ML20030E066
| ML20030E066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1981 |
| From: | Gears G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030E021 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109170379 | |
| Download: ML20030E066 (15) | |
Text
.
9/15/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PEhNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
AND
)
Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGMENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.
)
and 50-388
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF GERALD E. GEARS ON TRANSMISSION LINES / HEALTH EFFECTS CONTENTION 17 Q: Will the witness please state his name, place of employment, and the duties he performs?
A: My name is Gerald E. Gears and I am employed by the Environmental Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am a Senior Land-Use Analyst. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached to this j
supplemental testimony.
Q: What is the purpose of your testimony?
l l
l l
l 0109170379 810915 l
PDR ADOCK 05000387 j
T PDR
='er r-C--
- +-r+4
---' wry 4-W4-T-
w--M*-+
+W
' - --1Y t"W-m-t r-ek e-
-~W=-*C- - -
9---
T
-V------*
M--r-*
P
+ -
P
. A: The purpose of my testimony is to respond to that part f Contention 17 which remains in the proceeding. Contention 17, in relevant part, alleges that Applicants' ultrahigh voltage (UHV)* transmission lines will create electric ** fields that adversely affect living organisms along the UHV transmission right-of-way and beycnd. Contention 17 further asserts that the Applicant should be barred from trarsmitting electricity from the facility, if and when it becomes operational, ove'r UHV lines and should be required to use lines in the range of 138,000-230,000 volts maximum.
Alternatively, the Applicants should be required to place the UHY lines underground, using compressed gas as an insulator.
Q: Have your participated in the review of the potential enviror. mental impacts associated with the operation of the proposed Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) transmission.ystem?
A: Yes.
As stated in J. Lehr's affidavit of January 9,1981, the lines proposed for use by Applicants are designed for alternating current (AC) trans-mission and are further classified by maximum design voltage, 550 kV, as "ex'ra-high voltage" (EHV) lines.
As stated in my affidavit of January 9,1981, the staff's use of the term, electric field, corresponds to the term, electrostatic field, used in Contention 17.
W
- w.
. Q: What has been.the natura of your involvement in that review and assessment?
A: My involvement has included the review of the terrestrial ecology and land use sections, including those pertaining to transmission lines.
I also prepared Sections 4.4.1.2 and Appendix C of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of SSES.
Q:
In response to the above-listed contention, what is the general scope of this supplemental testimony?
A: The Staff has considered the effects of electric fields on humans in the Sections 4.4.1.2 and Appendix C of the FES. The purpcse of my testimony is to supplement the ebove document as related to humans, plants, and animals.
Q: What are the electric fields under 500 kV transmission lines?
A:
Energized EHV transmission lines produce electric fields in the region of space surrounding the line conductars. Such fields can transfer electrical energy to conductive bodies -- including biological organisms --
that lie within these fields. This electrical energy transfer can occur directly from the transmission line to the individual without contact, producirig a current within or on the surface of the affected organisms.
As transmission designs result in larger and larger voltages, more intense,
electric fields that cover wider areas may result. For tne specific
. overhead transmission line design of the Susquehanna 500 kV lines, tne maximum electric field gradients predicted by the applicant would occur on the rignt-of-way and approach a value of 11 kilovolts per meter * (kV/m)
(Lehman Afl., para. 44). At the edge of the right-of-way the field drops off to 2.28 kV/m. The design of EHV lines similar to the Susquehanna 500 kV systems is such that the strongest field exists in an area approximately 20-60 feet from the centerline ^. The field drops off moderately as one moves closer to the centerline, and falls off rapidly as one moves farther away from the centerline.
Q: What type of electric field effects may result in potential biological effects to humans, as well as other biological organisms?
A: The fields generated from transmission lines are not strong enough to cause excessive tissue heating, the primary hazard from electromagnetic 1
fields
,2 Several categories of subtle effects have been postulated, entailing charges in the physiology, cellular mo,rphology, genetic material l
or behavior of biological organisms.
The intensity of the elect-ic fields at ground level is expressed in units of kilovolts per meter.
1 Health and Safety Effects of EHV Electrical Transmission Lines.
J. G. Herrold.
Michigan Public Service Commission, April 1979.
2 Potential Environmental Effects of 765 kV Transmission Lines: Views Before -
the New York State Public Service Commission.
U.S. Department of Energy, 00E/EV-0056, November 1979.
- m. m m-m-
, Q: Have electric fields under transmission lines been shown to cause biological effects?
