ML19289C016
| ML19289C016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1978 |
| From: | Kreger W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Embach L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289C017 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811210463 | |
| Download: ML19289C016 (2) | |
Text
NSL Nh y
g t s. r t c n;.iEs t
NU?'.c A R P:GU L ATC F.Y C c'?.C:ON
'y 3
j j
- a mos. a c. :ms l~,. p.-
f ACV
- a "rs. Lola A. Embach S19 South Ckfuskee i.ewcka, Cklahoma M 884
Dear 'trs. Embach:
By her lettcr of October 10, 1978, Ms. Carolyn Wares has asked us to infom you of the potential for hazard in construction and operation of the Black Fox nuclear plant, and whether or not the raoiation scurces at the plant now or in the future will affect your pacenaker.
The various potential impacts of the construction and operation of the Black Fox Station are evaluated by the staff of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission (NRC).
The resul ts of this evaluation are contained in the Final Enviromental Statement (FES) which is issued by the NRC.
(NUREG-0176, Feb.1977, Enclosure 1, is the FES for the Black Fox Sta tio n. )
Section 5.4 of this FES discusses the radiological impact of the pro-posed plant. The radiation dose that might be received by the most exposed member of the public, which is usually the person living closest to the plant, from all sources of radiation from plant opera-tion is a small fraction of the dose resulting from natural background radiation.
The natural background dose from the air, water, earth, and items of daily contact, is about 100 millirem per ;vear to all mem-bers of the public.
The estimated dose to the most exposed member of the public resulting from the Black Fox Station is 20 millirem per year, with a likelihood that it is less even to the most exposed individual. Persons living farther from the plant will receive much less exposure. On the average, it is estimated that the U.S. public would receive about 0.1 millirem per year due to all operations related to the nuclear fuel cycle.
This is about one-tenth of one percent of the radiation dose received from natural background.
None of the radiation dose rates identified above, including natural background, are large enough to cause any effect on a cardiac pace-maker device.
I have enclosed a reprint from the November 1973 FDA Consumer (Enclosure 2) discussing such devices.
I have also discussed the question of pcssible new infomation with James R. '.'eale of the Federal Drug Administration's Bureau of Fedical Devices.
He assures me that there have been no evidence, nor is there any basis for cen-cern, abcut effects of these very lcw levels of radiation on a pacenaker.
<811210#63
2 If you have any questions about wnat has been provided by this response, pl ease feel free to 4 rite or call me at 3D1-492-7321.
Sincerely yours, O!
[U C,h:/.v d IA.M U D William E. Kreger, Chief Radiclogical Assessment Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysi s Office of huclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
NUREG-0176 (Feb 1977) 2.
reprint frca the November 1973 FDA Consumer cc:
Ms. Carolyn Wares P.O. Ecx 31 Sterling, VA 22170 H. Denton E. Case D. Bunch R. Boyd R. Mattson V. Stello R. DeYoung D. Muller R. Vollmer M. Groff (NRR-2609)
M. Jambor E. Tel ford f,RC POR Local PDR