the controlling data is octaves.
I 12 A It's a set of 7 octave bands published by Hansen. O i 13 The one-third-octave band centered at 500 hertz would show 14 the 550 hertz component that is in here at the same , 15 amplitude, but it would, of course, be wider. j 16 The bands between 500 hertz and 1000 hertz would 17 show some integral of very low levels on this, which aro l .
- 18 l negligible.
19 And then the 1000 hertz and the 1250 hertz, 20 one-third-octave bands, would split the next time, going up, 21 1250, 1600; the 1600 one-third-octave band would have the 1 22 same amplitude as the 1600. 23 0 Did you say the 1600 would have the same as the ! 24 1600 or the 12007 l () 25 A I'm sorry. The 1600 hertz one-third-octava band 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Natiosswide Coverase 800 33HM6
26042.0 10644 BRT O V 1 would have the same amplitude as the 1660 hertz tone on 2 this illustration. 3 0 On the what, doctor? 4 A On this illustration. (Indicating.) 5 0 Okay. So it would probably be higher than the 6 bands probably immediately preceding it that split the 7 previous --
~
8 A Yes. 9 0 Okay. Thank you. That clarifies, I think, your 10 earlier testimony about the spectrum level and spectrum 11 shape. 12 JUDGE KELLEY: With the parties concurrence, I O V 13 suggest that we have the paper we just have been talking 14 about put in by way of explanation, in the testimony. I 15 MR. GAMIN: No objection. 16 l MR. BAXTER: That's fine. We'll get copies of 17 it. 18 i JUDGE KELLEY: In the transcript I meant. i 19 (The document follows:) 20 21 22 23
- 24 ,
O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 6646
bc
.e. pa :em 1
~ l, E.
# A
!h ? i -I I E
- i 't I d .i ! i-I -~
l . s N.-D .:l. js =' S
-l r.=: i. _ ..,.:1.. -3
.. t :1. - l .. . . . .
_y.:.. =
.. . .g. .
-l =. .= ._.4.=_.= _ . .._. ,..
H
.. dN! ':k=i - _} -NO-i# -i =i N N dI
< Z:
'.i = =h ' t.'l "$ -- bl.5}@-i Zy. e.
i
=Wd zu _ 4 :=t=_
M+Si 4=i i=P =4 *i "i ,,.p. Ni cl 4 ~=i=f-et=! g
- t.-j -r- =j=5 ::: l=. _ .
_ :=
- ._ L_ az_ i =_2i_=
- _4 r m
-l_,_-.=_:,.
x< m: in
-4r. = =_ . _=p .a._a. v
- .i : -to i. .e. . .i. =. i. =.r.-p. .rj . tei. a. . A_ j .)--j= = jsp. _.pJc_3 i.
F$
- =!=t:-i g.; _"] 4.;2i- ,r;-54 :
=!.> a: f;;_
Wr s- r-j. = j _:7 :-j= -j 3 h. t--
= . . ._;- =::
.- t..j p -p=j.sp _;
o 5
- ; _p .. ( ..
._; a ja.j.. _8__.._,
.._:.=; o e g =- l .pi. .a. .J.e. _ H.. . J. ,. 2. =_ _ i_=;__: i :
e m J.. ,. a_.. p.;= ._a.:=i.= p_ :i _i. _a =-: -
, $[o '_ tlEi4 ik_4 4 : I 'i !I =I.@!- Ei .=I.r l i h!Uj9f"=I: 5i==i =ici:-
g
$9 -!k -h&=4 -i# =4=ui--it $
.. : a ,_ i _a = m a.: =is!=\=1 f :=i =i=t= i=VEEi=
L o i 3m m .=__: , _.e I-- _- ---. -.
;, f"- e u.
<L
_..te 2: _ : _ L. :
- * :- -- r t x ~; -
-l: m,! I ~if3;v - --I -.i=' n . . .1 a =a -
- : -s :- o e
W y I == =t _ t 1 =:.. g. .3. _ j;u. l =1: -.4-=.-2 , t- yo 1
. :=. : :== _=_.E rs' =" 1. u _ ;:::.; .8tra - . . _ i.. ,4_- :: 3- - '-
-v -
i H e- p
-t 21 r..-tre, j_m ::-- - 2 t -4 =h. c_ g = : ,t- :i_
=
a_q_.Lu g__' _-._r _.2=;.-- -
..: 2 o
p
= a _ g._:- $_-
z.-_. x ._;- ;. _;==: = =. 1I j t- i=_ =2z=;_ .- T =2 =7==: =:=a= =:a .=y.i : . :a:=r:=_1r z_-_;= _ : = ; z.=
- .2 :. : W i .. =_.=_,y -
. : a
_n.=1 _-. M _-F..' . .. =i.. _* _== . . . . _ " _ ., _... _.__,_-. _=..=_.=:._,= . J
., l t. . . . . ._ p._r .. i. :._ r..=
=_l.__.=...=....
. =. r.=i= :.:. er= _
..=.__=_.=_2=. '_ 2. -- _--4 i. o o " g l ia-s:+ =t:j -ji =t=_!ds!= ! 0 -E= #24k s-E! = TEN - 2
.m__.=_=...= =...~.-_..a...
84=T_-f.:i ,=i=MiE- dList J 0 ^ G
.. .___._..t_-.___.._...__-.,=__
_~._., m.n. n- .- =. . . . .
.._,.T...=_ .
. _ _ . _ . . . . - z
=~r_ : =_2 s I
-4 M ~
Of _ .8 .m. . _-. .r=. :
=
= :_:1 _: =:g_=_
=_ : :: ::2_. r :-a:;;:L-,._ g::.. T
'_.A.
- ir =u =: -: r _ -*
L =r- =- =:=:.- :=- :
.. - := =m ,. %= =- g=-t=:_Q :r , = =-= : ::24:--! =- -
l y y
- i== m=n:.:
.= =. . := , arm ::- ,=_:= , r :- r_-(_ - ----- .- i-- F= v . yaA=-15 =::y, =,1 +_. : - .r. . ==t . ~ ,s . o z
,,3
=_1.__: ._ T :_.-l ..:.a . . . u. . = f_ ._.:. ._:.~4.=...,: =.:.
=. k. _- :_1 =. .
o m o. _ _., - i .- } .:};-*. -7:*3 T2 _1. ._4. _ .g__ . . . _ _ . . o CD .m
. . J-~r' '.-1*: =. . i... _f__.}.?
D i .
- i. r..r'
. _._ . . . _4 .; =- : _, r r : p.. =-g=.. .z:== a . a ==_a. = ===r=r
- _,:a. -
_ =.: =: =r: =t=. _. _ . . .=wf=:a
-,= :a: =t= -i: ri- =,r O c un t- =rq:=dp.,.s, ,.
w w >-
- = t =; =. ~_ : ._ _ . u==~=_. an , ,_. .a=._ a nt.-+-+--- El _;} :+r2= .:._;:=_ a: _=r__:: =,-
M
----_2_ r 4. 4_ . .~.: -- --~..~_-..I.
- u. z .*-
; -* :-- * =-* }+ _::=5 ? ---* ---*. ::=: ===c
- =: =_3. :.r__::.= _ .r ::: _= : :.=.: 22. ::=:;-
2a .--**7T-
,3
_*"Z J-1: . 7;=p==: - 2 .--*;_-- - -_ *
- =g=:
=:- :.' .l e
t.--'=#-'~-.'_~r'.~.~a. r_ =#-##; :---~-- * ~'~~ 'i -i o me=
. _ . _ _____ =_....,_ _'#-"-#_ =_ '; ~~ . ~-_-#20 r := ; #' =l_d. _. -' N# 4 ~~~'-'4'U'-- ~^ ~-
- F-
" h W
=7==. = - r _r-a =+= a_n. . . -ag-- ~=5= -_t-i-t
- . , _ __t==,_ -
.. e r=._._._ -d =$=- =, _ . _: =4 - c. j -
ni _ =- taal%. =-- - =4 _..--_= 1 =-
- -~. __ -_- _ .--
__. _ ^i'x.= + -
* ' . _ . _ . _=- . t =:=:==.t c- *....{._
- = 2_. - :=__:r_: . A =* - ct
.: = _ . = . 2. _ - _= :. =-. :. i o _r_ =_ -_..,_____-a=
__ . _ . _ _ _ _ . ir r-- _ : -
. ._: =__:._ .: =..-- u__a.c.-
. sa =. = --
a_ __.m___,_ OJ
~2 _. 4;_._. .,_- _ =r._ _r , - :, o o<y
-- ._i-r- _
1 _ i -;=p.m_=m -m_a . o a_ is=a _a_,.._ rxt =r-w=W -f===w-r=i-=i:-ie := lei =i- t
= .=-
- r :m =: =
=== ::: _,...;= ==e
,.=
.. _s_. . : : :
. _ e c:= - 1__ '-'? ?-nw-. .-_-t
-. -=.1=:.:-- .-- =t=L-- L==: =- - =;=g=;_ t ge
-==:==. =_=_.-*.=r, - - _ +-:=_ =tr.
- - - - . - ~-;
_ g5 m.= =: _- -= 2 _a,,
- =: _a _ _. . a - : = - = . ==:.x : . :-: .&-J-1=a ,tr_ :::_.l O ~
- -- .-sv_! =_ =. ...,=.,..!.!
. a+ =: == . l _ :.v =- .t -+ , - p- r ,_. . =__r. .ta u- r_,=i.=3=_a c_ ::a- =: = -,.c_
g,:;--
= -<
=__.=.:__..
_~c : a , , . ri : --t : t ,me==: ., t. j 1- :- e m c2 i,
- m. _.=_=
_.=__.= _,.y.
,. _a.._=.__g._.._.
__ ; =: _-_ . __=_ _. v. _y. =.=_ } :. .: =. r. ws._ 2_ . -1 . .
=d.=_ _2 - - - ,
a_=_ p__ . 3- .t =. . = =.v_v ;
- . . . o a
a- _,rs= = ::: - = =-
. _ .. .a- e : ,-t=1=9;:.
. , . _ , _ . _ . . _ _ g._ -
ga
- ..._. _m.__; : -F.q.a w_
,_ :=1_
,__3;y. _ _:. 3 e.r -_ -.
wg Wi-d"iff i=iET i= ) _~1 * "iM=i =1_3"._+_!-i at=E _. _ - iCis="ri f=iEi?J4 EiEi =f= i
- - Pu <g i
.a =i= .=
; = #._ 3=_,+=_
=a=_._ n=m =L=_ _ . l=. . . . u. =
_-- . ! -_rn=t_=L=1 +. =im
-.._.._. ._ ... = , r=4._: d. =1==
_=_. . . = , . . - ._;. e _.=_ ._ .2r =. ; =. . *.2} 12 7.__ . . .t=1 -n
, . _: .: 12_2.._r _ r. .=. _r_t.. =_ : =_ __l:_r_.
ay ..p_=. !.:.u_. __ ....,.-Jg. *. ;_,:,.:=,.; =-.. _ j .=_ j __. . . . _:._on3: - lg . -:= -= = _.::.: .-- =: :-= p== =: = == r l _;==u =f~. m=.
,1=:
c3 .