A: A small number of research studies have observed physiological and/or behavioral effects that may indicate the possible occurrence of adverse l
health effects in people
,2 However, most of these studies are challenged, with poor experimental design and inadequate statistical treatment of 2
results cited. Therefore, electric fields effects remain controversial due to the alleged possibility of long-tarm human healt' e ffects. The federal government has undertaken to fund an extensive research program
- to correct the flaws in past research efforts and to determine any biological effects from the electromagnetic fi. ids from transmission systems. These research studies are using animals to fevestigate pcssible transmission line field effects. To date, this research has produced statistically significant effects in the areas of neonatal development, endrocrinology, hematclogy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, urir.e volume and chemistry, sympathetic nervous system, and behavior in fests on mice and 3
rats. These effects were found at field strengths scaled to man of abost This federal research program is primarily funded by Department of Energy and is guided by the Interagency Advisory Comittee of Electric Field Effects.
I am the NRC representative on this comittee.
3 Biological Effects of Electric Fields on Small Lab 1ratory Animals.
R. D. Philips; Battelle Memorial Institute-PNL; Richland, Washington.
U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Electric Energy Systems - 1980-Contractors Review Meeting; November 18-19, 1980.
. 4-20 kV/m",3 and the test animals were subjected to these fields up to-120 days.
Q: Can the disagreements over whether there are biological effects be settled at this time?
A: Not satisfactorily. Although some recenc research data indicate certain stsiistically significant results in animals, the effects are so subtle and small in magnitude that further research is needed to determine if these effects are biologically significant and will adversely af fect the test organisms.
Q: Can we conclude from the above that electric fields under transmission lines have been shown to be hazardous or will adversely affect the health of the public?
A: No; on the other hand, neither have the fields been shown to be without effect. The staff has reviewed a vast amount of data on this issue and concludes that there is little evidence to indicate that people are adversely affected by electric fields at power line frequencies. This lack of evidence cannot be construed to mean that no effects occur. Those statistically significant long-term effects described above on rats i
4 S. V. Kolesnikov and B. A. Chukhlovin.
1978. To the Interaction Phenomena Between Industrial Frequency AC (50-Hz) Field and the Organism of a Human and an Animal. Translated from " Letters to Journal of Technical Physics" (USSR). Volume 4, Issue 15, August 12, 1978, pages 935-939.
5 W. T. Kaune and R. D. Phillips.
1980. Comparison of the Coupling of Grounded Humans, Swine, Rats to Vertical, 60-Hz Electric Fields.
Bioelectromagnetics 1:117-129.
1
F
. and mice were found at field strengths approximating electric field gradients near the ground under 345-765 kV transmission lines. Ac indicated earlier in my testimony, electric field gradients decrease rapidly as one approaches the edge of the right-of-way. The staff believes that humans would not be chronically exposed to field gradients in excess of the maximum edge of right-of-way value (7 kV/m) because people are not permitted to live on the right-of-way and, therefore, would not receive a lorg-term, constant exposure. The staff concludes, therefore, that the general population living along a right-of-way would receive a lang-term exposure less than 2 kV/m, which is below the value of 4-20 kV/m reported to cause statistically significant effects in rats and mice.
Q: Are there any current guidelines established for exposure to electric fields?
A: Yes. Precautionary electric field guidelir.es have been established by the 4
Russians for substation and transmission line workers. More recently 6
i the Russians established general expcsure guidelines for the local 6
" Rules and Regulations on Labor Protection at 400, 500, and 750 kV AC l
Substation and Overhead Lir,as of Industrial Frequency (in USSR)".
1972.
Translated by G. G. Knickerbocker in Special Publication No.10, Power Engineering Society (IEEE),1975.
i
. 7 population and agricultural workers. These guidelines established higher acceptable gradient standsrds of transmission lines in accordance with these direct quotations (from Lyskov, et al.
1975):
"In designing the 0. H. 750-1150 kV line, considering that cumulative effect of the field due to an infrequent and non-systematic exposure of the local population and the agricultural workers can practically be disregarded, as permissible magnitudes of the field intensity the following.iigher standards were accepted:,
20 kV/m for difficult terrain, 15-20 kV/m for non-populated regions, 10-12 kV/m for road crossings.
"The permissible field strer.gth must not be exceeded at the center of the span at the height of 1.8 meters above ground and at the lowest sag (at the maximum 15 year temperature).
"The permissible values of field intensity were chosen with consideration of favorable operating experience in ever 150,000 km/ years in 0. H. 500 kV lines, for which the designed field intensity is for similar conditions from 10 to 14 kV/m."
The Susquehanna 500 kV lines would be permitted by the Russian general population guidelines because the maximum electric field is predicted to be 11 kV/m.