- - r= =
rr- s .== r a =wr. .=r -- v 3_':. . -.==s = w:y= . 2- -
- .:=a==
=: : - r 3.==. := =:::: ,
u =: =t. .; w i D,tri=iE6' =M3f? a_MJ'i=W " = + l'-M 5== =-fei #-j - m-._..-- e l 1. _ ,, _ . _ , ... - 1 Li-s =i=iE M ~ 4i 1 - 3 _._ . .. _) --. i -: = - =.:=
.-t-o
.. c_ ,.._.:.. _.._] ;_.__.
- t.: . ; l -
i, - m .o m
. \ u t--- o ----?
I Y 1
.BV80BOlW ZOOO*0 BB GP NI BBOSSBBd GNGOS 3Al.LV 138 MEmJ Acoustic TECHNOLOGY INC. l gf 1
26042.0 10645 BRT O 1 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 2 O Does the attenuation in general increase as you 3 pass through the walls of the house, as you go up above 4 1000 hertz? 5 A (Kryter) Yes. Somewhat. 6 O So you would expect even a greater attenuation 7 than even the 1660 attenuation of the tone in the Krallmann 8 data that then would be found for 1000 hertz tone passing 9 through the external shell walls, windows, whatever, of a 10 building? 11 A I think by 1 decibel or thereabouts. 12 O So about 4 dB, perhaps? () 13 A Oh, let me take a look. 14 l 0 Can you tell us what you are referring to? 15 A I'm referring to figure 8-A of my written 16 testimony, page 27. 17 O Thank you. 18 A Between 1000 and 1600 hertz. Again, I'll just 19 eyeball it, it's approximately 1 to 1.5 decibels. It 20 depends upon whether you are talking about a brick veneer 21 house or a wood sided house. 22 O I see. Which type of house gives the greater 23 attenuation or is that significant, Doctor? 24 A I think that should be considered a matter of 25 sampling and not taking too specifically. For this ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4646
26042.0 10646 BRT
/ 1 particular set of data, the wood siding house shows a 2 slightly greater attenuation at 1600, relative to 1000, 3 than does the brick veneer house. But, on the other hand, 4 there are other average data from houses that are shown 5 there that show on the average the difference would be as a 6 matter of fact no more than 1 decibel.
7 0 Mr. Keast, the spectrum of the federal signal 8 1000 that we were just discussing and is going into the 9 record, who made those measurements; do you know? 10 A (Keast) Acoustic Technology, Inc. 11 0 Dr. Bastione's firm? 12 A Yes. That's correct. () 13 0 Have you made any independent measurements of 14 the actual output of the sirens for the Harris EPZ? 15 A Not at Shearon Harris, no. ' 16 O All right, sir. Dr. Kryter, in your discussion 17 with Judge Carpenter about the sound level of the siren 18 l first rising and then falling, did you say that more or 19 less canceled out? 20 A (Kryter) Well, I said the on-set duration 21 factor that was studied with respect to aircraft noise did 22 nor seem to me to be applicable or pertinent to the siren 23 signal and its audibility. 24 0 Is that because of different frequencies with 25 the aircraft noise? Or different pattern? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 _ :__ :_ ~ , u _ .. w w .
1 26042.0 10647 BRT O 1 A Well, I think it's a temporal pattern, the i 2 aircraft noise being a slower pattern and also the source 3 itself is a moving source, whereas the siren is a fixed 4 Source. 5 0 Then it's only moving in the sense that it 6 , rotates? 7 A In the sense it rotates. It's not moving 8 physically towards the listener. 9 0 Have you done'any analysis, referring to the 10 graph of the directivity pattern of the thunderbolt FS1000, 11 that is as to the comparability of the rate of rise of that 12 signal to the approach of an aircraft. () 13 i A No, I have not. ' 14 0 You could figure out the -- knowing the number 15 1 of revolutions per minute, you could figure out the rate of 16 rise of dB of signal from this graph directly, could you 17 not? 18 l A Yes. However, there are data also provided by 19 ATI which show the measurements made at difference 20 distances from the siren and they show that that pattern is 21 somewhat different at different distances due to 22 atmospheric disturbances and turbulence. I 23 0 You have this data from AT1? 24 l A It is in my testimony. l 25 0 It is contained in your present testimony? 0 i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Covesase 800 3364646
. , _ . - . - _ = _ _ . _ . - - _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ - . , _ _ . . ~ .-
26042.0 10648 BRT 1 A My present testimony, yes. 2 0 All right. We'll probably get to it there. 3 The discussion, Dr. Kryter, that you had with 4 Judge Carpenter of the differences between the Krallmann 5 study and the Lukas data, you mentioned that Krallmann only 6 exposed his subjects one time a night and in more recent i' 7 discussion here you mentioned there were only four nights 8 that each subject was tested; is that correct? l 9 ! A That's correct. i 10 0 So given that Dr. Krallmann examined four l 11 different waking periods, a subject could be tested in one 12 , waking period one night and a different one each succeeding s I (_) 13 night? 14 A That is correct, yes. l 15 0 Is that what he did in all cases? Or did he 16 test the same subject with the same waking period, lsometimes 17 that is between midnight and 1:15 a.m.; 1:15, 2:30; 2:30, i 18 3:45; 3:45-5:00, 19 A My recollection from reading his testimony -- 20 i and again, when we discussed this on the telephone we 1 21 didn't get too far -- that is, he randomized his conditions. 22 That is, he had five different levels and four dif ferent 23 l time periods. He tested 24 subjects at a time and he t 24 j randomized these conditions over the 96 nights during which
\
w; 25 he performed the tests. (V l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
l l l
'26042.0 10649 BRT O 1 Q Okay. You made two principal distinctions l
2 between the Krallmann and Lukas study, one of which was no l l 3 artificial overstimulation. i 4 Do you recall what the other one was? 5 A No artificial overstimulation -- I don't recall 6 using that term. My real distinction was to try to 7 reconcile the Horonjeff and Krallmann data rather than 8 Lukas-Krallmann data. But I don't -- I talked about 9 habituation being greater in the Horonjeff experiment than 10 in the Krallmann. 11 0 Okay. Did I let you finish your answer? 12 A Well, the other factor had to do with the () 13 saliency of the pure tone signal. 14 0 And that has to do with the fact that it's in a 15 very narrow band; is that correct? 16 A Yes. Yes. 17 0 How narrow row does the band have to be? I l 18 think Judge Carpenter already asked you this, if he did 19 tell me. How narrow does the band have to be to be 20 considered a pure tone for these purposes? 21 A The purer the tone, presumably the greater the 22 effect, and the studies show that it must be less than a 23 third octave -- that is tonality starts appearing when you 24 take a random noise and filter it. I would say that we 25 must -- we are talking here about frequencies that are, you
)
l j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 33H646
26042.0 10650 BRT O 1 know, around -- center frequencies, 1 or 2 hertz wide. 1 2 O Okay. So very sharp peaks, analogous to those 3 that are in Mr. Keast's graph from ATI of the federal 4 signal 1000 line spectrum? j 5 A That is correct. The kind of spectra you would 4 6 get from a siren. 7 0 And you infer that in Dr. Kra11mann's study, a
- 8 siren with a sharp line spectrum like that was used; is I 9 that the inference?
i 10 A That's correct. Right. j 11 0 Okay. 12 1 A It doesn't have to be that sharp, but I believe 13 that was the case. I 14 0 I don't also recall if you were asked this. I 15 Mr. Keast, in explaining the difference between EPNdB and , 16 SEL early in Judge Carpenter's examination, came out with a 17 difference of 20. Were you asked whether you agreed with 18 his calculation? 19 A No. I believe not. 20 0 Do you recall the calculation sufficiently to 21 answer whether or not you agree with it? 22 A I'm not sure that I do. 23 0 Okay. I'll just leave it at that. i 24 A That is, I'm not sure that I recall it 25 suf ficiently to answer that question. j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ll02 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
l I l 26042.0 10651 ' BRT 1 0 I see. In the Horonjeff data that needed to be 2 pushed to the left 13 dB -- and I think Judge Carpenter 3 pointed out that there's a point at 65 percent arousal that 4 doesn't exist in the data -- is it not true that Mr. Keast 5 might be the one who knows this best, but either one of you 6 please answer if you know -- is it not true that in that 7 Horonjeff data, the arousal percentage doesn't rise above 8 55 percent, or not significantly above 55 percent even up 9 to 110 EPNdB? 10 A Let me get out my figure 4-A.in the original 11 testimony. 12 0 I'm looking for your reference at figure 12 that () 13 Judge Carpenter introduced. You can refer to anything you 14 wish. 15 A The data, Horonjoff figure 4-A -- I think the 16 , highest -- in terms of SEL, the highest data point they 1 17 have is around 97. Now, you may be referring to 18 extrapolation lines that appeared on my figure 5-A, and on 19 the board -- Judge Carpenter's figure A -- 20 0 No, sir, I'm not. Do you have Judge Carpenter's 21 figure 12 there? 22 A Figure 12? Oh, this one from Horonjeff's report? L 23 0 Yes. Page 41.. I 24 A Yes. That's in terms of EPNdB. 25 O Right. Yes. What I'm asking you is when you O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H64 n....__~-............-,,....,........ ._ __ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
26J42.0 10652 BRT
~'
1 push those EPNdBs back, 13 dB to the left, it's still true, 2 is it not, that none of the Horonjeff data points show an 3 alerting percentage or arousal percentage above 55 percent, 4 up to the maximum sound level for which there are data 5 points, once you remove that unreal data point that Judge 6 Carpenter pointed out? 7 A Well, he has, again -- Horonjeff's plot of the 8 data on figure 12 on EPNdB is a bone of contention with 9 everyone who has examined it. But figure 4-A showed that 10 you get probabilities of arousal of around 60, but that the 11 SEL is only of the order of 97. 12 O Okay. Go ahead? rx - (j 13 A The percent arousal was in that vicinity.
- 14 0 And in figure 12, regardless of how you shift 15 the data back and forth along the horizontal component, the 16 I maximum vertical component of any of thoce black data l
17 points from Horonjeff is less than or equal to 55 percent 18 arousal; is that correct, isn't it? 19 A That's correct. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: What is your estimate at this 21 poinc, Mr. Eddleman? 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'd guess another 20 minutes, 1 23 Judge. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Would you want to take a short r's 25 break now and finish it up? V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10653 BRT 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's fine. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's keep this short. Less than 3 10, anyway. 4 (Recess.) 5 JUDGE KELLEY: We can resume. 6 l MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you, judge. 7 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 8 0 Gentlemen, I would like to turn to the last part 9 of Mr. Keast's testimony of February 21st, where he i 10 i discusses -- in the last part of the text, not of the 1 I 11 i tables -- where you discuss the correction that you filed 12 on -- or was filed for you on January 2nd, to your i s 13 testimony in November. (t-) i 14 l Now, I must confess to be a little bit confused. I 15 l As I recall, the original testimony, you came up with a 99 16 ! dB level outside the house to 50 percent probability of 17 , wakening, using floronjeff data; and Dr. Kryter came up with i 18 l 90. Is it correct you came up with 90? 19 i MR. BAXTER: Mr. Eddleman, these aren't the same I i 20 things at all. Your recitation just now is not the source 21 of the correction, the object of the correction. ! 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me look at the -- you are 23 saying taose numbers have not been corrected? They are 24 standing? l r3 25 i MR. BAXTER: As far as I know, yes. (_) l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
.. . .n-_ e .,- . . -
26042.0 10654 BRT O 1 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 2 O Mr. Keast, let me pursue your' transcript 3 references here. 4 MR. BAXTER: If it would help move it along, my l 5 memory is the testimony that's being corrected is that oral l 6 testimony that at 60 dB you get zero awakening. 1 I 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's transcript 9650, if I 8 recall -- do you have the transcript available to you, l 9 Mr. Keast? I've got a copy here also. 10 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Yes, I do. 1 11 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 12 O Okay. On transcript 9649, Judge Carpenter I () 13 l begins on line 10 asking you a question about the design 14 standard of 60 dB, and what it means in terms of 15 i probability of awakening. Are you there? 1 16 . A (Keast) Yes. 17 < Q Now you answer, "It would be quite low." And l , 18 then Judge Carpenter asks you to give a number. And your 19 answer begins: "Okay, I'm going to average these 20 background noises in the bedroom and assume 20 da. 21 Is that assumption retained in your correction? . 22 A Yes, it is. 23 I O And by putting in the 13 dB factor, you then 24 change zero, and 7 and 8 on 9650, transcript page, to the [} 25 , figures given in your testimony of February 21st on page 19. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cowrese 800 336 4646
26042.0 10655 BRT O, (_ 1 Pardon me -- that are given in your January 2nd affidavit, 2 and discussed briefly in your question and answer 17, on 3 page 19. 4 A That is correct. 5 0 Okay. Now, the 18 dB factor there, how is it 6 tnat you left that out, Mr. Keast? 7 A I made a mistake, Mr. Eddleman. 8 0 Okay. 9 MR. BAXTER: The rest of the calculations were 10 not done on the witness stand, however.
,11 MR. EDDLEMAN: I thought he calculated the 99 on 12 the witness stand, didn't he?
(} i 13 Strike that. I don't need to natter with 14 counsel. Nor will I ask anybody about striking all the 15 testimony about anybody who makes an error. l 16 l BY MR. EDDLEMAN: I 17 Q Mr. Keast, let me refer you to your attachments i 18 1 where you give breakdowns. Look at attachment A, breakdown 1 19 of alerting by sound level zones uuing Horonjeff curves j i 20 from board figure 1. Now, that's figure 1 of the January l 21 16th order, is it not? 22 A (Keast) That is correct. 23 0 I want to refer ycu -- well, let me ask you , 24 first: Is it true that you figure approximately 20 percent J l ! 25 improvement over the alerting levels given here, where 20 i l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , ) 202 347 3700 Nassonwide Coversee 800 336 eM6 I
- """ ; . a . "f~"~~" "" ? _",. : * " _ *7'"" T"~ ' ' " " " J" El 7" ~J "* "
- 1 y'~; 1;_1 _ __;;; ~~ l y _ _
26042.0 10656 CRT
- 1 percent doesn't bring you up right against 100 percent for 2 the informal alerting; even though that's not really the 3 subject of these reopened hearings, that's part of your 4 procedure reaching the conclusions you reach in your 5 ! testimony of February 21st, is it not?
I 6 l MR. BAXTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Eddleman, I just 7 didn't understand that. Would you restate it, please? i 8 l MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm not sure the witness 9 understands it. l i 10 MR. BAXTER: I'm concerned about the record. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: The question as I understand it 12 ist Do Mr. Keasts bottom-line numbers include the informal (") \. , 13 alerting? 14 i MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me rephrase it. I think I 15 l can handle this. 16 I BY MR. EDDLEMAN: L 17 ; O Mr. Keast, in reaching your conclusions in your 18 testimony of February 21, did you take into account i 19 i informal alerting in addition to the fractions awakened l I 20 j given in your attachments A, B, C, D, E, et cetera? 21 A (Keast) My inclusion -- my conclusions in my 22 l testimony on page 6 at the top of the page are new direct f 23 testimony, and include both numbers -- excluding three 24 ! numbers. They include the 75 percent, which you see on 25 attachment A. They include the addition of 3 percei.t for C ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 60tk33MM6 s ,
26042.0 10657 BRT i ! 1 those already -- 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Cnairman -- excuse me, are 3 you finished? 4 THE WITNTSS: (Keast) No. And they include the 5 92 percent when the effective informal alerting is added. i 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, in light of the l 7 board's earlier rulings about things being outside the 8 scope and because informal alerting was explicitly excluded 9 from this reopened hearing, I would move to strike all the 10 references to infarmal alerting in Mr. Keast's testimony. l 11 MR. BAXTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, we oppose that 12 motion. All Mr. Keast is doing is doing arithmetic here (-] 13 l for the convenience of the board. Ile has taken dr. Mileti',s x_/ l 14 I i formula, subject to cross-examination at the last hearing, 15 + and has, without expressing any judgments about the basis 16 for it at all, simply applied that formula to the number he 17 . calculates for direct alerting. l 18 l The board could do that as well, based on the I 19 previous testimony, if it agreed with it, and Mr. Keast has 20 l simply done that for convenience here. 21 MR. GAMIN: Your lionor, I'm a little confused 22 because I was attempting to do the very same thing with 23 ! convenience, trying to find out where we are with absolute 24 , terms adding the 3 percent and then the informal percent 25 ' and I got shut down. I think it should be addressed, but I, ,1 j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336.(646
26042.0 10658 BRT
) 1 I'm just sorry that I wasn't permitted to pursue that line.
2 MR. BAXTER: This isn't quite as simple a 3 subtraction. It's a little more complicated a formula than 4 that, but it is set out in prior testimony. 5 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, if I can correct the 6 record on that point, I am referring to the time when I 7 l attempted to add the percentage *, that Mr. Keast came with, l 8 l the 3 percent added and then the informal percentage. I 9 Mr. Baxter now is referring to something else. He's l 10 i referring to the other thing that I was shut down on. But 1 11 l I was precluded from trying to arrive at some general i 12 , arousal figures, too. I just wanted to clear that up for 13 the record. (^) u-14 JUDGE KELLEY: Frankly, I'm unclear about what 15 happened in that regard when you were questioning. If I 16 . understand correctly, it's a straight addon using a formula 17 i that Dr. Molletti put in the record earlier. I can't see 18 what harm it does. Mr. Eddleman? 19 l MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I just think it i 20 i should be sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. 21 l Whether it does harm or not, I think the board's orders 22 should be consistently applied. 23 l JUDGE KELLEY: Well, in what respect, assuming 24 ! we let these numbers stand, how would we be inconsistent? I 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: In admitting testimony from one s 1 (o) ; ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . ~ . - . . . - . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . - - . . . . . . . ~ ,
3
26042.0 10659 BRT O 1 side about matters which were explicitly excluded from this 2 hearing and yet not allowing cross f rom other parties as to 3 matters which were also excluded from the hearing, in my 4 opinion. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Which cross has been excluded, as 6 far as you are concerned? 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: You are saying I was not excluded, 8 sir? 9 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't know what you are 10 referring to when you are saying that you have been -- I 11 gather you are referring to yourself -- have been barred 12 from pursuing some line of inquiry while, on the other hand, () 13 if we were to let in or leave in these bottom lines that 14 Mr. Keast has drawn, I don't understand the inconsistency. 15 Where did you get shut off? 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: I did not. But on account of 17 what I've seen happen with Mr. Gamin's questions, I have 18 not asked some questions which I would have just as soon 19 asked, figuring that the board would sustain objections, 20 but it's not -- 21 JUDGE KELLEY: We have to take it question by 22 question. The board is satisfied that its preclusion 23 l rulings on some of Mr. Camin's questions were based on the 24 fact that they are not within the scope of the hearing. I 25 All we've got here is Mr. Keast saying: Well, I want to I I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverser 800 3WWW6
26042.0 10660 BRT 1 give a total number here so I'll just use the Mileti 2 formula and tack it on the top. That's not going to 3 confuse anybody, is it? 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't think it's going to j 5 confuse anybody but I still think that -- I'll withdraw the ! 6 objection. I don't Want to waste our time at this hour of l l 7 the afternoon. But I still think that it's not consistent. I 8 I would say that on the record and then turn back to 9 questioning. , 10 JUDGE KELLEY: We feel it is consistent, so we 11 disagree. Go ahead. 12 BY fir. EDDLEMAN: 13 0 Mr. Mileti -- on your attachment A? Excuse me, O 14 that's a mistake. It's Dr. Mileti, too. I have gone back 15 to October in my mind. Pardon me. 16 fir. Keast, in your attachment A, if you look l 17 down toward the bottom of that attachment, you see, do you 18 not, the Cractions awakened falling in the last five rows i 19 below 70 percent, the Horonjeff data; do you not? , 20 A (Keast) That is correct. , i 21 0 And have you calculated what the Mileti factor l 22 for informal alerting adds to those individual fractions ! i 23 awakaned for these subgroups for the sound level zones? ' ( 24 A No. 25 0 would you accept, subject to check, that for l O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 2 @ )47 3700 Nationwide Coverser 800 3)HM6 r_-__s_e _- m _. m .v m ? _1. . .- .__ -u >. ' ~ > ~ ~ " - -- ~ " ' ~ ~ - ' - - " -
l 26042.0 10661 BRT () I these it might be in the range of adding 20 to 25 percent -- : 2 .2 to .25 to the fraction awakened? i
! 3 A No. I wouldn't accept that.
1 4 0 Well, regardless of what the Mileti formula i j 5 might add to it, which in any event may be outside the ; 4 i j 6l scope of this hearing, the fractions awakened there yield, 7 in fact, some hundreds of houses that will not be directly f
! 8 awakened by the sirens, do they not?
1 9 A That is correct. l
) 10 0 okay. Now, would it be possible from your 11 information to identify these houses for the purpose of I
12 targeting backup alerting to them? 13 A It would not be possible at this tim,e, no, sir. 14 0 would it be possible under some other conditions ; 15 or at some other time? 1 4 16 i A It is possible in concept, yes. t 17 l 0 All right. And likewise, in your attachment B, i 1 18 using the Kra11mann data, the last three lines, you have 19 groupings of residences that fall in the 70 percent down to 20 about 57 percent fraction awakened in those last three i sound level zones toward the bottom, do you not? 21 l 22 A Yes. 23 , O And would the same answers about being able to 24 identify those houses for purposes of targeting backup l 25 I alerting be given as I just asked and got from attachment A?
}
I ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' l 202 347 3700 Nationwide cowrese 800 3 4 4646
26042.0 10662 , BRT 1 A Yes.