~
Current research is being funded and guided by the Federal Interagency Advisory Committee on Electric Field Effects on which NRC Staff actively serves to determine if more definite guidelines are necessary.
7 Y. I. Lyskov, Y. S. Emma, ar.d M. D. Stolyarov.
1975. Electric field as a -
parameter considered in designing electric power transmission of 750-1150 kV; the measuring methods, the design pra.tices and direction of further research.
Trans. by G. G. Knickerbocker in Special Publication No.10, F wer Engineer-ing Society (IEEE), 1975.
4
_g.
Q: What are your conclusions and recommendations concerning the health and safety of the Susquehanna 500 kV lines?
A: Based on the foregoing facts, it is my opinion that there is no evidence to date that the operation of 500 kV power lines will have an adverse biological health effect on humans. If ongoing research were to conclude that protective measures were warranted, a variety of actions could te i
considered including, but not limited to:
increasieg the width of right-of-way to limit the field strengths to which the public would be exposed at the edge of the right-of-way; potential rights-of-way users be given specific warnings of possible risks; use of shield wires or other types of retrofitting techniques which could reduce field gradients to a prescribed J
level.
Q: Were the effects of electric fields on plants and animals addressed in the FES?
A: The Staff addressed the question of electric field effects on plant and animal life along the transmission line in the FES (Appendix C).
Q: What do the data pertaining to electric field effects on agriculturally related plant life indicate?
9
< A: Results of research 8,9 on electric field effects on growth and develo'pment of plants and animals indicate that neither adverse injuries nor abnormalities were apparent from a 50 kVfm field.
Some minor physical damage, barely cerceivable along corn, bluegrass, and alfalfa leaf tips was indicated in fields from voltage gradients of 25 kV/m and above. The same series of studies investigating electric field effects on small animals indicate that no adverse abnormalities in benavior, activity, or outward appearance have been demonstrated from electric fields of 50 kV/m.
Q: Wnat are your conclusions about potential effects of electric fieldr on plants and animals?
A: Based on the above findings, which indicate no adverse damage to plants or animals, I do not believe that changes in the applicants' proposed transmission line design are warranted.
8 The Effects of High Voltage Electric Lines on the Growth and Development of Plants and Animals.
J. W. Bankoski H. B. Graves, and G. W. McKee.
Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Environmental Concerns In Right-0f-Way Management. Mississippi State University.
1976.
3 Biological Effects of High Voltage Electric Fields: S tate-of-the-Art Review and Program Plan.
IIT Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois.
November 1975.
O PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS GERALD E. GEARS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.
I am currently employed as a Senior Land-Use Analyst in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, in the Environmental Engineering Branch, USNRC. As a member of the Terrestrial Resources Sectior, of this branch since 1974, I have responsibility for the review of applictnts' Environmental Reports at both Construction Pemit and Operating License Stage for completeness and environmental acceptability of proposed projects as they may affect natural ecological resourr.u, agri-cultural resources, land use pattern and other impacts on the terrestrial environment.
It is also my responsibility to provide. written evaluation of terrestrial resources for inclusion in both FES-CP and FES-OL Stages.
I also act as a consultant to other NRC branches and provide analyses cf terrestrial problems through technical assistance requests from other groups. Re"iew and modifications of applicants' environmental technical specifications at the Operating License Stage is another of my responsibilities. My work also involves the preparation of environ;nental standard review plans, regulatory guides and staff position papers dealing with terrestrial resources. As a Terrestrial Ecciogist I have among other tasks in recent months prepared analyses on alternate site selection and alternatiw transmission corridors for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3, written the terrestrial resource-related sections for the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station and Arkansas One, Unit 2, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and the Indian Point, Unit 2, and Indian Point, Unit 3, EIS's pertaining to closed-cycle cooling alternatives, and the Watts Bar-OL EIS.
I have prepared and presented testimony as the staff's expert witness in the contested North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Marble Hill and Sea 5 rook and Allens Creek environ-mental hearings.
I am a member of the Interagency Advisory Comittee on Electric Field Effects from High Voltage Lines which is charged with the task of funding research to develop safety guidelines for transmission lines.
I am also the NRC representative on a Fish and Wildlife Service Review Comi' tee charged with the development of a manual for improving transmission system rights-of-way construction and operation practices.