- 2 0 And can an individual residence be identified as l
3 having a low probability of being alerted, from your data? 4 A Some residences can be identified as having a 5 lower probability than other residences. I 6i O Are there, in fact, some dead zones or lowcr < 7 signal level zones that are identifiable from your map, 8 Exhibit 46-A? 9 A Yes. 10 0 Mr. Keast, I just want to run through your ' 11 prefiled testimony. I have just a few more questions to : 12 ask you. l l 13 A If you don't mind, I would like to correct my 14 last answer. Let's not call them " dead zones." Let's call i 15 them zones of lower sound exposure. ! 16 ' O All right. On pages 6 and 7 of your answer 9 , 17 you say, "As directed by the board I've used the following 18 assumptions in the board's order of January 16, 1986." You 19 list two on page 6, and then over on page 7 you say you did 20 not use any of the other assumptions or approximations on 21 pago 7 of the board's order. That's a direct quote, is it 22 not? l 23 A Yes. 24 0 Why not? l 25 A Because I was not directed to do so. ' l O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverese soo.3 M M6
26042.0 10663 BRT 1 0 Do you make the distinction betwoon directed and 2 requested? 3 A I was also not requestod to do so. 4 0 I don't know how I've done this, unless I picked 5 up the wrong copy of Mr. Koast's testimony. I thought I l 6l had sono questions noted in here and I don't believo I do. 7 Lot mo turn to Dr. Kryter's testimony, because I do havo l 8 that. 1 9 The curvo you givo -- the family of curves that i 10 you give in your figure 1 on page 2 of your February 1986 11 testimony, you give adjustments for habituation and puro 12 tono correction betwoon the lower Krallmann line, which is , ,s 13 the third lino down from the top, and the Horonjoff test
)
( 14 transmission lino noise, do you not? 15 < A (Krytor) Yes. l 0 Is the difference betwoon the lower Krallmann 16 f 17 ! line and the upper Kra11mann line due to those tactors, too, 1 18 j in part? Or is it just a difference in lovel of sloop the 19 subjects are in? 20 l A 11011, whether one would apply those adjustments l 21 that are showa by a 10 porcentage point or about a 10 dB 22 dif ference atter identifying the habittiation factor and the 23 puro tono correction factor betwoon Horonjeff and Kra11mann, 24 j they would apply to the wholo family of curves. 23 { Now, we have not adjusted anything; that is, the n O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80043W>84
l 26042.0 10664 BRT l (} 1 curves are drawn according to the data points and l 2 extrapolations of the data points. They merely demonstrate 3 that if one wanted to convert Horonjef f's data to what we ! 4 would -- what Kra11mann would have gotten if he had used 5 Horonjeff's noises or the test transmission line noise, and l 6 had tested his subjects for 21 days, one would calculate it 7 on the basis, again, of independent functions, that the 8 linea would have been, for the zero to 115 a.m., would have 9 been very similar to the line that he got using the siren. 10 In other words, it is a means for showing that 11 the Horonjef f data differed from the Kra11mann data for the 12 zero to 1:15 a.m. function in accordance with identified 13 I differences in arounal due to habituation and pure tone O 14 corrections and they would apply, or the same factors would 15 apply to all three curves of Kra11mann's. 16 0 Okay. So, are you saying the same factors apply 17 ' I to explain all the difference between, let's say, the t'o p 18 l Kra11mann curve, the 4:00 to 5:00 a.m. curve and the 19 Horonjeff transmission line noise? 20 A No. In our discussion we talk about the' fact 21 that the Horonjef f data are a little bit ambiguous in that 22 we could not separate that out for a given hour of the 23 night. And probably they show a little more arousability 24 than -- because they are an average over a longer period of 25 time, nighttime, they probably show a little more O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nation *kle Coverage 3003364N6
-.o-. . . .-.-1 .. = , , .. , - _ , . _ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
26042.0 10665 BRT () 1 arousability than the Krallmann zero to 1:15 a.m. data. On 2 the other hand, we say that this difference between the two i 3 experimental situations works in the opposite direction of 4 the fact that the subjects were slaoping in their own 5 bedrooms in the Horonjeff data, whereas they were in a 6 different situation in the Krallmann experiment. 7 O So, to use the Krallmann data, you would have to 8 make a correction for the fact that people in the EB2, ! 9 presumably, would be sleeping in their own bedrooms? 10 A We say that that would be -- one would estimate 11 that would be something of a factor. 12 1 0 And that's -- 13 A on the other hand, we point out that there are O 14 other factors in the Krallmann experiment that work in the 15 opposite direction and we suggest that -- figures -- that 16 the Krallmann data do represent the average of four nights 17 and further, that the stren signal was not a danger or 18 alerting signal, which would tend to make them a little 19 more relaxed and less likely to be aroused. So these are 20 compensating. One can only estimate whether they are equal 21 to each other. 22 O Do you have an estimate of whether they are or 23 are not equal? 1 24 A I cannot cite any npecific data, but my opinion 25 is that they certainly are, to some extent, O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 02 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 33HN6
26042.0 10666 BRT I counterbalancing within 1 dB, or 2. I could not bo 2 specific. 3 0 All right. Do people, in fact, habituato to 4 hearing fire sirens, polico sirons and things like that in 5 the night? 6 A I think it depends upon whether the signal, the 7 siren signal is a warning to them or whether it is t 8l something that occurs in their environment that is not a 9 warning. 10 That is, if you hear the fire engine go by your 11 house because the five station is down the stroot from you, 12 or if you hear an ambulanco going by towards the hospital, ,s 13 it is probably something you do becomo habituated to. \ ) 14 So airens, por so, I think, can becomo somewhat 15 ! habituated. I 16 On the other hand, I think a signal, a siren 17 I signal that, by instruction or by agrooment is an alerting 18l signal for evacuation, I would believe that that -- you do 19 not have the opportunity nor the desire to habituate to it. 20 I O Ilave you, Dr. Krytor, studied the spectra of i 21 sirens in uso for the EPZ for firo and so on and comparod 22 them to the fodoral 1000 spectrum? 23 ! A No, I hivo not. l 24 t1R . EDDLEMAN: Thank you. That's all the 25 , questions I have. / I (>) l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 37(x) Nationwide Coverase 8 s 3 % 6646
26042.0 10667 BRT (A) 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis? 2 MR. ROCHLIS: No questions. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter? 4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. DAXTER: 6l 0 Mr. Keast, you were asked a question or two 7 l about your ability to identify particular housos that have 8 lower probabilities of arousal than others. Let me ask you, 9 in connection with your previous testimony, you identifiod 10 on attachment 6 of it eight different conditions of homos 11 with various outdoor-indoor sound attenuations, indoor 12 background noise levels. 13 - Can you identify any particul,ar house that has 14 anyone of those eight casos on the EPZ map or are those 15 assumed ovonly distributed? 16 l A (Koast) They are assumed ovcnly distributed. I 17 0 Do you know for any particular house on the EPZ 18 map what the family sizo is? 19 A No, I do not. 20 0 In the absence of that information, can you 21 identify any particular house that you would -- that would 22 fall under the calculation of not aroused, in your analysis? 23 A No, I cannot. 24 j O When you testified just very recontly about so's 25 areas having lower sound propagation than others, in your O i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS INC. 202 347 3700 Nation *We Coversee 800 33MM6
1 26042.0 10668 i BRT 1 0 1 # 1v i aia vo= uacover #v er or ea sez ta e w r-j 2 below FEMA design criteria?
- 3 A No.
1 4 MR. BAXTER: That's all I have. Thank you. , 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything further? I guess 6 Mr. Eddleman and Mr. Gamin. Who wants to go first? 7 MR. GAMIN: I'll go back. t I
; 8 RECROSS EXAMINATION l 9 BY MR. GAMIN:
i j 10 0 Mr. Keast, were you involved at all in the ! i j 11 decision to augment the five mile area with tone alert 12 radios? 13 MR. BAXTER: Objection. That's the subject of l i O 14 the next panel's testimony. I 15 JUDGE KELLEY: He's on the next panel also. I ] 16 l Postpone it. ! 17 l MR. GAMIN: Let me just ask one more question, [ l t i ' 18 l then. ' l l 19 j BY MR. GAMIN: 20 0 When the decision was mado to supplement, at 21 whatever reason, were the eight factors that Mr. Baxter - 22 talked about considered? Or were simply the fact that
! 23 there was a low percentage of alertability considered?
j 24 MR. BAXTER: Same objection, Mr. Chairman. l 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Sustained. , O ! l c ! ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 2023473700 Nationwide coverage 00 M 4 4646 ;
26042.0 10669 BT.T l ) 1 Mext panol. 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Could I ask the court reporter to 3 read back Mr. Baxter's last question and the answer. 4 (The reporter road the record as requested.) 5 RECROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. EDDLEMAN 7 0 Mr. Keats, what PEHA standard woro you referring 8 to, the daytimo summer alerting standard? 9 A (Koats) Yos, I'm referring to the 60 dB. 10 0 Now, on Exhibit A there is no 60 dB lino, is 11 thoro? 12 A That is correct. 7- 13 j 0 Are you saying that oven that little section ( ) 14 l down in the southeast, where I believe that now siren is 15 supposed to go whenover it gets installed, is above 60 dB7 16 A I believo so, but lot me take a look at it. 17 ; O Please. 18 A Definitely. 19 l JUDGE KELLEY: Who has the ball at this point? 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm sorry. I didn't hoar that 21 thoto was an answer. I bog your pardon. 22 Tl!E WITNESS: I'm sorry. I said "Definitoly." 23 l That was my answor. 24 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: l 25 0 Definitely abovo 60. Now, Mr. Koact, in torms rm ' C' ACE. FEDERAL, REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nat6oneide Coverage 800 0 6-6646
I 26042.0 10670 BRT l i O 1 of the NoReG 0654 criteria, specifica11v ee J10<c>, 2 requiring means for notifying all segments of the transient l 3 and resident population, was that a criterion that you 4 considered in your analysis? l l 5 MR. BAXTER: Do you have a copy to show the 1 6 witness? 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. I'll show the witness. 8 It's very brief, all it says is "mo,ns for notifying all 9 segments of the resident population -- 10 MR. ROCHLIS: I'm going to object to the 11 question as outside the scope of the contention. 12' MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe that compliance with 13 NUREG 0654 is something the Applicants are relying on here. L 14 MR. ROCHLIS: That's true, Mr. Eddleman, but we 15 are dealing with sloeping residents, not transients. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Which subpart of J are you l 17 talking about? l 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: 10(c), Judge. It just says ! l 19 " transient" there. I'm not trying to ask a question about l l 20 transients, but it says "means for notifying all segments 21 of the" -- dot, dot, dot -- " resident population," if I can 22 avoid Mr. Rochlis' objection by saying that. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: And your question is whether that 24 standard was taken into account? l t ; l 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: How it was taken into account in l 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202. W .37ao NeckmwWe cowrese sto))HN6
26042.0 10671 BRT c', () 1 his analysis. 2 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Shall I answer? 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's up to the Judge. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: K411, I think it's questionable 5 about scope, but if you have an answer maybe you can give 6 it. 7 THE WITNESS: (Keast) To the extent that the 8 transients are living in residences, temporary residents in 9 residences, then they would fall within the scope of the 10 analysis that we have already performed. 11 To the extent that the transients were out of 12 doors, presumably being nighttime they'd be out of doors 13 sleeping in a tent, camper, something of that sort, they 14 would typically be exposed to higher sound levels than 15 someone inside a residence, because there is less 16 attenuation of the sound going through the walls of a tent 17 or even a camper than getting through windows of a home. 18 So they'd be more likely to be alerted. 19 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 20 0 I'm sorry, Mr. Keast. I may have misspoken, but 21 I think that I asked about the notifying all segments of 22 the resident population. But Mr. Rochlis objected to 23 transient and I wasn't trying to ask about that. It was 24 , resident population is was asking you about. 25 MR. BAXTER: We are getting far afield. Is the O v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336-6646
. ~ . . . .
26042.0 10672 BRT ! ) 1 question whether this was considered in.the analysis he's 2 presented in his testimony? 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. Means for notifying all 4 segments of the resident population. If I misspoke earlier 5 I apologize, but I think I said it right. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: I thought his analysis went to 7 numbers of people'who would be alerted by the sirens. 8 MR. BAXTER: I don't believe the testimony 9 addresses FEMA criteria. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: What's the thrust of this, 11 Mr. Eddleman? 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: If you identify people exposed to 13 lower sound levels from the sirens as segments of the 14 population, then it would appear that this criterion 4 15 requires action to notify them. 16 MR. BAXTER: There's no testimony that he's 17 identified anyone. l 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: He said they could be identified. 19 MR. BAXTER: That's not what he said in response 20 to my questions. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: He said he hadn't identified them. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: It'seems to me this is very j 23 i abstract. It's perfectly clear what Mr. Keast.did, at i , j 24 least in light of the record now, and what he's come to a l 25 conclusion about. He doesn't purport to have come up with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 233H646
26042.0 10673 BRT ! () 1 some method of notifying everybody in the EPZ. The 2 Applicants have the overall burden there. 3 I don't really see how the question really 4 speaks to what he's here for. 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Hell ~, Judge, in that case, let me 6 move on to what I think will be my last line of questions. 7 BY MR. EDDLEMAN: 8 O Mr. Keast, does the census data you have 9 available have data available for the census tract within 10 the EPZ? 11 A (Keast) No, it does not. 12 Q Did you make any attempt to obtain such data? 13 A No, I did not. 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you. 15 l JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Gamin, any questions? 16 I MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, at this point, I realize 17 I'm a little late, but I would like to take an opportunity 18 to request that the board strike Mr'. Baxter's line of i 19 questioning about those eight-fold factors that Mr. Baxter 20 had not considered in determining whether or not an 21 individual house could or could not be alerted -- Mr. Keast's 22 . testimony. I 23 Now, the reason why I am seeking to do that is 24 the attachments that were brought forward apparently don' t 25 have those eight-fold factors. Your order does not A V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33646 4
26042.0 10674 BRT
~'
1 consider -- (O' 2 MR. BAXTER: That's not correct. 3 MR. GAMIN: -- those eight-fold factors. 4 MR. BAXTER: That's not correct. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't think you are right. He 6 testified about using the same factors before, air 7 conditioning, windows up, windows down and so on. i 8 Is it not in your testimony, Mr. Keast? 9 THE WITNESS: (Keast) Yes, it is, sir. 10 MR. GAMIN: All right. Thank you, your Honor. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 12 EXAMINATION
- 13 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
(/ 14 0 Hopefully briefly. Mr. Keast, turning to page 15 D-1 of your most recent testimony. I 16 A (Keast) Yes, sir. 17 0 I may have missed it in the testimony and I 18 j apologize if I did. Down, the fourth designator from the 19 lI bottom, it says, "for census family." What's a census 20 family, please? 21 A This is the mixture of number of persons per 22 family that we used to take the numbers in the preceding 23 four rows and weight to get the particular number. If you 24 i go back, for example, to my earlier testimony -- 25 . O So that's a particularized jargon for that ( ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. r 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10675 BRT ( 1 composition of more than one household in that family? 2 A Yes. 3 0 Let's put it that way. 4 A More, it's a mixture of persons per household 5 according to the census fa'mily size distribution. And you 6 are correct, it is a particularized jargon. 7 Q But the implication is that you've done the 8 averaging the same way you did before? 9 A Yes. 10 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Just one question, there was some 12 discussion between Dr. Kryter and Mr. Eddleman about the m 13 Hawthorne -- I believe it's called -- effect. Who is I (' 14 Hawthorne? Is that some particular person? 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's a GE factory, I believe, in 16 New Jersey. 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask Dr. Kryter first and 18 l then maybe you can contribute. 19 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) I didn't want to delve 20 too deep into this -- 21 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't want to make a big thing 22 out of it. It's just I was left a little puzzled. 23 , THE WITNESS: (Kryter) It's a name, as 24 Dr. Eddleman mentioned, this Hawthorne factor, they 25' discovered that when they reduced or improved -- reduced i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
26042.0 10676 BRT () 1 the amount of noise, for example, that production went up. 2 They, then, in one particular study, they put some 3 wa11 board back -- reflecting board back on the walls, noise 4 level went back up to where it was, and the production 5 still improved again. In other words, it was the fact that 6 the employees were getting something done for them that 7 they called the Hawthorne effect. The people thought it 8 was improving their lot and so, therefore, they worked a 9 little harder. 10 Now, this effect has been attributed to almost 11 every experiment or every situation where you get some 12 benefits when you don't expect them, and I must say that it !
-s 13 is something that is argued about. I almost asked i
i 14 Dr. Eddleman if he would cite a specific experiment to . 15 substantiate that this had any real bearing on sleep 16 studies. I don't know of any. But it is a psychological 17 l phenomenon that people talk about. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. 19 Any further questions for the panel? 20 MR. ROCHLIS: Your Honor, I just wanted to make 21 sure that the board had an opportunity to ask those l 22 questions on issue 5 that they mentioned they were going to ,
! 23 i ask. I don't know if you have -- it is ir. the Applicant's i
24 and Intervenors proposed findings or divergent statements 25 concerning Dr. Kryter's -- 1 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10677 BRT
/
(m) 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh. Yes. 2 MR. ROCHLIS: I wanted to make sure the record 3 is complete. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: You understand the reference made 5 here? Perhaps you can comment on that. 6 T!!E WITNESS: (Kryter) It was pointed out that 7 the decay -- the rise of decay of the sound pressure of the 8 siren noise as it rotates around the point on the ground -- 9 or a point out some distance from it, does not follow a 10 perfectly linear course and that a slightly greater amount
.11 of energy is encompassed in the passby than is calculated 12 by the somewhat simplified formula that I used.
l 13 However, under the ideal conditions as Mr. Keast 14 has calculpted, the difference can be -- he calculated, I 15 i think .8 decibels. Dr. Lee calculates if it comes up it 16 will be .4 decibels. And also I noted in my testimony that, 17 l whether or not this rise in decay is -- deviates from 18 li earity, it is a function to some extent of the distance 19 you are away from the siren. If you are very close to it 20 we could have been conservative by up to 1 decibel. I 21 JUDGE KELLEY: If I can just interrupt -- point i 22 number 5, that Mr. Rochlis was directing us toward, , 23 l referred to some testimony of yours. I wanted to ask a 24 l clarifying question on that, I'm not sure if I was awake or i 25 ! asleep at the time -- Dr. Carpenter will pursue it from O l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
1 l 26042.0 10678 BRT C 1 there. 2 JUDGE CARPENTER: Dr.~Rochlis, at the time the 3 board was putting together proposed findings and I was 4 making some notes -- and you know the remarkable regimen of 5 this proceeding -- I'm somewhat frustrated to discover 6l today that those notes which I prepared in December, even 7 though I brought a good many pads of paper, don't seem to 8 be with me. 9 As I reread those pages in the transcript, the 10 particular point that I had in mind doesn't pop out again, 11 It was in the nature that Dr. Kryter was citing that 3 12 decibels would alert everyone and I can't seem to find that rw 13 in a quick rereading of Applicant's proposed findings at b) 14 one of the breaks. So I guess where we are is that 15 whatever the distress is, it is there, the board will 16 struggle with it absent any additional cross-examination on 17 l the issue. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: My recollection is -- I read the 19 testimony and I said to myself: Does Dr. Kryter mean that 20 these people are asleep or awake at this point? That's my 21 recollection. 22 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) That's exactly right. I 23 examined the testimony apropos of the board's memorandum ' I 24 j and prepared notes on it. If asked I would respond, and my 25 response is the same as yours, Judge Kelley, namely, that i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10679 BRT O 1 the 3 decibels that we were referring to was the 2 detectability of a person who was awake with regard to 3 masking. It had nothing to do with arousal. And the 4 masking by definition is something that's studied with 5 awake people and a tone in the presence of a background 6 noise. There was no discrepancy, I think. 7 JUDGE CARPENTER: It was, if not erroneously 8 stated, it was not clearly stated. I just wanted to be 9 sure that I read it the way that you just expressed it.
- 10 THE WITNESS
- (Kryter) Yes. As a matter of 11 fact, it was 27 percent arousability if you are asleep.
12 But we said it would be about 98 or 100 percent 13 detectability if you were a' wake. And that, I think, was 14 what was misleading. It's still correct. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, did you want to 16 pursue that? 17 i MR. EDDLEMAN: Actually, what I wanted to pursue 18 was Dr. Kryter's earlier answer.
- 19 CROSS EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. EDDLEMAN:
21 0 Talking about the integration in the rise of 22 decay of signoff, is it appropriate to add that integration l 23 to the maximum sound level? Or should it be added to the 24 minimum sound level that you have when the siren is rotated? 25 A (Kryter) ( ). The -- I think Mr. Keats will want to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
26042.0 10680 BRT () 1 talk to this, too, but the formula that was used is to add 2 the 10 dB down points from the maximum; this has 3 psychoacoustic as well as acoustical reasons, namely that 4 at these lower levels, compared to the top 10 dB there's 5 very little added to the overall sound pressure level and 6 very little added to the psychological impact. 7 O So, in effect you are saying you would add 8 integration between the 10 dB down points to the level that 9 is 10 dB down from the maximum? 10 A No. No. You would add it to the overall 11 integrated sound energy between the between 10 dB down 12 points. 13 0 You are simply integrating the total sound 14 energy between the 10 dB sound points? 15 A That's what I'm saying. 16 0 It's not an addition dot maximum; it's just an 17 integration between the down points; is that right? 18 l A That's the correct way to do it. There's a 19 formula typically used in acoustics where you have a rising 20 and falling triangular pattern, where you measure the 21 duration to che 10 dB down points and, if you divide that 22 by 2, convert it into decibels, you add it to the peak 23 level and you get a quasi-integrated value. It's just a 24 simplified way of getting at SEL. 25 Dr. Kryter did it by a true integration, O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverap 804336 6646
26042.0 10681 BRT ( ; 1 step-wise function, and found that in some conditions you 2 underestimated the energy by that simple formula, by up to 3 a little over a half, .8 dB. 4 0 Does that complete your answer? 5 A Yes. 6 Q The duration you are talking about there, is 7 that duration in seconds? 8 A Yes. 9 A (Keast) Yes. 10 0 Mr. Keast, do you have comments? 11 A (Keast) I agree. 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you much. That's all I've
-, 13 got.
I i
~
l 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. That brings us to the 15 ; conclusion with this panel. Mr. Keast, you'll be joining 16 l us in the morning on the next panel, I believe. So we'll 17 i just, for the moment, thank Dr. Kryter for journeying back 18 to see us again. 19 THE WITNESS: (Kryter) Thank you for asking me. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: You shed a lot of light on a 21 difficult -- at least it was difficult for us -- subject. 22 ; Thank you, i 23 MR. ROCHLIS: We have to make sure -- he's l 24 I leaving for Hawaii. He's going to be excused? 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. You are excused. Enjoy n
/
1 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33Mi646 _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . _ _ - -_-
26042.0 10682 BRT m U 1 your trip. 2 MR. ROCHLIS: Would you like to stretch in place 3 for 60 seconds or so and then go on to the testimony, at 4 least. We are going to talk about that and anything else t 5 we have to talk about. Let's do that. 6 (Recess.)
; 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Our next order of business will 8 be to consider Mr. Riley's proposed testimony. As we 9 discussed earlier, we'll look first to Mr. Eddleman to see 10 what portions he wishes to offer, in light of the ruling we 11 made on telephone testimony.