I have a Bachelor of Science in Agronomy from Oregen State University (1972),
a Bachelor of Arts and Science in German and Russian frcm Villanova University (1966), and a Master of Science in Agronomy from the University of Florida (1974). While at the University of Florida (1972-1974), I undertook research in the areas of Resource Management and Ecosystem Modeling. My formal educa-tion program has encompassed and emphasized studies in agriculture, economics, botany, soil fertility, including tropical and arid soils, plant physiology, crop production, range resources, aquatic plant ecology, computer modeling and resource assessment techniques. Using analog and digital computer hardware.
combined with an energy based resource analysis language, I developed and expanded various ecosystem models for the study of alternative uses of native vegetation and urban wastes in cooperation with members of the Department of
,.n--e,.--
r,
,m,-
.,,,,,p--
+nrn,-
p- -, +
< Agronomy, the Depar'cment of Forestry (Resourca Management Section) and the Department of Environmental Engineering of t' e University of Florida.
n From 1969 ta 1970, I was employed as a teacher at Aquinas Institute, a secondary school in Rochester, New York.
From 1966 to 1969, I was employed as an agricultural extension agent by the Indian Government in cooperation with the Peace Corps in the State of Maharashtra.
I organized and conducted demonstration projects in this capacity in order to investigate the feasibility of employing alternative methods of crop production in village level situations. This assir aen arovided er.periences in the utilization and evaluation of alternative agricultural resource management methods in a unique cultural setting.
._r---
e S
e
O P,
PROPOSED I4RC STAFF EXHIBITS 1.
HUREG-0776, " Safety Evaluation Report related to. the operation of Susquenanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2."
l dated April 1981.
2.
NUREG-0776, " Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Supplement Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
No. I dated June 1981.
3.
14UREG-0776, " Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Supplement Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
Ho. 2 dated September 1931.
4.
HUREG-0564, " Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,"
dated June 1981.
5.
NUREG-0313, "~ecnnical Report on Material Selection and Processing Revision 1 duidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping,"
dated July 1980.
6.
i UREG-0619, "BWR Feedwater flozzle snd Control Rod Drive R6 turn Line flozzle Cracking," dated November 1980.
5 e
1 U:!!TED S1 ATES OF A"E?.!CA
! UCl. EAR REGULA10RY C0:'.".1SSION CEf0!!E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AilD LICEt SI!!G BOARD I
In the Matter of
)
PEN:iSYLVANIA POWER A!iD LIG!!T CO.
Dock'et tlos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, If1C.
)
50-388
).
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, I hareby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF TESTII:0NY Ifl RESP 0f1SE TO CONTENTIONS",depositdated September 15, 1981, have been served on the following by in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by depnsit in the fluclear Regulatory Ccamission's internal mail system this 15th day of September,198J:
James P. Gleason, Cnairman Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Administrative Judge Co-Director 513 Gilmoure Drive Environmental Coalition on Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 fiuclear Power 433 Grlando Avenue
'Mr. Glenn 0. Bright State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director U.S. "uclear P.cguistcry C =ission Bureau of Radiation Protection
'ashington, D. C.
20555 Department of Environmental Resources Comm:nwealth of Pennsylvania Dr. Paul W. Purdom P. O. Box 2063 i
Administrative Judge Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 245 Gulph Hills Road Radnor, Pennsylvania 19037 Ms. Colleen Marsh Box 538A, R0!4 Mountain Top, Pennsylvania 17120 Jay Silber]. Esq.
Mr. Thomas J. Halligan i
Shaw, Pitthn, Potts and Tiowbridge Corre spondent:
CAtiD 1800 M Str&t, N.W.
P. O. Box 5 Washingtoni D.C.
20036 Scranton, Pennsylvania 18501 Bryan A. Snapp, Esq.
Tcnnsylvania Power & Light Company Two,';crth "inth Street Allentewn, Pennsylvania 18101 I
Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
P.O. Box 1560 Milkes-Barre, PA 18703_
- Dr. Jchn H. Buck, Ad.ainistrative Judge Mr. Robert M. Gallo stemic-Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Resident Inspec, tor U.S. i;uclear Regula tory Cor.Tif ssion P.O. Box 52 Uashington, D.C.
20555 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655
- Mr. Thomas S. Moore, Administrative Judge Robert W. Adler Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Dept. of Environmental Resources U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House
'!ashington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 2357
- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. iluclear Regulatory C ' emission Mr. DeWitt C. Smith, Director Washington, D.C.
20555 Pennsylvania Ecergency !!anagement Agency Transportation and Safety Guilding
- Atemic Safety & Licensing.",; peal Scard Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Panel U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Secretary U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission ATTil:
Chief, Docketing & Service Branch Washington, D.C.
20555
- b..ww James M. Cutchin, IV Counsel for f4RC Staff 6
- w. - -..