12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, what I did was I 13 identified parts that I considered to be phone-related, or 14 in a couple of cases things that I wanted to argue about. . 15 I have a note over here that says " quibbling." Anyway, it 16 concerns phones, but I think it might be more relevant. 17 l i Beginning at the top of page 5 of the testimony 18 l itself, continuing throughout that page and down to 19 question 12, which, 11though it relates to phones, I think i 20 it is relevant here. Then the question 13 O&A is obviously 21 phones. 22 In the attachment -- 23 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not sure I'm clear now. 24 Everything on 5, for example, that's all phones. 25 l' AR. EDDLEMAN: It's all phones. (:) ! l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646 i
26042.0 10683 BRT () 1 JUDGE KELLEY: All of 6? 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: On 6, everything down to question 3 and answer 12. 4 What I'm saying is that question and answer 12 5 do relate to telephones and tone alerts. That's what I 6 wanted to argue about. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: We might argue question 12. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: 13 is clearly phones. It comes 'l 9 under the board's ruling. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: So you would stipulate, if you 11 will, that all of 5, everything on 6 except question 12, 12 which runs over onto 7, and the rest of 7 is out under the 13 telephcne ruling; correct? O 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. If the telephone ruling 15 stands -- that's a matter for appeal. I 16 j Then in the attachment, starting with O&A 17 on 17 page 13 -- , 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute. 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: 17 I meant to say, Q&A 17, page 20 13 -- 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's -- all page 13 is phones, 23 all page 14 is phones. On page 15, I want to argue about 24 22, but it's obviously all related to phones and it goes 25 down to the end of O&A 25 on page 16. O I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
26042.0 10684 BRT 1 JUDGE KELLEY: 22, I would want to argue. 23 -- 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Is phones. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: That's phones. That's out. 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm presuming the board has 5 excluded the cost / benefit question also, explicitly. If 6 I'm wrong please correct me. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: You mean as between phones vorsus 8 radios? 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Correct. On page 15? 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: 22 I want to argue about. 12 Everything else is clearly phones under that interpretation. 13 On page 16, 24 and 25 are phones under the board's 14 ruling. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Would that be your reading of the ! matter that's excluded? Then I take it you are -- you wish 16 l 17 l to propose the remainder; is that correct? 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's correct. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Is it most orderly to just 20 start on page 1 and move ahead? 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's fine with me. This is the 22 thing that's marked Eddleman Exhibit 75 but we haven't done ! 23 anything with it yes, sir; is that right? 24 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. The testimony of 25 Jesse L. Riley concerning alerting and notification can be ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 33 H 646
26042.0 10685 BRT (} l markec at Eddleman Exhibit 75 for identification. 2 (Eddleman Exhibit 75 identified.) 3 JUDGE KELLEY: 'Inen we'll proceed to discuss it. 4 Page 1 is simply identifying material; correct? 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: No quarrel with page 1, I assume? 7 MR. ROCHLIS: No quarrel. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Further background information on 9 Mr. Riley and his association with various groups. Any 10 objection to that? No? 11 We get into the substance of it on page 3 in the , 12 middle; is that fair to say? Mr. Riley is giving his views 1 13 on sirens. t () 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: There is also something, Judge,. 15 here, that I had overlooked. When I served the board and 16 parties, I attached a note that I wrote to Dale Hollar on i 17 the 28th of February concerning an additional question I l 18 wanted to ask concerning page 10, as to whether it applies ! 19 within 10 miles and not just five. So I would like to 20 include that in my offer since it was served. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: That would be followed in with 22 Q&A number 10? 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Rig ht . 24 JUDGE KELLEY: I think Mr. Eddleman's statement 25 which is in the record just now will be sufficient, and not O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3 % 4646
26042.0 10686 BRT () 1 to have to put in the note to Mr. Hollar. 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: That would be fine with me. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. i 4 So we are looking, initially, beginning at the 5 middle of page 3 with question 10 and going through page 4. 6 First, the Applicants, do you object to that particular 7 testimony? 8 MS. RIDGUAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman? What? 9 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm wondering if you object to i 10 the testimony beginning at the middle of page 3 with 11 question 10 and proceeding to the bottom of page 4. 12 MS. RIDGWAY: Yes,'your Honor. Specifically, 13 for example, the phrase beginning, I guess it's the second i 14 full sentence from the bottom: "A large variety of 15 commonly encountered circumstances." That doesn't relate
! 16 to nighttime alerting. It's far too broad for the reopened 17 hearing and it really relates primarily to matters such as '
i 18 propagation which the board has clearly excluded from its 19 order. 20 I might add that to the extent that any of the 21 testimony that remains here after we finish, I think, this
- 22 markup, Applicants are prepared to argue that what is left 23 is so manifestly insubstantial that it constitutes 24 effectively a failure to prefile testimony.
25 I've gone through the exercise this afternoon O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3366646
._ - .__ ~ _ _ _ , _ , _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ , = - - _ . - - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - - .. ____ _.,_ _ ,
26042.0 10687 BRT (} l here of parsing the testimony out and there are, truly, in 2 my view, remnants of two or three sentences that are left 3 that are within the scope and I think that, as I say, they 4 are so manifestly insubstantial that we would argue that it 5 doesn't merit being left in the record., 6 In other words, Mr. Eddleman cannot preserve his 7 right to testify on -- well, I'll give you an example -- 8 can't preserve his right to testify on psychoacoustics 9 merely by the inclusion at the top of page 12 of the 10 Catawba testimony, the assertion that "doep sleep reduces a 11 likeliness of effective siren notification," which is, I i 12 think, about the only place that -- I think there may be 13 two places that sleep gets mentioned. O 14 So I would urge the board, if we are going to 15 proceed through this way, sentence at a time, that they 16 bear that point in mind and reserve their ruling till the 17 l end, because I think there are a few kind of general I 18 sentences that are merely introductory, and I think viewed 19 in full context it is simply a failure to put the parties 20 on notice of what he would come to say tomorrow. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you suggest a better way to 22 proceed than looking at this page by page? 23 MS. RIDGWAY: I might be able to help the board. 24 I have identified several kind of general categories. If ) 25 we want to start through my way it might be useful. O G l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
i 26042.0 10688 CRT l l l JUDGE KELLEY: Is that going to involve us (} , 2 skipping around to different parts of the testimony or what? 3 MS. R!DGWAY: Yes, it will. It will involve 4 skipping around, but I think I can pretty clearly identify 5 it for the board. I'm also prepared to go through sentence 6 by sentence. I would just want you to reserve to the end, 7 you know, judgment, rather than admitting a sentence up 8 front here that is very broad. Like I say, I think I'm 9 convinced that there's really nothing left when we are 10 finished. , 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, if it will help people out, j 12 I'm willing to just stipulate the whole thing is an offer
. 13 of proof. I think the only question was whether the board ,
14 would sustain objections to this in light of the fact that ' 15 there appeared not only to be numerous objections to piecer of it, but also that there are -- there is going to be this 16 l 17 objection to any remnants going in, it seems to me -- I'm 18 not trying to anticipate the board's ruling, but it might 4 19 just be cleaner to say, you know, where there are l 20 objections, this stuff is excluded, but it's an offer of 21 proof. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, but I thought we went l 23 i through that this morning. That was my whole problem. I 24 Initially it was said, let's put the whole thing as an , 25 offer of proof and that's that, but then I assume what you i () 1 . ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3Wl646
.-.. . - - _ . . ~ , . . - . . . , . - . _ . . . ~
~ . _ - . _ . - , - - ,-_ _._ __ _ . _- - . _ - _ _
26042.0 10689 BRT 1 would want to do, if you lose on the issue, take it up and 2 argue that various pieces would come in and in that posture 3 we never would have ruled on it. The only thing we ruled 4 on is telephones. 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: If we had to go through this 7 literally line by line, that would certainly give me pause. 8 But, for example, we've got a paragraph that is only 7, 9 6-1/2 pages of direct testimony, the rest of it is an offer 10 from another case. 11 If you look, starting on pago 3, 3-1/2 -- at the 12 bottom of 4 and there's a scenario about losing AC power.
, 13 I don't understand how that can get in in this rehearing.
Y- 14 We don't have any contention about loss of AC power. We 15 have a contention that says the sirens, even though they 16 work fine, won't wake everybody up. 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: The contention doesn't say they 18 work fine, Judge. 19 JUDGE KELLEY: It says they work poorly. But 20 , the contention is what are you going to do when you lose AC 21 power and the sirens don't work. That's not the contention 22 in this case. 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm not saying we assume all l 24 sirens activate either. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: You can have a board ruling on f~ N _.l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage d00 3366666 - _. m__ _ m . :-. -- -- ,
26042.0 10690 BRT () I the proposition that we have been litigating this case from 2 day one on the contention that the airens wouldn't be 3 ef fective enough to wake enough people up. We have never 4 said a word about loss of AC power, and we are certainly 5 not going to start now. 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: So that's a chunk. Maybe there 1 8 are other chunks that can come out. B'ut I think we'd like 9 to forge ahead. I'm reluctant to start going back and 10 forth on seven different categories on something that.is l 11 fairly short. 1 12 So let's try it that way. You have spoken to 13 number 10, at least in part. 4 i O 14 Anything else, Ms. Ridgway, that you want to add? 15 MS. RIDGWAY: Going from the bottom of 3 to the 16 top of 4, my argument would be the same, that is, it has >
- 17 nothing to do with nighttime notification, particularly 3 18 awakening or arousal from sleep. It relates to propagation 19 and, you know, background noise. Background noise which i 20 was not at issue in -- even in the original contention. In 21 other words, it's not air conditioning and it's certainly -- l i
22 it certainly does not relate to the scope of the reopened \ I 23 k hearings. I 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. , 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: My only comment concerning those O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80033H646
26042.0 10691 BRT (} l objections is that it says in the last full sentence on 2 page 3, "It is common experience that many people can sleep 3 under noisy conditions." So that, I think, is the linkage. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: But if you look at that paragraph, 5 Mr. Eddleman, "Many people can' t sleep well under noisy ) 6 conditions." If you are far away from the siren the TV may 7 get in the way. The next paragraph talks about what will 8 happen on a pleasant spring day; some people have poor 9 reading habits and memories -- that hasn't been this case. 10 I can't see how that testimony adds anything to this 11 l proceeding. 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: As I take it, the objection is 13 sustained? O 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I'm asking you. Is this
'15 what we really need to hear at this stage of the game?
16 . MR. EDDLEMAN: No, sir. The only reason I'm i 17 going through this is that somebody -- I'm not sure who at 18 this point -- felt it was necessary to have the objections 19 heard and the board to rule on it. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, it was the board and we are l 21 now looking at it and the board now believes that question 22 10, beginning at the middle of page 3 going to the second 23 hal.f of page 4, is irrelevant and excluded on that ground 24 and that the next paragraph about AC power systems is 25 outside the scope of the hearing. O l ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverser 800 33H646 I
26042.0 10692 BRT
; 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. %s, 2 JUDGE KELLEY: 5, I think you stipulated already 3 is telephone testimony; correct?
4 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's correct. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: You wanted to discuss question 6 and answor number 12 starting at the bottom of 6; correct? 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. I think this speaks to the 8 same issues that the Applicant spoke to in their testimony. 9 If one can, another can. 10 I recognize that the board may consider it all 11 telephone, that's fine. I'm not trying to require the 12 board to make a ruling .in my favor. Any ruling takes care
,_ 13 I of this.
e I 1 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Focusing on the Q&A 12 comment, 15 Ms. Ridgway? 16 MS. RIDGWAY: Yes, your Honor. This is one of 17 j the points where I think it is true that you could come up 18 l with fragments of sentences here that do include the words 19 " tone alert." But I think that they are so insubstantial 20 that they don't tell you what Mr. Riley would say if ho 21 were to appear here. That is, it fails to meet the purpose 22 of prefiled direct testimony. It will not permit me to 23 prepare meaningful cross-examination this evening to 24 j discern -- I will be completely surprised by anything he I 25 would say when he arrives and I think that it's l
/#
P x/ l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 w .n ., ..,.c , -. ,
26042.0 10693 BRT (} l particularly egregious given the fact that, you'know, he 2 had the board's order and the benefit of the extensive 3 discussions on the record on Wednesday and Thursday about 4 the scope of the board's order before we received the 5 testimony. So I think it's inexcusable that there isn't 6 more said about these issues, if they wished to provide 7 direct testimony on them. 8 For that reason I believe that they must be 9 stricken as well. - 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis, any comment on O&A 11 12? i 12 MR. ROCIILIS : In a broader sense it is 13 irrelevant, because we are not dealing with what is the O 14 preferable method. We are dealing with whether the 15 Applicant is able'to meet its burden on tone alert radios. 16 So the fact that there may be some advantages to phone 17 systems over tone alerts really is irrelevant. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We'll take Q&A 12 under 19 advisement. Let's go ahead to the attached testimony. 20 MS. RIDGWAY: I would just echo what Mr. Rochlis 21 said, that is, that certainly in the context in which it is 22 presented, it is a comparison of tone alerts to telephone 23 systems, and the board will be required to parse it to come 24 up with anything. My point was simply that even parsing it, 25 there was so little left that it wasn't worth it. ($) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10694 BRT f) 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, maybe I could help you out 26 at this point. I 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would think that maybe all 5 parties would enter a stipulation that as to the rest of i 6 the attachment that I haven't excluded, that the only thing 7 that the board wouldn't rule out, in light of its previous 8 rulings, is possibly question 23, O&A 23, which is about 9 the cost of the system. That will just leave us one thing 10 to mess with. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Comment? Ms. Ridgway? 12 MS. RIDGWAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Eddleman, I don' t 13 understand. What about question 23? O 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: What I'm saying is, given the 15 previous rulings the board last made, I think that it's not 16 I productive for us to go through the rest of this attachment 17 i other than O&A 23, which I think I might have a prayer on, 18 and therefore I was proposing a stipulation that -- well I 19 guess -- I don't know how to do this, Judge. But the board 20 would exclude all of the rest of it. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Either you withdraw it or we have 22 to rule on it, it seems to me. 23 If you want to offer 23, we will hear argument 24 on that, then you withdraw the rest; you can do that. Or 25 if you don't want to do that, then we'll just have to O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
26042.0 10695 BRT j 1 consider such other parts as you do want to offer. 2 MR. GAMIN: Your Honor, is it possible that 3 Mr. Eddleman could of fer all the rest for the limited 4 j purposes going toward the telephone issue, you having 5 already ruled the testimony on the telephone issue is not 6 germane, therefore the rest of the testimony could be 7 argued on appeal for the sole and exclusive purpose of 8 determining whether that testimony goes to the telephone 9 issue, and then we could forget about it. Mr. Eddleman 10 would then be precluded from offering that testimony for 11 any other purposes on appeal except as to the telephone 12 argument. 7_ 13 MR. EDDLEMAIL: As to the attachment, I would-I I ' ' 14 t ' make that offer. 15 MS. RIDGWAY: That would be fine with Applicant' 16 l MR. GAMIN: It would be fine with us. 17 l JUDGE KELLEY: Let me make sure I understand the 10 , proposition. It almost sounded like we were going to 19 stipulate that up is down and black is white. f Because a 20 lot of this isn't about telephones. That's clear. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me make my offer in my words 22 and see if I can handle that. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. 24 l MR. EDDLEMAN: I offer the remainder of the s 25 l i attachment other than what has been identified as related tj l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10696 BRT a 1 to phones unambiguously, O&A 23 and the other questions and 2 answers that weren't identified as phones -- I offer them 3 for the sole purpose of supporting the question of whether 4 or not telephones should be investigated as an alternative 5 to tone alert radios in this proceeding and whether or not 6 they should be required. 7 Now that, I think, gets me within the board's 8 earlier ruling, which is what I tried to do. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: I appreciate that. It just 10 strikes me a happy solution is always attractive. As I 11 recall the attachment, there's testimony about a variety of 12 subjects including accident characteristics and the like.
,, 13 To say this is out because it relates to telephones is a i \
\' 14 little awkward for us. 15 You have gone through and identified the I 16 l telephone material in the attachment; right? I 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: The stuff that I think is 18 ! unambiguously telephone; that's right, Judge. I'm just~ 19 asking the rest of it for support of that. 20 I feel like if I'm going to be stuck with this 21 burden on appeal of arguing it, that it will get us all out 22 of here. 23 l JUDGE KELLEY: fis . Ridgway, the proposition is 24 f before you. 25 MR. BAXTER: We don't understand it. Maybe you C/ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10697 BRT (} l could explain it to us? 2 MS. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, might I comment? ! 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Yes. Ms. Moore? 4 MS. . MOORE: My understanding of what I just 5 heard Mr. Eddleman say is that he is offering those l 6 accident characteristics and all the other things in that 7 attachment which do not relate to Shearon Harris, by the 8 way, in support of his contention that telephones should,be 9 required. That means that he could take any of the 10 statements in there and say, because in Catawba if you 11 extend -- you should have extended the EPZ to southwest 12 Charlotte, you should do the same thing here, and you j 13 should requiro telephones. ! 14 If that is what he's saying, I think, to the l 15 Staff, tnat has to be unacceptable, because the arguments , 16 could get extremely complex. If my understanding is 17 incorrect, I would hope Mr. Eddleman would correct me, but 18 that's what I got out of what he just said. I 19 MR. EDDLEMAN s- ' It's not because of what the 20 board might or might 'not have ruled in Catawba. But it is, 21 I think, within the scope of what you are worried about in 22 the sense I could says- Look, these accidents could have 23l horrible consequences and it can happen fast.and a phone l 24 I will get you the informat[on faster. ' l . 25 JUDGE KELLEY: I think your pioposition puts us
,- ,~ ~
( ./ I
.. ~
l ACE FEDERAL: REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347 3700 c' Natienwk'n'Coverses 800 336 6646 > - ~ . - - . . . , - . - , . , , , - . . - . . . , . _ . _ _. , .,,4j,,,.......__.,..._-.. . - . - - - -
? 26042.0 10698 BRT 1 into a posture that doesn' t make much sense. I understand 2 the motivation. Indeed, I appreciate it. But the cleaner 3 way is to -- we have already identified the telephone stuff. 4 We made a rule on that. The other material doesn't go to 5 the telephone except in the most indirect way and you are 6 either offering it or you are not. That's where we are. 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, Judge, I guess I'm of fering 8 it. 9 MR. BAXTER: You don't have to. 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am offering it. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Then we've got an option. We 12 have already gone through the direct testimony and the
,-~ 13 first 6-1/2 pages and we have before us whether one
( ) 14 I question and answer in particular should be allowed or not. 15 He haven't gone through the entire attachment. l 16 ' Does this ruling, Mr. Eddleman, figure on the I 17 l decision whether you'd have Mr. Riley come over and testify 18 l tomorrow or not? 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, sir. He didn't anticipate 20 that Mr. Riley would come, regardless of it. This is an 21 attachment to the testimony. The testimony is about gone 22 anyway. We didn't anticipate bringing him up for this 23 j purpose. 24 MR. BAXTER: Then why are we doing it? 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: If you require him to appear,
..s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686
26042.0 10699 BRT 1 we'll do it. 2 MR. BAXTER: You can't offer testimony without a 3 witness. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: That's my understanding. 5 Mr. Eddleman, it was this: we would go through this 6 exercise tonight. If we came out with some significant 7 piece of testimony, then Mr. Riley might want to come over 8 and sponsor it and we'd have cross on it just like we 9 usually do. If we got totally excluded he wouldn't come. 10 And if it got excluded down to a pretty fine point, you'd 11 have to make a judgment. But it isn't going to be in 12 evidence without Mr. Riley. 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: So then I'm stuck committing a' 14 myself; if any of it is left in, I'll bring him up here. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: That's correct. Unless the 16 parties would stipulate, we will just allow the following 17 . portions of Mr. Riley's testimony to be put in without 18 j cross. Maybe they think -- whatever they might think. 19 They can always do that. 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: I guess we'll have to see if 21 there's anything left and then we can answer that question. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: I think so. 23 He were starting on the attachment. Page 1 of 24 the attachment is identifying, in the beginning -- then it 25 starts talking about accidents in the Charlotte area. It ( ) ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6686
26042.0 10700 BRT {} l talks about fatalities on page 2. And that continues. 2 MS. RIDGWAY: Mr. Chairman, I think it goes all 3 the way from page 1 to about page 11, where it is really 4 directed exclusively at Charlotte, that EPZ, source terms 5 and some risk / consequence analysis. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Let us take a little more look at 7 it, okay? 7 and 8 is tha proposed planning zone size 8 around Charlotte for Catawba. 9 Going up to page 11, Mr. Eddleman, starting with 10 number 16, the material preceding that from page 1 to page 11 11 appears to be a discussion of accident possibilities and 12 consequences of the particular geographical characteristics 13 of the Catawba EPZ, and the distance from Catawba to the O 14 city limit of Charlotte and so on. 15 What case can you make for that having any i 16 bearing on our issue? 17 MR. EDDLE!!AN: Only that it illustrates the 18 probability and nature of severe accidents that would 19 require more thorough or more capable alerting systems. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Why isn't that beyond the scope? 21 We haven't said anything in this case about accidents at 22 all. We have been talking about decibels. 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: I understand that, Judge. T l 24 think there's some NRC case law about your having to ! 25 address probabilities of accidents and stuff in order to O . l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(Hl646 _ n. . ... - .. . . ~ - . . . .. - - - - -
~= -- - --
26042.0 10701 BRT 1 address these issues; but to the extent the board thinks { 2 it's beyond the scope, the board can readily sustain 3 Ms. Ridgway's objection. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Comment, Ms. Ridgway? I think 5 you have already made it -- 6 MS. RIDGWAY: Yes, your Honor. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis? 8 MR. ROCHLIS: I think it extends believability 9 and credulity to even think this comes even close, remotely 10 close to what we have been arguing about. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's go on. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE,KELLEY: We are going to pick up with
'- 14 question 16 on page 11.
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Since that relates to Mr. Riley'r 16 question 16, and 17 there, I think, relates to question 16, 17 Q&A 16 relates to the matters that are a concern of local 18 government that the board has already ruled out. Maybe 19 they fall under that ruling? 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not sure what you are 21 I referring to. Let me just look at this a little more. 22 The first part, 6, talks about loss of AC power 23 l which we have ruled out. 24 MS. RIDGRAY: And your Honor, as to the bottom, l 25 that clearly relates to sound propagation, again, as well j ($) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
26042.0 10702 BRT i 1 as people in automobiles. And again, the board has clearly 2 moved propagation out on the reopened hearings and 3 automobiles have never been the subject of this contention. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems correct. We said we 5 were accepting Exhibit 46 for propagation. That would seem 6 to dispose of the rest of page 11. Much of page 12 is 7 CatawDa-specific. 8 Do you want to make a case for page 12, l 9 Mr. Eddleman? 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't think there are specific 11 survey data available for Harris as to how many people know 12 what the sirens mean or how many hear them. I don't think i
,s 4
13 ; that the formal siren test has yet been done so this may be
^#
14 the best availability evidence on that matter, a nuclear 15 plant in a city in North Carolina. I 16 ; MS. RIDGUAY: Mr. Chairman, it has never been at 17 issue here whether people know what to do once they hear f 18 l the siren. The question before the board, even 57C3 in its 1 19 ' broadest sense has been whether or not they will hear the 20 sirens, whether they will be alerted, not whether they know 21 what to do after they have been alerted. It's certainly 22 outside the scope of the reopened hearings. 23 , JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Rochlis, any comment? I 24 l MR. ROCHLIS: No comment. 25 l JUDGE KELLEY: Page 17, does the entire page go n ( ! l 1 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-147 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
E 26042.0 10703 BRT 1 to telephones? Has that been stipulated earlier -- page 13, 2 I'm sorry. Question 17. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. 13 and 14. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: All of 14? 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. The only things left are 6 . basically 23 and 26. Everything else has been stipulated -- 7 MS. RIDGWAY : I think you mean 22. 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: 22. You are correct. 9 JUDGE KELLEY: 22 and 26, then, would be the 10 next items to look at. 11 MS. RIDGWAY: Again, I think 22 simply goes to l 12 l loss of power and I think the board has already ruled on (~% l ts ) 13 l that. It is just not at issue here. l 14 j JUDGE KELLEY: That seems correct. We have made 15 that ruling. 16 l 26. 17 , MS. RIDGWAY: 26, your Honor, does not relate to 1 4 18 ; nighttime. It doesn't relate specifically to any of the 1 19 j issues in the reopened hearing, certainly. l 20 : JUDGE KELLEY: That seems to be true. 21 Mr. Eddleman? 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think I'm going to have to I 23 ! agree with Ms. Ridgway, since this really addresses backup 24 alerting, which the board explicitly excluded. I'm sorry I rm 25 i didn't notice that earlier. I'll withdraw 26. i ) l
~.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
26042.0 10704 BRT 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 2 Well, I suggest the board take a minute or two 3 to dir. cuss this. We have -- well, we know what we have. 4 It won't tako very long. 5 (Recess.) 6 JUDGE KELLEY: We are back on the record. We 7 heard argument over portions of Mr. Riley's proposed 8 testimony. We have now considered those arguments and wher 9 the arguments were actually conpleted, it only left us, as 10 we understand it, with two pieces to rule on. It was O&A 11 number 12, on pages 6 and 7, and there was the first 11 12 pages of the attachment relating to accidents and () 13 conditions around Catawba, describing it very generally. l4 The other portions are either telephone issues 15 which are conceded to be covered by the ruling on testimony 16 . concerning telephones or were ruled on in the course of the l 17 i discussion, like off-site power or, number 26 I believe was 18 withdrawn by Mr. Eddleman. 19 As to the longer section, pages 1 through 11 of 20 the attachment, the board is ruling that that testimony be 21 excluded, basically because it is not within the scope of 22 at least the reopened hearing, if not within the scope of 23 the contention from the outset. The likelihood of 24 accidents, numbers of fatalities and so forth, the {} 25 I site-specific characteristics of the EPZ around the Catawba i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
.- .- -. -, . - - , - - - - -- -_-- . - -- - ~ . _
i I 26042.0 10705 BRT O 1 reactor, we think are all outside the scope. So we are 2 going to exclude them on that ground. 3 That leaves O&A pages 6 and 7. And in that 4 particular paragraph there is an intertwining of telephone 5 systems and tone alert radios, telephones of course having 6 been ruled out. There is a point made by Mr. Riley, 7 beginning in the second line on page 7 where he says, "Like 8 all other electrical devices, both telephones and tone 9 alert radios can become inoperative. With a phone which is 10 in daily use this will soon be found out and corrected. 11 Not with a tone alert radio which is to operate in 12 hopefully only rare emergencies." That's the only point () 13 which we feel is arguably admissible. The rest of the 14 paragraph notes that you can carry a tone alert around with 15 you but that's not our case. This is a nighttime case and 16 these tone alert radios are going to sit next to the bed so 17 l we don't think they really bear on the issue before us. 1 18 As to the point made in those three sentences, 19 it does seem to us that reliability of the tone alert will 20 be a subject for discussion tomorrow and can be explored 21 with the panel that's going to be here. We are inclined, 22 though, to rule that that particular segment I read, even 23 though it is intertwined with discussion of telephones, may 24 be admissible. 25 Let me ask the parties -- Ms. Ridgway and ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 e m. m , . . ,, . . . . _ _- ~
"~
i i l 26042.0 10706 BRT ( l Mr. Rochlis, would you stipulate that those three sentences ( 2 be allowed in evidence without Mr. Riley's being here to 1 i 3 support it?;
- 4 MS. RIDGWAY
- Could I have a moment to confer i
5 please, your Honor? 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. 7 It may have been obvious, I wasn't suggesting 8 you stipulate the truth of the matter. Just that it come 9 in as testimony. 10 MS. RIDGWAY: Yes, your Honor, Applicants would 11 be willing to stipulate. We might want to do a little 12 engineering with the sentence to exclude reference to the 13 phone, if people will just bear with us. 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead. You want to suggest 15 some deleted words? l 16 l MS. RIDGWAY: Something along that line.
! 1 l 17 i JUDGE KELLEY: We'll see if you are so inclined.
l 18 Mr. Rochlis? 19 MR. ROCHLIS: I have no problem except with "not 20 with the tone alert radio which is only to operate in 21 hopefully rare emergencies." As I understand it, there are 22 tone alert radios which operate on a weather frequency l 23 channel which would be fairly frequent and if they are not l 24 working you'd be able to find out fairly quickly. l l 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Presumably, tomorrow with a panel I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. t 202-347 3700 Natkuwide Coverage 800 336 6646 l -_ ____- _ __ - - _ ___ _ -
l 26042.0 10707 BRT ( 1 you can explore that very point. If that's the case, 2 that's the case. 3 MR. ROCHLIS: But I won't have an opportunity to 4 question Mr. Riley on that. I 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me? l i 6 ) MR. ROCHLIS: I wouldn't have that opportunity 7 to question Mr. Riley on it. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: That's true. I can understand, 9 if I were Mr. Riley, I'm not sure if I would embark for 10 Raleigh tomorrow morning with that much testimony to talk 11 about. If he wants to come, that's different. 12 MS. RI DGWAY : I think we've got some language, (y i (_) 13 I 1 perhaps. "In the sentence, "like all other ele'ctrical 14 l devices" strike "both telephones and." So it would now say, 15 ! simply, "like all other electrical devices, tone alert i 16 radios can become inoperative." 17 ' Then in the next sentence we would strike 18 "with a phone which is in daily use," and we would begin 19 the sentence with "this will," insert the word "not" -- 20 "this will not soon be found out and corrected with a tone el alert radio, which is only to operate in hopefully rare 22 emergencies." 23 Not the best of grammar, but it gets the point 24 across. rm ) 25 , JUDGE KELLEY: Let's read the whole thing
> /
l I 1 l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
26042.0 10708 BRT O 1 through as amended. 2 MS. RIDGWAY: Certainly. . 3 "Like all other electrical devices, tone alert 4 radios can become inoperative. This will not soon be found 5 out and corrected with a tone alert radio, which is only to 6 operate in hopefully rare emergencius." 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me go back to Mr. Eddleman. I 8 You have heard the proposition. Now we have an amended 9 version on the table for stipulation. 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Presumably they are going to 11 delete everything on the phones anyway, so I'll accept the 12 stipulation. () 13 JUDGE KELLEY: You accept the stipulation under 14 the wording that Ms. Ridgway just gave us? 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's right. Use her wording, 16 delete all the references to phones like she did. And so 17 I the three sentences are transformed into two and those two l 18 are stipulated in without quarrel, as far as the Applicants 19 and I are concerned, and we have to hear from the Staff. 20 ' JUDGE KELLEY: Right. i 21 MR. ROCHLIS: I just have a disagreement with 22 l that last sentence. I just don't feel that I could in good 23 faith stipulate to that. 24 ; MR. BAXTER: We are not stipulating as to the ; 25 truth. Not saying whether it's right or wrong. ^ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverese 800 33H646
4 26042.0 10709 BRT O. 1 It sounds to me that he's arguing about the 3 2 merits of the statement, which is not the issue. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: We are only stipulating if 4 Mr. Riley came here, that's what he would say. 5 MR. ROCHLIS: Okay. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: On that basis, do you agree? q 7 MR. ROCHLIS: Yes. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Judge, I just realized something. 9 We have "like all other electrical devices, tone alert 10 radios can become inoperative." Then I read the next one I 11 to say "this is not the case." l 12 JUDGE KELLEY: No. This means becoming 13 inoperative, "this -- becoming inoperative -- will not soon 14 j be found out." That's what I think it means. 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Excellent. I accept that wording. 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay? 17 MS. RIDGWAY: Yes. 18 j JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. On that basis , then, we 19 are stipulating in Mr. Riley's testimony, not for the truth l i 20 i of the matter, but simply that if he came he would so 21 testify. And other parties are free to explore the same F 22 ground with tomorrow's panel. And the remainder of the 23 proffered testimony is rejected by the board but admitted 24 as an offer of proof. Correct? Okay. (} 25 Is there anything else that we have to do this 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 3 4 4646
26042.0 10710 BRT (~ l evening? 2 PR. HOLLAR: Just one thing, Judge Kelley. I 3 would like to have distributed a revised version of 4 Applicant's testimony from the second panel that reflects 5 , our proposed deletions in accordance with the board's order i 6 this morning, excluding telephone testimony. 7 ! JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, yes. That would be helpful. 8 MR. HOLLAR: I think I might have it sometime in 9 i the morning. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Have you got that? That's great. 11 Anything else? We would start -- we expect to 12 j start up with the second panel and we won't try to do /m ([ 13 tonight that issue over the notes and the discovery dispute. 14 l MR. ROCHLIS: I think Mr. Eddleman and FEMA and 15 l the Staff have reached basically an agreement on setting 'sp 16 a conference call. We can advise you of that tomorrow. 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we start tomorrow morning at 18 ! 8:30? 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's fine, because I just i 20 j realized I don't have my afternoon classes covered. Just 21 the morning. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 JUDGE KELLEY: I assume we can leave the papers l 24 l here till the morning. I don't have any intelligence on it. (~) 25 Does anybody know? t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationnide Coverage 800 33H446
26042.0 10711 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we can leave them, then. 3 See you in the morning. 4 (Whereupon, at 7:30 p.m., the hearing was 5 adjourned, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., March 5, 1986.) 6 8 9 i 10 11 12 ,rx, 13 (,/ 14 15 l 16 17 l 18 , 19 ( 20 l 21 22 23 I 24 l l 25 ,y j 'u_,Y l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
a i i CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION in the j matter oft ' NAME OF PROCEEDING: CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY i NORTH CAROLINK EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY l (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) I .? ) DOCKET NO.: 50-400 OL; 50-401 OL 1 i PLACE: RALEIGil, NORTl! CAROLINA I ; DATE: TUESDAY, MARCil 4, 1986 1 }
; were held as herein appears, and that this is the original !
! transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear i Regulatory Commission. Tl (sigt) (TYPED JOEL BREITNER } Official Reporter i j - ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' ] Reporter's Affiliation l { r l l.O i l i } - I}}